Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abandoned Articles/Archives/2007/2

help

I was wondering if any1 here knows any search engine that is able to filter away the welcome to abc website messages? As i was searching for welcome, i went to other webpages instead of the ones i am looking for. p/s: i was searching for new entries for welcome. E.g. a new novel, a new tv show and etc. Luffy487 09:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to accomplish when you say you're trying to "find new entries for welcome". If this is a question relating to improving Wikipedia, I suggest trying Wikipedia:Help desk. If it's just a search question in general, then Wikipedia:Reference desk might be the best place. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 16:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Introduce article into other Wikiprojects

I don't know if it's somehere on the project page, but maybe we could have another procedure added to the list. I was thinking tht right after someone takes charge of a page that they should try to put a template on the talk page of other Wikiprojects that could help with it. Just a suggestion though, of course. —¡Randfan!^{Sign here?} 21:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Good idea, except that the best way to bring the article to the attention of a relevant WikiProject is probably via a template on the article's talk page. I've modified the guidelines to include this step. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 16:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Help me pls!

I am a new member on this wikiproject. Can you people please start me up? I want to bring life back to abandoned articles... I would appreciate if you tell me which ones need this kind of help! Check my userpage to see what I am good on! Keep the nice job! Daniel32708 02:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Daniel32708

Collaboration

Should we maybe have a collaboration of the month? Ninety^{wazup?Review me}_{My ToDo} 22:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Should this talk page maybe also be automatically archived? Ninety^{wazup?Review me}_{My ToDo} 23:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

It seems to me that this project is focusing more on simply getting articles off the ancientpages list, rather than what was originally intended (or so I thought), which was to contact users and WikiProjects who we believe would continue editing the articles for the future, instead of just improveing them once and leaving them to "rot". I suggest that we maybe run some sort of adoption system, in which editors pick out articles from their blocks and place a link in a section on this project page. Then, we would look through user categories and pick out ones that are likely to include users that would be interested in visiting and improveing these articles. We could then place a boilerplate message on those users' talk pages, telling them that the article needs support and that we thought they could help. Once we see a consistent amount of editing of the article from non-project members, the project template will be removed from the article's talk page, and the article's name removed from our list of adopted articles. I think this is better than simply "touching" the articles, or even improveing them, because each of those processes do not ensure a consistantly-edited future for the article, which will eventually find itself back on the ancientpages list, because it would only be edited that one time by us, then be "re-abandoned." This process will hopefully find users who will continue editing the article even after we have left it to "fend for itself." We could possibly create special positions that members could take and they would have the specific job of maintaining the adoption section of the project. They would be passed on the articles for adoption from the people who are maintaining the blocks of ancientpages, creating a sort of assembly line in which "Searchers" look through their blocks of articles, doing just what they are doing now, as well as finding articles to pass on to the "Adopters," who would then do what is described above with those articles. Cheers!! Ninety^{wazup?Review me}_{My ToDo} 18:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well i support this idea. I do prefer to choose to adopt articles that i am interested in. As within a block, there are 10 different articles covering different topics and subjects. I may be good at Earth Science but unfamiliar with Computer parts. Thus i wouldn't need to spend time reading and finding information regarding articles which i am not familiar with. Luffy487 10:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I just added it in :) Ninety^{wazup?Review me}_{My ToDo} 22:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Before I start working on it, I would like some feedback on whether or not it's a good addition. Thanks!!!! Ninety^{wazup?Review me}_{My ToDo} 00:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to changing the system to identify "real" articles that need disambiguation pages, but, as explained above, if we don't clear out the disambiguation pages from the list, they're simply going to totally clog up the list of 1000 oldest articles - and there will be no "real" articles listed at all.

As for the theory that fixing disambiguation pages does not ensure a consistantly-edited future for the article, which will eventually find itself back on the ancientpages list, that misses the point. Fixing or just touching a disambiguation page will keep it off the ancientpages list at least two years, by which time we'll have another method of identifying abandoned "real articles." And it fixing disambiguation pages helps Wikipedia - whether more or less than getting an abandoned article adopted is another question, but it does help.

So let's talk specifics. It seems to me that we need to make two passes through the ancientpages list. First, someone should "claim" a block and do an initial review, in which "real" articles (that is, those not disambiguation pages or lists or total junk) should be identified and moved to a separate list; second, the person who claimed the block should take responsibility for updating or at least touching every one of the articles so they vanish from the ancientpages list, so that next time that list is created, it provides (hundreds) more pages of potential adoptees. And third, the list of "real articles" can be picked over by members of this project who can try to find a WikiProject or editor who will commit to improving it; once that is done, it can be marked as "adopted". Does that make sense? -- John Broughton (☎☎) 02:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of the abandoned articles found are most pobably caused by scarcity of information available. In such cases, it would require professionals who know about those topics to help to expand or update them. Since i have done a few blocks, I have came across some articles which i can't find any information. I merely touched it. Touching an articles doesn't update the information which the reader may wants to find.

It is a good idea to get people who know about the articles to update or redirect them. But first thing first, how do we know that person is the one we are looking for? Will that person continuously update and expand the article/s? I suppose that we need to find a better method to get things done rather than pushing the job to other people. Haha... Maybe we should recruit them as members and sort those abandoned articles by topics rather than the time of last edition. Luffy487 03:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you list the articles that you "touched" in the new section on the project page - that way, others will know that help is needed to get the article adopted. I hope that at least you put the template for this WikiProject on the talk page of the article - that's another way for it to be identified.

