Wikipedia talk:Requested articles/Archive 1

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

I think R. A. Salvatore is an author.

I thought this page needed some work, so I've done a so-so rearrangement; it needs more attention, though. I did merge the "needs review" stuff back into the main body; I think that makes the page a little cleaner and perhaps will be more likely to encourage someone to review the articles and then remove their links from here. --loh (2001-07-20)

Yep, looks good, Larry! --LMS

I just added about a dozen topics from [1] -- topics popular Sept. 12-14. I think if we keep up with that list and have articles on "what's happening" online, we can potentially increase our traffic by quite a bit. Bonus points if you write a really long good article on the popular topic.

Let me add that I don't think these topics have any sort of intrinsic merit, and I don't want Wikipedia to specialize as an encyclopedia of pop culture. I just want to increase traffic and activity, that's all. --Larry Sanger

02 October 2001: I suggest we include the date posted on all Requested articles and if nobody picks them up within a given time (60 days?) we delete them as uninteresting. If they really are worthwhile, somebody will eventually re-post them.

(Does the Wikipedia really cry out for articles on dog and pony show? drama queen?)

There is no reason to remove old requested articles. New contributors are joining everyday. Prince Charming has not stepped in the room yet. You cannot say he will never show up. If these requests stay on the page, someone will write about them sooner or later. Why the 60 days expiration?

Interesting idea. But I don't think Wikipedia has to cry out for an article on anything, it doesn't have a limited space for articles. Isnt' it enough that someone who came to wikipedia and wanted to read on a topic thought it was important enough to ask for an article about it?

When a requested article is written, should I delete the reference here? Should I move it to a section for completed requests (my preference)? Or just leave it? ---hajhouse

We now have Requested articles/Deemed complete-ish for this purpose (thanks Manning!) -- Claudine


Whoever cleaned up the editing window recently (18 October 2001) (Larry?), thanks!

Mel Blanc is Bugs Bunny's voice; Tex Avery directed and drew. Check out the Maltin bio on IMDb: http://us.imdb.com/Bio?Blanc,+Mel and on Tex Avery: http://us.imdb.com/Bio?Avery,+Tex

I'm thinking this page is much less useful with all the stub articles on it. I propose to remove them--going back to the way the page was originally--perhaps to a page of their own, but probably just completely. Simplicity is sometimes a virtue, and I think it would be here. A completely unwritten article is a lot more compelling than one that has a stub entry. Maybe we can use that articles-that-need-work page (whatever it's called) to suggest that some particular stub be improved. See, Magnus' software will identify stubs automatically, and heck, there are zillions of stubs that aren't listed on the page. Any objections? --LMS

I agree completely! I don't know where the 'deemed complete-ish' came from, but it's not a good idea, either. Nothing ever seems to get removed from there. --MichaelTinkler

Well, no one else has commented, and I just noticed (again) yet another redundant page, Wikipedia utilities/find or fix a stub. I am going to delete the stubs and redirect people to that page from requested articles for all their stub-filling-out needs. --LMS

"[Les Champs Magnetiques]? (if that refers to the [Jean-Michel Jarre]? album, it should be "chants", not "champs")"

No, it refers to the book by Andre Breton and Philippe Soupault, to which, I'll bet, the title of Jarre's album is an allusion. --user:Daniel C. Boyer

Is it appropriate to bring up (in the relevant articles) (such as on the STASI, the United States Secret Service, the FBI etc.) some people's allegations that these are secret police agencies, their reasons for so saying, and the arguments of those who hold the opposing viewpoint? Just asking about the best way to deal with this question from a NPOV. --user:Daniel C. Boyer

Wouldn't it be easier for people to find topics they can contribute, if it is organized by major-minor catagories the same way as starting page is? --User:vovkav

Probably, but the people who make requests don't usually bother to classify. If you'd care to do the sorting, it would be a help. Vicki Rosenzweig

Halloween costume has been classified as both a requested (i.e., non-existent) article and a "popular search" since Halloween of 2001. Anybody want to start this one?

