MediaWiki talk:Recentchangestext/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

By the way, what criteria are used to decide what articles are requested in that little list at the top of Recent changes? I see that one of them is now Marcus Barcan. Who is this? A Google search for this name turns up "about 30" matches. However, most of them seem to refer to Ruth Barcan Marcus, the philosopher and logician after whom the Barcan formula is apparently named. Is this who was meant? She has a page here, which says that she has also been known as "Ruth C. Barcan" and "Ruth B. Marcus". Not "Marcus Barcan", though... -- Oliver P. 12:58, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't know if there are any criteria as such. When I see a blue link, I go to the requested article page and pick one I like the look of to replace it. I assume that's what everyone else does as well. If Marcus Barcan hasn't been created in say a week, why not just swap it for something else? Theresa Knott 22:58, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I forgot - one thing I do always do is click on the red link and check the "what links here" to see if it's linked to from another article in the main namespace. I've just done that for MB and it isn't :-( Theresa Knott 23:01, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

LOL I just checked the date and realised I'm not replying to yesterday but to a year ago. Oh well. Theresa Knott 23:04, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Better late than never. :) Angela. 14:58 wikinow (UTC)

On

I see no reason why not. Four days is enough and it's not like you're going to run out of

choice. Angela

03:39, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In addtion to "Requested articles" why not have a section for stubs? --Jiang 23:45, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The requested article page links to

Find or fix a stub. Angela

I mean on this page (how a few requested articles are listed out individually). --Jiang 23:53, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Does anyone object creating a new line for stubs? --Jiang 08:05, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Nope Poor Yorick 08:06, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Nope Angela 08:07, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Having "fix a stub" in addition to "requested articles" is a neat idea, but makes the page longer (we should really be conservative here). Maybe exchange the line once per week? One week stubs, the next week RA?—Eloquence 00:00, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. --

mav

02:24, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I liked it when it was just Requested articles, but I also liked having that along with stubs. Occasionally something would come up that I could help contribute to, at least with requested articles...I assume it would be the same with stubs. I think if both were there, more articles would be created/worked on more often, but if the purpose is to keep that section small, then I guess exchanging them each week is alright. Well, that's my vote, not that this is really a vote :) Adam Bishop 05:12, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

OK, we'll exchange it every week now. The next exchange will happen on September 1.—Eloquence 15:56, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think this is a lousy idea. We should decide on one heading (or have both) and stick to that. Chadloder 19:43, Aug 28, 2003 (UTC)

I disagree, I like the weekly change idea. Angela 19:47, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't think it looks bad enough with both categories not to list both. --Jiang 03:08, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

But have you tried looking at it on a smaller screen size? Angela 03:10, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes, but the issue with smaller screens is with width, not length. People are going to be scrolling anyways. --Jiang 22:41, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

But it would be nice if they actually saw the first few recent changes without having to scroll. That was the whole point of getting rid of the very long text that was here before. --

mav

From the previous stub week: Dean (just a single sentence, much linked), Terrestrial (dictionary entry -- unstub or redirect).

• • Dean and Terrestrial seem more like disambiguation pages - maybe not a good choice for the stub queue.

I don't like stub week. So far all we've had is one redirect. The other stubs have received little attention and none have moved beyond stub status.

In contrast, the previous week saw the creation of 31 new articles;

Angela 00:10, Sep 11, 2003 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I think the problem is that stubs are not as easily recognized as being fixed or still broken.—Eloquence 02:09, Sep 11, 2003 (UTC)

I thought problem with stubs was that the people who happen to be looking at them don't what to add to them. -戴&#30505sv 02:26, Sep 11, 2003 (UTC)

Angela: "In contrast, the previous week saw the creation of 31 new articles" Actually this is incorrect--that week saw the creation of 31 new stubs. :)-戴&#30505sv 20:47, Sep 13, 2003 (UTC)

I dunno, Steve. I did a couple, and Royal Danish Ballet is hardly a stub. Danny 20:51, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I also support getting rid of stub week. I think stub week is a bad idea and we're not seeing much benefit from it. In contrast, we have had many good (non-stub) articles as a result of the Requested Articles section, including

University of Greenland was also expanded abit. - fonzy

Whatever the decision, stub week is over. Shall we change it to Rewquested Articles? Danny

Definitely - go for it Danny. The decision on whether to bother repeating stub week can be made by this time next Tuesday. Angela 01:42, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)

I oppose removing the stub section. The encyclopedia is measured by its quality, not its quanitity of articles. The following articles were de-stubbed the first week:

Well, it has been a week (exactly) and there doesn't seem to be a consensus for scrapping stub week unfortunately. However, I would suggest that a decent stub queue is formed before switching over. Very few were added the last time we had this and some of those were unsuitable. I have moved one from the previous queue below for the new queue. Angela 01:45, Sep 24, 2003 (UTC)

Some of you are suggestion that we scrap stub week because the first week was not as successfull as we had hoped. Do you expect some thing to be competely successfull the first time? It takes some time for people to get used to a new change. Give it a few more weeks before you decide whether this is a good idea. If it is still unsuccessful, then it can be stopped. Just my 2¢. —Noldoaran (Talk) 03:36, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

I just noticed the last comment was made back in september. What's the current status of stub week? —Noldoaran (Talk) 03:38, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

I thought it was going to be tried again, but I suggested this only be done if people bothered to add to the stub queue (see section below this one). No-one ever did though! Angela. 03:41, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This week is stub week, where about five stubs will be listed on recent changes until they are fixed. Next week, requested articles will be listed instead.

Please add up to 20 stub articles which you consider especially fixworthy in the list below. This "stub queue" can then be used by editors to add new stubs. Please add a reason next to each stub.

• Edward Carson (barely a sentence, much linked), National Revolutionary Army
• Typewriter keyboard
  just a couple of paragraphs

What is the criteria for including requested articles on the list at the top of the page? Vancouverguy 03:36, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Typically, I think the person who adds the article chooses whichever floats his boat to add if that adder is a sysop and can edit the page. If not, I suppose they could add the request here on a sysop's talk page, but most likely leave it until a sysop notices and replaces it with something. There isn't really a system to it that I know of. Tuf-Kat 07:47, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

You don't need to be a sysop to edit it. Angela 07:59, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

Oh nevermind, then. I suppose my response to Vancouverguy is now... someone just kinda picks. Tuf-Kat 08:46, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

I normally just choose something that looks sensible from the requested articles page after doing a Google to make sure it's real if I haven't heard of it. I also try to choose something the right length so the line is about the same as the one above it. Angela 08:49, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

On a related note (kinda), I would like to remove

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Tuf-Kat

07:47, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. I replaced it something else that I took off because the line was too long before. I think if there's a reason, things can just be swapped. Maybe mention it here if it might be contentious. Maybe remove it from the requested articles page too. Angela 07:57, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

Should the place to say this, though, be the Requested articles talk page? --Daniel C. Boyer 21:11, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, the discussion was to remove it from the requested articles line on RC, not to remove it from the requested articles page, but maybe it should be there too. Angela 01:18, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

I would like to ask that admins stop requesting articles on the Recent Changes page with titles like

That's a good point. Only titles that will perceivably become decent articles should be listed. I think the example you give of

obedience is a bad one. This is a huge topic within psychology and can certainly be way more than a dictionary definition. If you are concerned about the titles being listed, you may want to look at the requested articles page and remove inappropriate ones from there as that is generally where they come from. Finally, it is not just admins who can edit this page. Angela

18:25, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

mav, while I think you have a really good idea here, why not achieve some sort of consensus before making this sort of change? It would be a good idea to back up this sort of change with opinions from other users. -- Mattworld 00:05, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If you think they take up too much space please suggest improvements to the way the language links are displayed, as this affects articles too. --

Brion

00:03, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Recent changes is a special page which is viewed many times by a single user. It is not helpful to have to scroll down each time when viewing that page. But here is a suggestion: Whenever there are more than 5 magic language links then a dropdown list is generated. In the meantime in order to make RC more user-friendly to people with standard res displays, the links should be on a separate page. --

mav

00:07, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I use those language links on a regular basis, and moving them to a separate page is a significant burden on my browsing habits. A drop-down list is also problematic; aside from my general complaints about how it hides things we'd rather advertise, it prevents the use of tabbed/multiwindow browsing shortcuts for opening things in new tabs/windows. --

Brion

00:12, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Your use is subordinated when it interferes with the majority of users who want to use RC to actually see recent changes to articles on this wiki. --

mav

I tried to address this by using smaller links in this version. They take up very little room that way. Head's proposal of using the language codes rather than names would take up even less, so are you also objecting to those alternatives as well as the original? Angela 00:06, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I also like Head's proposal, except for one thing: the text should not be so small as to make it almost unreadable. Vancouverguy 00:08, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I also like Head's proposal. -- Mattworld 00:10, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I like having something there even just for the pure curiosity of seeing what the other wikipedias are doing...it was alright having to go to an extra page to do it, but Head's proposal is a good idea too. Adam Bishop 00:14, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Would there be any objection to, for instance, dropping the Latin transliterations from language names using other alphabets? As that percentage increases, that becomes a noticeable space-saver. --

Brion

00:14, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Here's a completed version of Head's proposal which I think we should go with. Angela

af | ar | da | de | el | eo | es | et | fr | fy | he | id | it | ja | ko | la | nl | no | pl | pt | ro | ru | s | sq | sr | sv | zh

This I can live with. --

mav

00:19, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Can we have a trial run before we make decisions? I have RC in a sidebar and previously I had to scroll down a bit to get to the actual content. I'm just curious to see what it would be like...

