Talk:Wikiproject:News/Wanted page

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Human having fun

Human says he is having fun creating these wanted pages. After he creates the articles, he has even more fun moving them from the wanted section to the completed section with his credit. Thanks Human! --DeanStalk 20:45, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

You're welcome. It's a more interesting place to work from than "wanted pages", since one knows (or hopes!) that the articles they start might be read soon due to links on the news page. I did a couple more, but then had to chase along a tree of red links I created in them... Human 17:49, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Listing by priority?

I think the current form (sorting alphabetically) isn't the best way to handle this list. Some of these requests are from items that are buried in the archives while others are highly visible front page items. Could we maybe sort them chronologically, with a subheader separating the "Items that are now archived" from the current ones? That way, we could focus our (very limited) efforts on the most pressing items of the day. --DirkB 14:33, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Dirk, that's an interesting idea, but I find it a bit cumbersome. The ultimate purpose here is to create articles for Conservapedia, so it shouldn't matter if these have a priority. Someone once mentioned that since the news is archived almost daily, the front page emphasis loses its priority very quickly.
If it matters to you that the item is on the Main page, select one and do a Ctrl-F on the Main page. If it finds the item, that would be a good one to start with. --DeanStalk 14:58, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
Dirk, If you're volunteering to edit the list and keep it updated with which ones are on the Main Page and which are archived, go ahead and sort it. I'm not going to do that, but if you want to, go for it. It will turn into a tedious chore real fast. --DeanStalk 15:03, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
Actually, it would be easier to follow my suggestion. Right now, you have to alphabetically sort every new request into an ever-growing list. With my suggestion, you would only need one non-brainer step, regardless of how many requests you add: "Add all new requests at the top, regardless of order." And when you archive news, you simply move a sub-headline here a bit further up. And you wouldn't even have to re-order the current list - just wait until tomorrow's mass-archiving (but before you add new requests) and then slap a "=== Wanted pages for archived items ===" sub-header at the top of the current list.
Also, if the goal is simply to create articles, regardless of whether or not they are on the main page, then we might as well delete this page: Special:Wantedpages exists. ;) --DirkB 15:13, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
I like the alphabetized list because it's easy to see if an article is there. Your method of just adding to the top is unorganized and I'm not going to make that change.
Of course we care if the articles are on the Main page. The archives are not as important, but sometimes editors who are gone on vacation, etc. check out the older news to catch up on the news they missed. --DeanStalk 16:40, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
"Not alphabetic" != "Not organized"
But I'll leave it at this. Was just a suggestion, anyway. --DirkB 17:05, 30 August 2008 (EDT)


Organisation should be spelled organization. Chippeterson September 14 2008

The former is the British spelling, the latter is an American spelling. By the way, I'm proud to be American myself. Userafw 16:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Philip V's 'articles'

We need higher standards for what counts as created wanted pages. PhilipV's are often no more than a sentence. Example: Analyst: An analyst is someone who analyses things. RodWeathers 15:15, 3 November 2008 (EST)

I'm not going to change the credit for creating the wanted page. I will however, also give you credit if you improve his articles. --DeanStalk 15:31, 3 November 2008 (EST)

ahem, they are often more than a sentence, Rod, and one more thing, the analyst article has been improved (by me, not you)--PhilipV 17:51, 6 November 2008 (EST)

What is the criteria for listing a page as 'Wanted'?

The reason I'm asking is that some of the wanted pages are for words like "keep", which would be fine as dictionary entries but not much of an encyclopedia entry. Should items be removed from the list if they'd basically be dictionary definitions? --DinsdaleP 15:33, 26 November 2008 (EST)

No, they shouldn't be removed just because they're basically dictionary definitions. They may start out that way, but over time they should be improved to be more than definitions. Since these pages will be linked to news articles, there is the potential for conservative/liberal insights for these words/phrases. --DeanStalk 15:45, 26 November 2008 (EST)
I understand, and I'm not suggesting censorship of potential articles before they have a chance. Words like "valid" may be worth an article, for example. These would be the words on the current list I'm thinking of, which just don't seem to have potential beyond definition-stubs - I'll try to add a few of the others each week:
restlessness, enthusiasm, assess, anticipate, remind, celebrate, attempt, national
poise(d), provide, sprinkle/sprinkling, Hundred, insist, particular, reinforce
instigate, condemns, late, call, same, more, clear, keep, everybody, course
longtime, avoid, participation, despite, involvement, sleazy, impressive, creatures
--DinsdaleP 17:13, 26 November 2008 (EST)
Dinsdale, Why don't you start making some of the other articles instead of just complaining about what's on the list? I would be more receptive to someone who contributes, instead of someone who complains. --DeanStalk 19:25, 26 November 2008 (EST)
No problem - I had already created a couple prior to my last block, and today's only my first day back. I wasn't complaining, btw - just asking a constructive question politely. Nevermind, it's not that big a deal. --DinsdaleP 19:45, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Socialist Party

Dean, I'm going to check out what links to Socialist party. I have a feeling it may be able to be redirected to Socialism. Just a heads up. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 19:19, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Done and fixed. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 19:55, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Delete "Wanted page" section of the News project?

Due to inactivity on this section, I'm thinking about deleting all the pages associated with "Wanted page". --DeanStalk 07:22, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

After an offline discussion with Jp, I have decided to continue this subproject, and I will create a page for the next contest. --DeanStalk 11:28, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

Revise this list?

I started making entries for many of the defnitions on the "wanted pages" list, but Andrew Schlafly indicated (on my talk page) that Conservapedia does not actually need all these definitions. Should this "wanted" page perhaps be revised to only have entries we actually do want? --RobertT 12:38, 11 April 2009 (EDT)