Congratulations, you've just volunteered! Now get crackin'. --Brion

... any Lafontaine; but why not foremost the one who is said in the Point on ESPRIT in L'Encyclopédie to have expressed "l' esprit naïv".

Thanks, Frank W ~@) R, Jan. 6, 10:08 PST

If I try and edit this page, it all comes out double-spaced! argh! Anyway, I only wanted to remove the what Nupedia wants link... Martin

I've removed the link (and made the bullet-pointed list work while I was at it). You should be able to edit it now - a stack of stray line breaks seem to have crept into the text which was causing the double-spacing - I've taken them out. --Camembert


Hmm - it now looks bust to me. See from "Government / Politics / Social Issues:" below - Civil Disorder and computerized postage should be on the same line - they used to be anyway. Martin
You're right - it had inserted blank links where previously there were none (and where I somehow failed to noticed them). Why it did this is beyond me, but I've taken them out again, and it should (should) be OK again now. --Camembert

this article needs major housekeeping. i will do it later tonight. Kingturtle 18:43 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

Who wished the article about Pretzh, Germany? There is no city nor municipality of that name in Germany, it only has one called Pretz, and that is a part of the small muncicipality Tittling. I doubt it has much to write about that one; and it has no article linking it anyway. andy 12:28 May 13, 2003 (UTC)
It has been removed. Kingturtle 03:08 16 May 2003 (UTC)

Frankly, my dears. Personally I think this article should be split into smaller portions. But how to decide where to cut off? Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 06:43 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Under Geography:Great Britain I think Cambria is intended to be Cumbria, for which an article exists-haven't looked at how detailed it is. Berek 10 June 2003 No - Cumbria is the most north-westerly county of England, Cambria is the old placename for Wales. I'll go and make a starter page in just a moment.

  • Overall, in the Mathematics pages, I expected to see more proofs. Currently, it is just a list of definitions. Perhaps these should be on separate pages?
  • On the contrary, this is an encyclopedia, and I think that most mathematical proofs would be out of place (too detailed, too technical). What I would personally love to see is overviews of connectivity among mathematical topics. For instance, ".. and so number theory has often been thought to be the purest of mathematical topics, having no relevance to the real world. G H Hardy certainly thought so, see his Mathematicians's Apology. But, it has been discovered that number theory does have real world applications. For instance, --packing theory and xxx and yyy and zzz --. It is currently expected that applications will develop for number theory in qqq as well. Surprisingly, Riemann was able to prove a theorem about the distribution of primes could be proved by using the calculus, which is about as far from number theory as any part of mathematics. Or at least it was thought to be. Connections between algebraic structures theory and quantum mechanics ...". This sort of thing would be ideally suited to an encyclopedia, at least after a definition and short explanation of <whatever>. Perhaps references to other sites for the proofs?
  • Having proofs on Wikipedia would be nessecary for a well-developed Mathematics section. Perhaps they could be created as a separate page - for instace, Pythagorean Theorem and Proofs for the Pythagorean Theorem.
According to the heuristic that an encyclopedia is supposed to be a concise summary of knowledge, what in a math book would one omit to make a condensed summary? Given that you'd still want to include the new terms and their definitions, I argue that the proofs would have to be the chief casualty. Short proofs of important things are fine, but, please, not the 600+ pages and computer programs needed for the Four-color theorem. :-) Stan 17:00 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
An encyclopedia is supposed to be a summary of all knowledge, but bear in mind that different encyclopedias have differents focuses. An encyclopedia of the American history would have a much larger entry on the USS Maine than a general encyclopedia. Print encyclopedias cut things because they lack space to put them in with the topic remit that they have. Wikipedia doesn't suffer from that limitation, and thus concerns about a certain level of detail are surely far less of a problem than for a paper product. However, posting the full proof of the four colour theorem would be a bit too far I think! David Newton 16:12 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)


Someone needs to make an article on Wen-Hung Lue. All shall fear the Lue!

People People Please an encyclpedia is sapost to be something that helps you!!!!