Wikipedia talk:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Title of the notice board

This page has been moved from "Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board" to "Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board" on May 31, 2005 by User:Timwi (See edit history). — Instantnood 14:06, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

This is an irritating move since Timwi failed to:
This was an absolutely sloppy move. Mindmatrix 14:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
After a second look, it appears that only the second point is valid. The talk page was moved back by Spinboy. Mindmatrix 14:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I've moved back the project page back to small letter w first. Because the project title name [Wikipedians'] is not as same as in the talk page [wikipedians']. And note that Timwi need to know the title name that the folks that needs before move/changes. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 06:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, the move was performed without any discussion, at least, as far as I can tell. --Deathphoenix 11:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Some said it is just a fixing of proper casing. — Instantnood 05:53, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Sorting

Anyone know why this page doesn't sort properly on Category:Regional Wikipedian notice boards? I've looked at the wiki-source, and the sort-key is "Canadian", so I don't know why it's under the W's on the category page .. --Azkar 16:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Hmm .. I think {{RWNBs}} (which also adds pages to Category:Regional Wikipedian notice boards) might be overriding the sort key. I'm going to try moving the category tag to the end of the page (where it should be, anyway) and see if that helps. --Azkar 17:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yup. That did the trick. --Azkar 17:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Notice board rearrangement

Every time I come to the Canadian wikipedians' notice board I get annoyed that I have to scroll though so much page and that it sometimes takes a while to load. I'm wondering if it would be viable to take each heading and branch it off onto it's own sub-page. Maybe not all the pages, but some. We really don't need the Active Canadian Wikipedians on the main page. I'd really like to have the Canada related candidates for deletion on it's own page, so I may just watch that if I wish. What do you think?
•Zhatt• 19:31, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm with you. If you were to move the "Pending tasks" and "List of active Cdn. Wikipedians" off into branches, it would make the page much more functional. Perhaps the Canadian bio and Canadian MP tempaltes could be moved to the bottom of the page as well. I'd like to see thee VfD and discussions on the same (main) page, though. Ground Zero 19:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
At the very least, I'd much prefer if the ToC could be moved up to the top with a __TOC__ placement. --Deathphoenix 20:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Should the Active Canadian Wikipedians section have a different title? It seems to imply that people on the Wikipedians/Canada list that not on the Active list are inactive. Should it go on it's own branch as Canadian wikipedians' notice board/members or the like? In fact, what is the major distinction between the Active Canadian Wikipedians list and the Wikipedians/Canada list?
•Zhatt• 21:35, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I think such lists are inherently unmaintainable. We should use Category:Canadian Wikipedians, and possibly create Category:Active Canadian Wikipedians if enough people want it (I don't think it's necessary; contribution logs offer a fair indication of this). We could also create categories for Wikipedians by province too (again, I don't think it's necessary). Let's get rid of these lists. Mindmatrix 22:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of redesigning this page significantly. A few concerns I've noted:

  1. I'm not sure that we really need to maintain both the "New Topics" subsection and the "Pending tasks" chart. Their purposes simply overlap too much. Personally, I think the chart is out of control; it's entirely too long and unwieldy and hard to edit properly (and nobody ever seems to take an entry off when they're done). I'd frankly be in favour of merging the chart and the "New topics" lists into a single format somewhat different than the existing chart. Maybe we could break them up into subject-based subpages with sections for new articles, existing articles that need attention and a "wikipedians interested in this particular topic" section?
  2. Maybe the biography and Parliament templates could be handled in the same way, too...or maybe not. What I note is that the MP template, in particular, effectively duplicates the existing subpages for Members of Parliament, so those pages are no longer strictly necessary.
  3. It seems that the moment enough discussion has been added that an active discussion topic is no longer at the bottom of the discussion section, that discussion dies even when somebody actively asks for new input. We should potentially think of a way to reorganize how those discussions are managed (eg. maybe subpages for each discussion, or something.)

