Wikipedia talk:Neglected articles/Archive

message: :I have this concept - need to work out details - but I'd like to be able to look at articles of greater than x age with fewer than y total edits, the idea being that this will smoke out junk that was dropped in and forgotten. Say, for the sake of argument, that x is a year and y is 3 total edits - can this be done? Can it be done in a plug-in-the-variable sense, to get an idea of the scope using different variables? BD2412 T 04:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vague idea of checking old articles with few edits.

message: *Is there any way of breaking it up and having people lay "claim" to certain blocks? Or are you just going to run the system once and a while and remove the edited ones?--Rayc 18:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean to say "..delete the articles from this list as...", right? :-) Awolf002 18:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, just delete them from Wikipedia altogether.  The preceding statement is a joke, and only a joke. If it was a serious statement... well, let's not go there.  bd2412 T 18:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well... most of the tagging is AfD.  But, yes from this list.  Actually, I like the idea of keeping them here on the list.  Most of the info is good, just not clean.  If you don't re-run it I can just clean up the articles without worring about verification.--Rayc 18:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: My impression was that this list was generated with a tool, and it would be "re-created" periodically. Awolf002 18:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Claiming blocks

message: While sitting around waiting for UPS today, I whipped up a script to implement this idea.  However, because of the enormous amount of data to be processed, it looks like it's going to take several days to run.  Thank you for your patience. -- Beland 22:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my linear extrapolation was (fortunately) quite pessimistic.  As you might expect, newer articles have fewer revisions than older ones, so the later analysis goes much faster.  There were the usual snafus, and some debugging to properly exclude redirects, but I'm happy to say that the lists are now ready for posting. -- Beland 20:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status, Dec 2005 

message: *After this run-through, images should be suppressed - I presume that the upload itself is not counting as an edit, or we'd be seeing most of them, but aside from one broken link, the ones here seem fine. bd2412 T 22:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion: Suppress images

message: (These have since been refactored.)
* We may need to explicitly suppress listing "tagged for cleanup" articles, since we are more interested in doing triage than finalizing articles, but we'll see how it goes. -- Beland 22:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other suggestions

message: Could you remove another, say, 50 points if the article is orphaned? That could narrow things down a bit. :) r3m0t talk 12:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned articles? 

message: I caught this article Michael Minnig.  Lotsofissues 09:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ZAP!  Yay! -- Beland 03:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First success story of this project 

message: Out of curiousity, I looked at the original (now deleted) revisions of the controversy-generating neglected article, John Seigenthaler Sr.  At the time of its discovery, it would have been ranked 2903 on the current scale.  This would put it at about number 181,000 (out of 894,096 "real" articles ranked).  So, I guess there is some work yet to be done.  At least now we getting the remaining worst of the lot more promptly. -- Beland 03:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thought for the day 

message: I noticed that despite the instrections saying to remove articles fomr the list after you address them people don't tend to do it.  In my case this is because of a feeling that most of these articles still coudl use more attention even if I have given them some already.  The result is people add notes to the entries and leave them.  This was making it hard to read the list so I moved the article that had been looked at into two sub headings one for articles that were fixed in some way and one for articles that look ok and can be dropped form this list.  If no one objects to this we should update the instructions at the top to tell people to do the same. Dalf | Talk 05:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated. -- Beland 08:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List management