Wikipedia talk:Requested articles/Archive 2

message: Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Tuesday, July 8th, 2003.
Something I caught moments of on the news last night but didn't see in full -- some sort of weird white blob thing on a beach in south america. what is it and do we need an article on it?
:Google is your friend...
:: Sounds fun. But is there enough info for an article? --Menchi 09:08 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:: Let's keep an eye on the story. When they announce which species it is, we can add (or create) to the article for that species and mention "in ... 2003, a ... was found washed up ... etc" -- Tarquin 16:16 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
End moved discussion.
:::"Beached "blob" mystery solved
 
:::Reuters — July 11, 2003
:::SANTIAGO, Chile —Chilean scientists say their study of a huge blob of flesh found on a Pacific beach about three weeks ago has found it is the carcass of a sperm whale, ending speculation of a giant octopus." 
:::So, no article needed. -- till we *) 17:37, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)
----
Is The Weather Forcast (sp??) different from meteorology? If not why create it?
----
I removed Linear representation (already covered under Group representation), Orbit (Group theory) (already covered under Orbit (mathematics))
, Quotient topology (already covered under Quotient space), Homotopy theory (already covered under Homotopy).
:Good. We should probably have redirects, though, since the ones listed came from other already existing articles. -- Schnee 01:28, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big white blob 

message: this metapage maintains many categories for various requests. the point is to make it easier for people with specific interests and expertizes to find requests they can work on. i'd rather not have listings that are not under specific categories. it'll get messy and confusing, IMHO. Kingturtle 23:10, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: *not* separating new entries 

message: I redirected two pages to an already existing page and removed the links from this page. Now when I checked what links to these two requested articles I found that there were no links. So they are now orphans! Is this true for every requested page? Should one create a link deliberately from somewhere? KRS 09:03, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: orphan pages

message: Is there any systematic way that requested pages are presented on the Recent Changes page. What it seems like now (or at least, what I have been doing) is taking pages that I think are important and listing them there when a space becomes available. That reflects my whims and my whims only. I based my decisions (e.g. Wallace Stegner, Louis Botha, Havelock Ellis, Middle Passage) on topics that I personally think are important, though people will disagree with me. I glanced percursorily at the Requests for Music page and ignored the Requests for Math and Sports pages, which may have been wrong. 
Ideally, some kind of ranking would ensure that various other topics get a chance to be covered as well. Also, time spent on the Requested Article page should also be a factor in promotion, as should significance of the topic and likelihood that an article will be written about it in a relatively short time? Or maybe I am just making things more complicated ... Curious to hear what others think. Danny 22:24, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Whenever I change them, I just pick random things on the Requested Articles page that I think would be interesting. It's completely subjective :) Adam Bishop 22:27, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of Promotion to Recent Changes Page

message: The geography section basically links to a list of dozens of requested political boundaraies (cites, towns and other governmental dictricts). So a requested article on landforms, water features, sea forms or general topograph issues would get lost. Is there any way to fix this, or is it a Catch 22? Davodd 20:24, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)
----
One of the requested sex/uro/gyno articles in on "queening". Having never seen the term before, I looked it up:
Queening: When a woman sits astride a person's face and forces her cunt into their mouth and nose. Could be simply for cunnilingus or practised as a form of breath control.  
Is this worthy of an article, or should we just strip it from the list? --Raul654 08:13, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be in an encyclopedia of sex, wouldn't it?  Then it is worthy of an article here provided sufficient encyclopedic could be said (which it probably could, given the right author). --Morven 10:53, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Geography section

message: I'm making a conscious effort to clear out this catagory (well over a dozen written so far), but there are so many. --Raul654 06:27, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Sex/Urno/Gyno articles

message: Some other lanaguage wikipedias have already some articles that are much more detailed than our English articles. 
We should have a page to list these languages and where wikipedians can see which articles can be translated in English.
for example:
===French===
*fr:Tramway -> Tram
*fr:Wallon -> Walloon
*fr:Picard -> Picard
*etc
===German===
*etc
It could be named Wikipedia:Requested article translations or Wikipedia:Articles in other languages or something like this.
Bogdan 09:28, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Just remember - the french have the Picard dialect, and the english speakers have Jean Luc. I think we got the better end of the deal :) --Raul654 09:46, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles from other wikipedias

message: *etc
It could be named Wikipedia:Requested article translations or Wikipedia:Articles in other languages or something like this.
Bogdan 09:28, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Just remember - the french have the Picard dialect, and the english speakers have Jean Luc. I think we got the better end of the deal :) --Raul654 09:46, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: German