Wikipedia talk:Article rescue contest
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Origin
Proposed after some bitching on IRC about people who vote "keep and cleanup, encyclopedic topic" but never actually do any work on the article, and because it's terribly difficult to be an impatient eventualist. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Focus resources elsewhere
Just one thought about this contest...very few visitors read articles that are the sort that end up on VfD. It seems strange to concentrate quality-improvement efforts on articles that would likely receive only a handful of hits each year, when there are articles that receive thousands of hits that are also in great need of attention. — Matt Crypto 00:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Vicious circle: if we focus our efforts on "popular" articles, why ever spend time on the nooks and crannies other encyclopedias don't cover, right? Wikipedia is a big place. There will be people taking care of those big hitters too, don't worry. JRM 06:49, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
- Sure, but I think it's fair to say that if you want to improve Wikipedia as a whole, you should concentrate on improving popular articles, not on articles that might be visited once a year. Of course, as a volunteer/hobby project, people are entirely free to invest their resources on Wikipedia as they see fit. However, if we're making contests to encourage the community to focus their efforts, then I don't think it's wise to focus on the least popular articles (which VfD candidates tend to be). There may be people taking care of the "big hitters", but it would be better to have more. — Matt Crypto 15:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I've always felt that the strength of Wikipedia is that editors work in areas where they have knowledge and/or interest. Every major or minor topic of interest will eventually be created, and so will a whole lot of trivial topics. This is a method of generating further interest in editing a variety of articles in general. There will be people interested in this contest, so I approve. ;-) Unfocused 17:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Sure, but I think it's fair to say that if you want to improve Wikipedia as a whole, you should concentrate on improving popular articles, not on articles that might be visited once a year. Of course, as a volunteer/hobby project, people are entirely free to invest their resources on Wikipedia as they see fit. However, if we're making contests to encourage the community to focus their efforts, then I don't think it's wise to focus on the least popular articles (which VfD candidates tend to be). There may be people taking care of the "big hitters", but it would be better to have more. — Matt Crypto 15:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Copyright Violations
expand candidates to include copyvio re-writes.--Duk 01:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Great idea!
I love this idea. I've done a little VfD saving in the past, even when it meant rewriting the article, and it gives a feeling of satisfaction to yank the article from the very jaws of death and see all the VfD voters admire it and change their votes. I suggest that in the same manner barnstars are awarded for cleanup, we award an endangered species badge for every rescue. There are so many endangered species we could have a bunch of them, for variety. Deco 23:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This would be an even better idea if we could somehow force uberinclusionists who vote "keep" for everything no matter what to be the ones who have to rewrite the articles. Cattle prods, maybe. . . . . . . No, seriously, great idea. This definitely goes on my watchlist. Soundguy99 06:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Searching
Is there a way of searching through all of the subpages of AFD (or VFD)? I would like to find an article to work on that I know something about or am interested in. I'll definately do something but I have no idea what yet... --Celestianpower hablamé 20:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've never tried this, but you could say, use google, and type in the search bar "site:en.wikipedia.org <stuff you want to search for>". This restricts the search to English Wikipedia, perhaps serching for AfD will help? Let us know! --HappyCamper 20:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- Well, although not perfect, I went to the search capability and at the bottom found a little search box with lots of checkboxes above it. If you uncheck all but Wikipedia and then type in the box, Articles for deletion/foo then it will display articles for deletion pages with foo at the beginning of the title. I really would like a better solution though... --Celestianpower hablamé 21:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Or, if the particular topic has a specific term used for it then searching just the wikipexia namespace with that term gets plenty of relevant hits. Eg, [1]. --Celestianpower hablamé 21:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- It's not comprehensive, but if you're just looking to browse a general subject area, you can check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Beta and the various subpages of that project. — Laura Scudder | Talk 05:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost?
Perhaps we should attract attention to this via the WP:POST? --HappyCamper 13:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- I already sent a message to Ral. - 131.211.210.17 09:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Isn't this wonderful?
Look, we have a good collection of submissions on the page now! --HappyCamper 01:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Stats for Article rescue contest
If you like, I can generate a list of stats of articles that were kept. Let me know. --AllyUnion (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- If you could, and if it's simple to do, sure :-) It would be interesting to see for informational purposes too. But if it takes too much time then forget about it. --HappyCamper 21:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost
Let me know when you guys figure out the winner; I'll make sure and mention it. Ral315 (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