As for how do we know that person is the one we are looking for? Will that person continuously update and expand the article/s?, the answer is "no", we can never be sure that whoever is found (and it could be a WikiProject, not a person) will really take care of an article. But we do know that the article will be in much better shape after someone with some interest and relevant knowledge works on it, and that's really what this project is about. Plus adding wikilinks and categories within the article, and wikilinks from other articles to the abandoned article, always helps. Our goal here isn't perfection, it's improvement. And membership in this project should not be in any way tied to finding editing help for abandoned articles - we're already asking someone to go out of his/her way to fix and article; if we mention this project to them, they can find it and join it if they're interested. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 16:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to make a reply to John's comments. First, I never said anything in my original statement about skipping disambig pages; that is a closed debate. As well, I never said anything about fixing disambig pages not helping Wikipedia. Second, It seems to me (I apoligize if I'm wrong) as if you took this as trying to change the whole currently used process, but that is incorrect. I simply made an addition, another step, to the current system.

As well, the point I was trying to make was not that I think the current process is bad; it was that I found a way of possibly improving it. What I thought was that the project was doing more improving of articles, but then leaving them, than improving them, but also trying to find people who would continue their update in the future (please correct me if I'm wrong); a good article is worth nothing if it is not read. And yes, John is right when he says that we cannot know if these people/WikiProjects will continually update and expand the article(s). However, there is the chance, and it's better than nothing. Some of the things I mentioned in the new guidelines are already being done (such as contacting WikiProjects that may have interest in the article), however, I added them simply as a redundancy, a backup.

I apoligize for not seeking approval before taking this action, however I believed that it was in the best interest of the project, and didn't think before I hit the "Save" button. Cheers!! Ninety^{wazup?Review me}_{My ToDo} 02:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Could someone explain why disambig pages need to be looked at and checked if they are left for so long? It's likely they're reliable if left the way they are. IMO, they should be added to a disambig page category or something to remove them from the list. I am not interested in editing disambig pages, sorry. I'm only interested in editing abandoned articles on physiology and music. I don't see this as selfish, i simply will not make the best contribs otherwise.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 17:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is flawed

The current method removes articles from the list after one edit. If someone goes on the page and changes one spelling the page is no longer abandoned? IMO the page must see substantial edits to not be abandoned. Please can we rectify this immediately as it simply will not get anywhere if we don't. These pages at present are going to be back on the list in 2 years time. Also, I think we should have all articles we look at within our chosen block of 10, peer reviewed. I have already started with one as a trial. I had it peer reviewed, however I'm having trouble in that I don't find that article in the least bit interesting. See: [[1]] for further info.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 17:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

To a certain extend, i agree with I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) that we should categorize the abandoned articles instead of making blocks.

For example:

Articles which need to be adopted

• Astronomy

Caves of Mars Project (NASA project)

• Computer Science

Accelerated-X

• Geography

Imerkhevi (Turkish valley), Commonwealth Range

• Mythology

Bélchú

• Tools

Claspknife (a folding knife)

In such way, we could edit articles which we understand or have personal interest in.

However, as regarding to the current method used to remove articles from the list after one edit, I believe it is a better way of editing rather than touching or having no edit at all. As seen from the WikiProject Abandoned Articles project page, the main goals are to find editors who would be interested in maintaining and improving these articles. While we may or may not be interested in those articles let alone be the ones who are going to have so much time consistently edit those articles. Luffy487 09:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

New suggestion

Hi all! As regarding to the opinions given by I'll bring the food and Ninety, I sincerely propose my new suggestions to develope this WikiProject to make it more user friendly.

First of all, I would like to commend John Broughton for spending so much time in making blocks for us. However, I believe there is a need to categorize articles according to its topic instead of making blocks. This is to allow different users with different interest to choose articles which they would like to adopt.

Changes in procedure for editing:

• 1. Strike the name of the article(s) which u have adopted at the project page.
• 2. If the project template is not already on the article's talk page, add it there. Type {{WikiProject Abandoned Articles}} at the top of the article's talk page.
• 3. Do a yahoo or google search on the article, and possibly expand or update the article. (Or maybe some minor editing, spelling, punctuation correction.)
• 4. Categorize the article by adding [[Category:Abandoned Articles]] at the bottom of the article.
• 5. Watchlist the article.
• 6. Look through user categories, or WikiProject categories/the WikiProject Directory and find WikiProjects that may be interested in the article.
• 7. Contact the user(s), or WikiProject and tell them that WP:PJAA believes that they may be interested in the article, and that it would be appreciated if they would continue editing it.
• 8. Continue repeating steps 6 & 7 until you find that the article is being consistently edited (like once a week or more) by people not members of this project. And remove the [[Category:Abandoned Articles]] at the bottom of the article.

If any members have found any difficulties in adopting the articles, they may seek help from discussion.

This is my sincere proposal to improve this WikiProject, making it more user friendly and attracting new members to join us. Luffy487 14:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Your adoption procedure is great for this WikiProject! What do the others think? Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 08:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't your "new" suggestion kinda what I already did? Ninety^{wazup?Review me}_{My ToDo} 01:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It may well be, I have no idea, but we are all working collaboratively so it doesn't matter who said it first. I certainly motion for this to become the new AA standard for seeking regular edits. Can we have the category automatically linked to the talk page template? That way no separate category adding is reqd.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 10:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I was away for quite sometime. Haha nineteenninetyfour is right. I borrow his idea and improvise it. However, his idea was rejected somehow. So i was wondering if this idea is feasible? Luffy487 03:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)