Dysprosia

00:20, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Looks great <thumbs up> :)

Dysprosia

00:23, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What do they look like in normal sized text, the way they are here? (I mean, I assume they look just like that, but are they too large on the page itself) Adam Bishop 00:25, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In my sidebar? I wouldn't know unless I changed and saved the content myself, which I don't feel like doing as the small text works as is. Unless I misunderstand your question :)

Dysprosia

00:34, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

One thing: I'd like to see a space between the language links and the other stuff and the page.Vancouverguy 00:27, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Adding a space adds to the scrolling problem. Making them normal size would put them on two lines on an 800*600 screen. Angela 00:29, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'd love to see Languages: added to clarify these 2 letter links; however, that makes the row too wide. -- Mattworld 00:31, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hmm...

Languages: fi | af | ar | da | de | el | eo | es | et | fr | fy | he | id | it | ja | ko | la | nl | no | pl | pt | ro | ru | s | sq | sr | sv | zh

The link to the Hindi (hi) Wikipedia seems to link to the wrong page: [1] instead of [2]. I don't know where to begin in trying to fix the special characters. Hopefully someone passing by can fix it. —Minesweeper 10:20, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I changed it now. Hopefully I didn't break anything. —Minesweeper 08:23, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What is "If he/she were a flower"? RickK 02:21, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The only non-Wikipedia reference I can find to it is this from racetraitor.org (treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity -- I dunno what that means). Since it may be encyclopedic (it's listed as a "surrealistic game"), I won't remove it from Wikipedia:Requested articles, though I wouldn't complain if someone else did. I will, however, replace it with another suggestion, since it seems only marginally encyclopedic if that. Tuf-Kat 06:51, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

to be more explicit, I know that someone whose name escapes me added bunches of articles on pseudo-subjects relating to surrealism, and am assuming this is the same. If I am wrong, feel free to revert me. I'm not trying to squash information of race traitors, whether they are loyal to humanity or not. Tuf-Kat 06:53, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

It seems that, while writing these messages, User:Chadloder redirected the article to If I were a.... This seems a reasonable solution until an article on the "surrealistic game" becomes encyclopedic/is written. Tuf-Kat 06:56, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

Someone on

Well, you see how it looks. It's just temporary but may be a good idea for important polls.—Eloquence

If it's temporary then it's fine. Someone also proposed to create a Brilliant prose section on the main page. Currently, being listed as brillian prose brings little award since few people venture onto that page. --Jiang 17:56, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

See also:

When a request is created, is there a process to adding the next request? I don't see any discussion of a request queue here or on the requests page. - Texture 23:08, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just pick something nice from the Requests page and replace it. That's what everyone's been doing, I suppose...

Dysprosia

23:10, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The utilities line got long and wrapped with the addition of "community portal". I have shortened the line by changing "community portal to "community" and "needy pages" to "needy". Any objections or suggestions? Do we need "community portal"? - Texture 14:58, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've added some other interwiki-links. In order to do so, I had to remove links to some less active Wikipedias. Should we list them all? If so, how? A second row? Warofdreams 18:46, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• I wouldn't mind a second row. Besides, it would bring attention to little wikis, like sa. --Monsieur Mero 18:47, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

There is already Wikipedia:Projects of Wikimedia which is meant to have links to the recent changes of all projects. There were issues before (see #Weekly exchange) with adding new rows of links. Angela. 22:06, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Only the largest projects should have links so that line on this page never gets longer than one line on an 800 x 600 screen at full extent. --

mav

07:17, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Given people's views, I've kept the more active Wikipedias, and added a link to the Projects of Wikimedia page. Warofdreams 19:09, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

--- I would like to suggest that Requested Articles be up no longer than a week. We can put some hidden date as to when it was proposed and replace them accordingly. That way, we have a better chance of seeing more articles cycle through the Requested Article space. Danny 12:10, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• See also #removing old requests. Warofdreams 12:23, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is not the place to ask for enforcement of policy. -- Kaihsu 19:50, 2004 May 5 (UTC)