I may have a few more ideas later; that's just a start. Bearcat 22:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mindmatrix that we should remove these lists and put more emphasis on the Category:Canadian Wikipedians. I agree with Bearcat that the Pending tasks has become unwieldy and should be merged and simplified. I don't know much about the templates as I have not looked into them at all. I believe that it would be unnecessary to have a sub-page for each discussion. A single sub-page for Canadian related items would be enough.
One question is: who would actually do this rearrangement? Is there an official or otherwise user who maintains this page?
•Zhatt• 22:38, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see subpages for each discussion; it allows for focused discussions, it acts as an automatic archival system, and it keeps page length reasonable. It's essentially the way VfD works right now, which is quite effective.
Zhatt, this page is maintained by the community. You can change things at will, though discussion is always better before making changes. Mindmatrix 22:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
OK, Thanks. I'll take on the task and start moving things around later today or tomorrow (PST). I'll think I may start with the discussions unless someone thinks they may do a better job. I may need help with the templates as I'm not sure what is going on there.
•Zhatt• 22:53, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

OK! I did some MAJOR reworking. I moved everything from the to-do list onto the main page, so we don't need it anymore. I moved the discussions onto its own page and will move each individual discussion onto its own page later. I moved the "Active Canadian users" onto its own page along with the meet-up groups. I did a bunch of rearranging and cleaning up. The page is quite long now, but easier to navigate. I'm still thinking that we need to move many of the titles now on the main page onto their own pages too. Especially the New Articles section. If you think something is missing don't yell at me, just add it back. I'm sure some people might want those templates back in there, but I wasn't sure where to put em. Hope I didn't confuse too many people. If everyone hates it, we can always revert. You may have also noticed that I changed my signature. It was creating problems.
•Zhatt• 01:20, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

So is everything looking good? I spend two hours stright re-working the page and no one gives thanks or even gives a comment? Is there anything else that I should do? Should I move the New Articles section to it's own page or do people like it where it is? Should I still brake up the dissussion page into its own sub-sub-pages? Should we set up the old To-Do list (and other unused subpages) for deletion? (speedy delete?)
•Zhatt• 17:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Well, you did make the change at the beginning of a weekend :-)
Comments: my eyes don't hurt anymore. Specifically, there isn't a jumble of notices and templates cluttering things up. However, the page is still too long. I've collected some links into a simple table for quicker reference (a nice side-effect is a shorter page).
I'd like to hear ideas about handling the discussions. My own preference is for each discussion to have its own thread; if that's the case, we can use the discussion page as a listing of current and archived discussions. Issues such as how to name each discussion article need to be resolved (that should be easy though).
And finally: thank you. Mindmatrix 18:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
That's a nice table there. Im just wondering if that part should read "sub-projects" as they were part of the new articles section. What do you think about turning the whole page into a big, nice table like you have there with just a bunch of links to sub pages made from each section. I really think the Articles that need to be created section needs its own page.
•Zhatt• 18:37, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks - glad you like the table. It still needs a little work though.
I don't want the whole page to be in the table; that's what we had before, no? I've pulled out only quick links to other pages from the main text (there are a few others to do still). I also don't want to replicate the Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/to do page, so we should think about how to divide information into appropriate sections. I'd also like to have, at a minimum, a listing of active discussions on this page, with a direct link to the discussion thread. Mindmatrix 19:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Replicate the Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/to do page? As in sort everything by topic instead of task? That does make sense, buy there are a lot more topics than there are types of tasks. If you think it can be done, I say sure.
•Zhatt• 19:27, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
I think you missed the word don't in my sentence! The gist of my statement is to figure out which components need their own page, create those pages, delete the info from the notice board, and finally link to them from the table. Mindmatrix 21:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Ah! OK. That's what I want to do too. We are in agreement than.
•Zhatt• 21:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

After my latest change, it seems the table is fairly complete - adding anything else may make it too complex. Are there any complaints about this table? Is there anything missing, or should anything be removed?

As far as other improvements go, I propose the following:

  • remove Articles to create from the main text into its own page (as per Zhatt)
    • possibly rename it Requested articles?
    • provide links from the notice board to each section on the new page
  • remove Articles to expand from the main text into its own page
    • provide links from the notice board to each section on the new page
  • remove Featured articles from the main text into its own page
  • make the Requests for peer review more prominent

That should make this page shorter and give one-click access to any information desired. Yes/no? Mindmatrix 14:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I also propose merging Articles to clean up with Articles to expand. onto the same sub page. It could be simply called Aricles that need work or the like. Maybe a more jazzy name, like Workicles... Or not.
•Zhatt• 16:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
How about Articles to improve? I fear workicles may be a short-term fad :-) Mindmatrix 15:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • How about a heading called "Feature Articles" right above/below the "Votes for Featured article candidates" heading? Put all the Cda-related articles that have reached Feature Article status in there, about 4 articles by my count. The reason? Just to show off... -maclean25 23:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree; that was actually the reason I proposed making a separate page for it, so that we could accumulate all Canada-related featured articles onto one page. Another appropriate place to put this may be in the Canada WikiPortal. Mindmatrix 19:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Requests sub-page

