Wikipedia talk:Most wanted articles/Archive 1

message: Looks like the last time the script ran was July, 11 2004.
lunaverse 02:17, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for another update? 

message: Why did they get deleted? Do you want more information? --Helpinghands 15:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied on User talk:Shultz. -- Beland 00:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests 

message: Many of the listed items are individuals or topics currently in "pop culture."  I assume it is OK to go ahead and create articles about these items, even though a search of Google or Yahoo! might yield better results.  Steven McCrary 14:34, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
:Certainly. -- Beland 22:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newbie Question 

message: With just about everything gone except the British Rail classes (which I'll leave to the experts), I think we need to regenerate the list. -- BD2412 talk 20:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally updated. -- Beland 07:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for a new list 

message: Small matter, hairsplitting perhaps, however:
Where can I find a short concise definition of 'most wanted articles'?  Seems to me it should be defined at the beginning of this article or the phrase linked to the definition.  Of course I will figure out what 'most wanted articles' are, but it would be nice to just read it right at the outset.
My first guess would be that 'most wanted articles' were articles most people would want to see created.  Or maybe it just means an article that a single individual would most like to see created?
As a newbie, it would be nice for me if all terms and phrases were defined when they first appeared in an article or perhaps at least linked to a definition.
One thing I love about the WP is that most of the time when I'm reading about a subject I'm unfamiliar with and I come to an acronym, technical term or pharse new to me, I can usually stop reading, click on the unknown term and quickly find out what it means.  This is also the reason I love a built in dictionary on my computer.
Thanks, Jim 13:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent question, and a glaring omission on my part!  I added a brief explanation to the top of the project page; hopefully it should be clear now. -- Beland 07:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newbie Question 

message: * Should exclude user pages. Many terms are high in the index because they were redlinks on the OPEN TASKS template at the time of arrival of a newbie. Or something like that. (cf. User talk:ManuelGR and the term Ailech --Tagishsimon (talk)
::Probably only because they were added there after being listed here. -- Beland 03:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They wouldn't be here if they had not been on user pages as a result of the OPEN TASKS ... such as COMMLOC on the current list. What links here points back to user pages pretty much only. Google does not know what to make of COMMLOC. We're chasing phantoms. --Tagishsimon (talk)
**I'd go one further than Tagishsimon and say this should only count links from article-space. No user pages, no Wikipedia-space pages, no talk pages. The most important red-links to turn blue are those from other articles, surely. Grutness...wha? 03:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old suggestions since implemented 

message: I removed those links because:
# Comparison_of_word_processors (28 links) (Wikipedia generally does not contain "comparison of" articles)
#:There is many comparisons of...: 
# 2008_in_aviation (25 links) (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball)
#:There is a Timeline of aviation, and many events are planified: first flights, etc.
# INSERT_IMAGE_HERE (21 links) (this is a mere placeholder)
#:no links: 
# Comparison_of_news_clients (21 links) (Wikipedia generally does not contain "comparison of" articles)
#:There is many comparisons of.
#:--Marc Lacoste 12:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect to the "Comparison of" articles, I stand corrected - I see, indeed, that there is a :Category:Software comparison. However, I have also seen many AfD debates where the policy was enunciated that X vs. Y comparisons are bad (along the lines of Comparison of Russian and Spanish, or Comparison of Ecuador and Mongolia). I'll restore these to the list. With respect to the aviation article, the policy at issue is that Wikipedia does not predict future events. As for the image placeholder, I don't count the links, I just categorize 'em. Cheers! BD2412 T 23:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redlinks for articles that probably should not exist

message: This isn't a most wanted article and shouldn't be on this page.  Perhaps we shouldn't include links from Talk pages when deciding which articles should be on this page.  Tempshill 21:27, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sir Bastard the V 

message: * Being new and not understanding the term "transclusion" I have, however, become quickly aware that the counting of requests appears to be artificially inflated by "request links" that are not really there.  I started looking at doing the so-called "top request" and quickly realized that the links were not there.  Is this a computer or human generated request list?  I'd love to help out with the "most wanted," but would rather work on real requests.  Tim Graff 23:05, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
::As far as I can tell, the list is accurate as of the last database dump.  If you look at the top requests, the "What links here" page is flooded because they are listed on Template:Opentask.  Lots of people have this template on their user talk pages (they "transclude" it).  This counts for "What links here" but not this list (especially since these pages were only added to the template after the database dump was done).  But I think "What links here" has a maximum number of links it will show, and they are not in any particular order, so you might not be seeing incoming links that are there. I'm sure some links have since been removed, and others added, depending on the topic. -- Beland 05:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old suggestions