And what is, then? --Wik 19:52, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Wik, you know better, considering how often you've been through the policy enforcement process. - Fennec 20:18, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Can an admin please add class="plainlinks" to the first line of the table, to suppress those stupid icons. Thanks. - Lee (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Ok, but the page isn't protected so it doesn't need an admin. :) Angela. 05:55, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

It was when I made the request... - Lee (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

We show links for requested articles on the recentchanges page but we don't tell new users what do do with them. Someone who isn't familiar with wikis or Wikipedia may decide that they can look it up in the dictionary and create an article that describes the word instead of the concept. I now think that we should give some amount of guidance on what new requested articles should look like. - Tεxτurε 18:02, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I added the guidance on creating requested articles because more than once a new user has created a dictionary definition and then when it was listed for deletion indicated that he/she was just creating a requested article as instructed. New users don't have any guidance in recent changes or in opentask that tells them not to create dicdef articles. - Tεxτurε 14:47, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The small link version is no longer necessary because monobook puts the interwikis to the side. The default skin always takes superemacy. Those who use other skins do so by choice. Why inconvinence most people by making it difficult to tell what particular language those links head to? --Jiang 14:16, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I had written something about this first, originally, but somehow the edit was lost (grumble) anyway...

Is there some special reason why we don't want the small link version? There have been usability issues with people using screens at low-resolution, raised above.

Is there some compromise we can reach on this matter, or are the small links really that undesirable? One could also try adding text to each small link - this might not exacerbate the problems previously mentioned too much.

Perhaps the default skin always "takes supremacy", but there are many who are not satisfied with it and are using a different skin.

Dysprosia

14:27, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The small links don't spell out the language and it's sometimes difficult to tell what the two letter abbreviation refers to.

The original usability issues were over scrolling and having the interwikis break into too many lines at the top. Now theyre off to the side, it is keeping the small links at the top that is creating the extra scrolling.--Jiang 14:32, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I mean manually spelling out the language.

The usability issues still exist in other skins, however. In monobook, the small links may cost one or two lines of excess scrolling, however in Col Blue it causes 5-6 lines. It's even worse when trying to look at RC in a sidebar.

Dysprosia

15:12, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Due to it being under attack by a vandalbot, I've protected this page for the time being. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 18:24, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The election notice has been displayed for a week. I think this is long enough, and have removed it. However Guanaco has reverted this change without explanation. Blankfaze has also reverted this, but offers the only reason he has done this is

It doesn't take up very much space at all. I think it should stay for at least another week or until some other notice replaces it (whichever the sooner). It is perfectly possible that some people haven't seen it yet. Theresa Knott 22:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's been more than a week now, which I think is long enough since it was also on Goings-on for the weeks begining August 8 and August 15. It's not hard for people who missed the announcement to go to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee page and find out who won anyway. Angela. 16:58, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Yes it should be removed, but I shan't be removing since the last time I tried I was blocked by blankfaze. © 23:31, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It looks to me like you reverted 4 times in 24 hours. That presumably was the reason for the block. Theresa Knott 01:00, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

They don't want me to remove the live link because it says it is protected. 66.245.100.83 16:18, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I recently returned from an extended absence, and discovered that the interlanguage links on recent changes had been moved from the top section of the page to the side. This is a Good Thing, and I rather assumed it was done because it allowed for adding links to even the less-active Wikipedias. Popping over to the French Wikipedia's recent changes, however, I see an abundance of interlanguage links that aren't here. Just curious as to the reasons for this -- what's the point of moving the links to the side if not to allow for more of them? Do we not include less active Wikipedias, or do the French link to ones that don't yet exist, or has nobody added the others? Tuf-Kat 04:04, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

People using skins other than monobook will still see the links at the top, not on the side, so having too many would take up too much room. There are links to the active languages at Wikipedia:Projects of Wikimedia, which is linked to on recent changes. Angela. 02:41, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Does it matter that (from the current list) nothing links to either

Presumably anyone who knows enough about the subject to start an article knows what other articles to go to and insert links? Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 23:09, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Now, when it's possible to use images from Commons in Wikipedia articles, wouldn't a link to Recent changes on Commons be nice? Väsk 23:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From the current list

PS note from my last comment on this topic that

Graham ☺ | Talk

14:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some people want to look at RC for the recent changes. We have an announcements page for announcements. Dori | Talk 17:27, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks Encyclopedic

That's why we have

protection. Ливай | ☺

09:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)