I've created Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Requests, and linked to each separate section from the notice board. Comments? Mindmatrix 15:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I like what you're doing with the table and I like what you're doing on the board by condensing everything, but what I don't get is why you have both. You have Articles to create on the table and you have Requested articles and media on the board while they are essentially the same thing. Shouldn't they be in the same list? I believe the Articles to create section should be moved to either under the Requested articles and media or under the /Requests sub-page itself. Since the new /Requests is so short now, you should even merge all the Articles to create sub-pages onto the /Requests page.
•Zhatt• 18:35, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
I created the table using links to sub-pages that already existed at that point, leaving everything else on the notice board. Now that the Requests page exists, I think we can merge information from other sub-pages. I'd like to reduce the number of sub-pages, while maintaining a distinct separation of content.
It was my intention to merge everything into Requests; having a long page isn't bad, so long as the content is consistent and well-organized (the to do list we had before suffered because it was a mix of unrelated things). The problem is that some of the sub-pages are quite long, so merging them would create an absurdly long Requests page. Perhaps we can pick a few of the shorter pages to merge (eg - Actors and Artists), and go from there. Once that's done, we can revise the table and main text of the notice board.
I've also been looking over Bearcat's suggestions: the first point has been addressed, more or less; the second is quite valid - let's delete Historical parliamentarians and Members of Parliament and be done with it; the third point can wait a while, until we're done cleaning up everything else.
BTW: is Articles to improve a good title for a sub-page (to include Articles to expand and Articles to clean up)? Mindmatrix 14:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Great ideas. I'll start working on some of them right now.
•Zhatt• 17:58, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
I moved the requests page to Articles to improve. I moved Articles to expand and your table over to that page for now. The main page should be as clean and clear as posible so its easy to find what sub-page you need. If posible, we should only have "sub-pages" and not "sub-sub-pages".
•Zhatt• 18:34, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Zhatt, I just reviewed the changes; for the most part, I like the new notice board. I'm curious why you moved Requests to Articles to improve. I thought they'd be two separate pages that would merge information from many other sub-pages. The former would contain only things to create, and the latter only things to improve or expand. I see your previous message which mentions that you'd merge the two (because Requests was short), but I replied by noting that Requests could be expanded by eliminating other sub-pages. (I do realize that I didn't phrase my position clearly.)

Anyway, the notice board certainly looks better, and it's much easier to navigate. Mindmatrix 18:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I just though that there wasn't much of a difference in articles to create and articles to improve as the difference is only a stub away. If we brake them up we have to consider what the real difference is, for example, should a two line stub go on the requests page or the improve page?
Either way, I guess you are right that the pages should be split as to get rid of all the other sub pages. Condense everything.
•Zhatt• 19:04, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
OK, I recreated the Requested articles sub-page, merged other sub-pages onto it, and compleatly reorganized it. It's looking good, but some other sub-pages are quite long and I'm not sure what to do with them.
•Zhatt• 23:45, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
I like the changes, especially because I can reduce my watchlist slightly. The remaining sub-pages are indeed quite long, but we may be able to merge some of them. I was thinking of getting rid of the information merged from the Senators, MPs etc sub-pages, plunking a copy of the three templates (see bottom of notice board) to the bottom of the Requests page, and merging in the Musicians and Writers sub-pages.
I also think we should have an Articles to categorize section in either the main notice board, or the Articles to improve page. Mindmatrix 16:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I've merged the Musicians and Writers sub-pages; the Requests page looks a tad busy right now, but it's not bad. Mindmatrix 17:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
It sure looks a lot better than the mess we had before. Good work. •Zhatt• 17:18, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Canadian Blogger List

I added a place beneath the Active Wikipedeans for people to list their blogs. Look okay? --Simon.Pole 07:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd rather not have this, especially given the discussion we've had about making this page shorter (see Notice board rearrangement above). At any rate, it would be more appropriate to link to one's blog from one's user page, and include the user page in Category:Canadian Wikipedians. Mindmatrix 19:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Good point Mindmatrix. Maybe if we go to a Category:Canadian Wikipedians, we could have a subcateogry Category:Canadian Wikipedian Bloggers?--Simon.Pole 21:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Quick suggestion

