MediaWiki talk:Recentchangestext/Archive 3

message: Why do people leave live links on the Requests row of this template rather than replacing them immediately?? Georgia guy 13:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The second time today this happened has happened. I strongly support that any Wikipedian who creates a new article should search any set of requests to see if any link there. Georgia guy 21:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is in the MediaWiki namespace, meaning that only adminstrators can edit, and hence update, the requests links. It's a manual process, so if no one happens to be looking at the RC header, it won't get updated for a while. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will there be a more efficient way of doing this, for example, creating a bot to update it? --Siva1979Talk to me 20:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live links 

message: Why does "AIDS in Asia" stay on the Requests row despite being a live link?? Georgia guy 22:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIDS in Asia 

message: Ok, I've been a Wikipedia user for a year now. Sometimes there are things that are boarderline in terms of what I think might be POV and maybe aren't. Can someone tell me if this is POV  in their opinion?  Here is the dif . Thanks for your help! Davidpdx 02:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, let me state that NPOVs and POVs are not exclusively different from each other. At this point, I have to agree with you that there are in fact many cases where the difference between these two are difficult to point out. As for the above mentioned example, I feel that it is a POV statement because there is no definite evidence yet that Iran supports terrorism. Here, it is also difficult to define the word terrorism because Iran's point of view in this subject matter will be totally different from the Western view. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran POV 

message: There are now no fewer than 3 live links in the requests row. Why do people leave the requests row with live links?? Georgia guy 19:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, perhaps, most of them are not aware of pruning the request page. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live links 

message: Ok so this isn't technically the correct place to discuss this, but I'll be damned if I can find a better one. The links to filter recent changes by days seem to be utterly useless on Wikipedia due to the sheer volume of edits. If I'm right it shoud be possible to remove them and reduce clutter by editing MediaWiki:Rclinks and MediaWiki:Rcnote. Any opposition? the wub "?!" 15:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any support? Any comments at all? Ah the hell with it, I'll just be bold and change them. the wub "?!" 14:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I feel it would have been a good idea if the opinions of other users were consulted first about this. Anyway, on a personal note, I do not oppose this change. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are slightly useful; for instance, imagine filtering for MediaWiki talk edits by anons. Still, I don't think they're worth any slight use they might have. --ais523 13:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes in last $2 days 

message: I have a suggestion to make about the Request link in the recent change page. Currently, five requested articles are being posted here. I suggest in increasing the number to ten. Each of these requested articles could represent the ten sub-sections within the requested article page. This would provide a greater range of topics for users of different interests. Red-linked articles would also be created at a slightly faster rate. Any comments or counter-arguments against this idea would be greatly appreciated. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, how long will the Request link emphasis the creation of articles on towns and cities with over 100 000 people? --Siva1979Talk to me 03:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New suggestion 

message: I have said a few times before that people keep leaving live links on the Requests row. Georgia guy 14:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live links 

message: A long time ago, we used to alternate weekly between Requested Articles and Stubs for expansion on the Recent Changes page. This was when Wikipedia had fewer than 50,000 articles, and there was a push to get as many articles as possible. Now that we have almost 1.5 million articles, circumstances have changed considerably, and we have several hundred thousand important articles that are still stubs. In fact, these stubs are far more important than many of the requested articles. I therefore suggest that we go back to the old system of alternating between new articles and stubs, thereby drawing people's attention to articles that need expansion. Danny 00:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea at all; it can give us coverage in areas that are severely lacking. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, though I dout the effect will be that large, its an overdue step in the right direction.Voice-of-All 00:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Seems worth a try to me, there are a lot of stubs out there... ++Lar: t/c 00:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The only problem I see with this is logistics. While I like the idea in theory, I'm just doubtful that it will prove to be effective. For instance, when do we remove the stubs? Unlike uncreated articles, there's no "color-change", per se, to inform us that the job has been done. Also, when does a stub become a "not-stubbed" article? When do we change the stub-improvement requests? Also, will people not act because of the blue link on the header? It's my view that people only took action because of the requested red links - improving a stub is more difficult and less rewarding. Will the emphasis on the stubs help? Also, when will we alternate between requests and stubs? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, only time will tell about the effectiveness of this method. However, I disagree with your statement which states that improving a stub ... is less rewarding. Improving an article is a very rewarding process which brings about much satisfaction to most editors. Moreover, I would like to propose that we alternat between requests and stubs every month or for two weeks. For more information on stubs please view this page. It might give you a better understanding on when a stub article is no longer a stub. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what a stub is. It's just that there's no exact guideline for when a stub becomes a "non-stub" article, and vice versa. Also, let me clarify what I mean by "less rewarding": I don't mean that doing the expanding is less rewarding; I simply meant that the lack of apparent activity on the RC header will take away emphasis on the requests. With requested articles, because an article would be created in a few days (sometimes sooner), the header did not become "stale". Without cycling, the requests for improvements will become stale and become ineffective. For example, take a look at the current requests: while I recognize it's only been three or four days, none of the articles have had any significant changes since the requests have gone up, and a few have not even been edited. I agree with you, though, that we should wait and see a bit more. My thought is to let these requests stand until the completion of a week from when they were posted (the 17th), and then change back to requests while we evaluate if the change was effective. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requests

message: Any chance of having a bit of colour? Possibly colours similar to the main page. Just a suggestion.--Andeh 15:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good suggestion. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 20:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colour? 

message: What's the deal with the "Opinion" link to Wikipedia:Danny's contest under "Challenges"?  It seems very suspect to me that an encyclopedia would make an opinion page so prominent.  Also, where's the discussion or statement about why this page was edited?  I have opinions too can I make an op-ed and add it to the list? (That was sarcasm) -- Sapphire 17:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion 

message: Radiant! added this announcement to Recentchangestext : "Speedy deletion of  and ."
I first noticed it when I saw this in the Announcements section at the top of Recentchanges (yes, I actually use Recentchanges instead of an automated tool):
Danny's third contest - Speedy deletion of {{}}
Template:/doc and {{}} Template:/doc 
I tried changing the syntax to avoid the use of , to see if that would help, but it made things even worse.
I'm all in favor of having this info in the recent changes header, but until we get the syntax right, it's more harmful than helpful. I am clearly in over my head - can some WikiSyntaxWizard lend a hand? FreplySpang 14:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Looks good to me, thanks! FreplySpang 15:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  speedy deletion of db-web and db-spam 

message: Wikiversity Someone should add it. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done; thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Projects