I'm thinking maybe the Members list should include some way for those of us who have admin status to note that next to our names (or a separate section on the page, if necessary), so that other users who might have a matter that requires discussion with an admin will know who they can contact. (Maybe it's a bad idea, I don't know...) Bearcat 03:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. I never know who the admin are. I'd like to implement this idea, but since I don't know who the admin are, I can't. I think having their own section on the page would be good so we don't have to search the list for asterisks. Can anyone do this?
•Zhatt• 05:51, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
I also think that's a great quick idea but it makes me wonder if we couldn't actually make that a somewhat more useful list if we not only included admin status but also fields of interest and expertise; somewhat like the Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/Members page does. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I've highlighted the admins after reviewing Wikipedia:List of administrators. I like DoubleBlue's suggestion; if we do implement this, we should leave a message on the talk page of every user requesting they add such info, once we've resolved formatting issues. Mindmatrix 16:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I created a separate Administrators section for now. It can be removed once we implement DoubleBlue's proposal. Mindmatrix 17:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Please add new requests to both bottom and top of the list.

Don't you find it a bit odd to alternate listings top-down and bottom-up? I think we should have a standard for the whole page and my preference would be Please add new requests to the top of the list. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

That is how many pages like WP:FAC and WP:RFA do it. I agree, we should put new requests at the top. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd also prefer that all new entries are added to the top of the list. Mindmatrix 13:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Change it if you like. I just thought that on some topics the most recent item should be delt with while on others the oldest item should be delt with first. For example, old VfDs should be delt with before they are gone while for Requests for Comment, you want to bring attention to new ones instead of having people stuck on old issues.
Zhatt 18:10, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
I see your point Zhatt but I still find it confusing and have to look at the instructions each and every time I add something. I will begin changing to a new entries to the top standard. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

User question

I have a question for y'all about User:Fat pig73. I've noticed that this user's edits can rarely, if ever, be allowed to stand without review. He regularly:

If you challenge him on any of it, however, he disappears for several days, but then anonymous IPs suddenly start showing up and repeating the same kinds of errors on the same articles. Topicwise, he also intersects with User:SNIyer1 (a/k/a User:SNIyer12) who also makes similar errors and has had an RfC against him.

Any input? Bearcat 10:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Some of User:Fat pig73's edits have merit, but (s)he makes too many contributions of questionable value. This user also has a habit of including See also sections which list any article remotely associated with the topic, most of which are already linked in the article or in one of the linked categories. Worse, one of the links may be self-referential (eg: linking Go Transit to itself). I think this user needs to differentiate between making a contribution and making a useful contribution. Beacat, everything you list is accurate. Mindmatrix 13:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is today's odd category created by Fatpig73: Category:Lying-in-state in the Canadian House of Commons. See the CfD discussion here. Ground Zero 19:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Um...bingo. The SNIyer1 RfC is specifically about problematic edits to state funerals of former North American leaders. Bearcat 19:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

My last comment seems to have killed the discussion here. What I really wanted to discuss was (a) would it be appropriate to have several people make a point of keeping an eye on his edits (also User:206.47.220.230), and (b) what, if anything, can we do about the matter in the longer term? He doesn't respond to discussion on his talk page. Even when you thoroughly explain the rules, he doesn't alter his editing style. The SNIyer RfC is stalled because he hasn't gone there to express his side of the matter (which is a requirement of the process). And given that he already does a lot of anon editing even with more than one active login name, if he were banned he'd just keep right on making the same mess anonymously. Bearcat 17:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that trying to track the edits of an individual, especially if that user has sock puppets and anonymous edits, will be cumbersome. Several articles edited by Fat pig73 are on my watchlist; when I notice a change is made by him, I'll check it, and also check edits in his recent contribution history. I'll revert or fix as necessary from there. But I won't track all his changes - it's just too much work, even for a group of people.
Regarding the long-term, I think we need to force the issue with users that don't address RfCs about them. Much like we have {{test}} etc templates for new users, we should provide a three-warning requirement to answer the RfC, or face consequences, whatever those consequences are determined to be. (There are a number of stalled RfCs simply because the user in question doesn't respond.) I don't particularly like this solution, though. Mindmatrix 15:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/n/Wikipedia_talk%7ECanadian_wikipedians%27_notice_board_Archive_1_b828.html"