Wikipedia talk:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] New listing system

The new listing system is intended to streamline and standardise the process of requesting copyedits by the LOCE. In unifying the base lists, automating the category separation, and demanding lister comments, I hope it will also enable the League to focus its limited resources where it can do the most good. The instructions at the top of the main page and the /Base subpage are (I hope) fairly comprehensive. Please do not try editing any of the templates unless you are absolutely sure what you're doing - esoteric is not a strong enough word to describe what's going on here. A brief list of each page and template used is given below. If there's anything you don't understand about the system or the underlying code, ask and I'll be glad to explain.

[edit] Structural overview

  • Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests - The public face of the system. Instructions for listing and delisting articles are transcluded here. This page calls /Base several times with a different show parameter.
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests/Base/RDoc - The instructions are transcluded from here, to keep the /Requests edit code as uncluttered as possible. Note that all pages other than /Requests are subpages of /Base, to minimise the number of articles which cannot be requested under this system. Currently the only article which cannot be requested in this system (and it will jam up like a blocked sink if it is) is Base. Fortunately, it's a disambiguation page :D.
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests/Base - The list of article requests. The required syntax passes the show parameter to the template LOCE.
  • Template:LOCE - The main 'metatemplate' for making requests. Filters each call from the /Requests page and, if the show parameter matches the class parameter, displays the request by transcluding LOCE/Sub.
    • Template:LOCE/Sub - Holds the display code for each request. Formatting of each request is defined in this template.
    • Template:LOCE/All - The reduced style for an "All articles" chronological list. Not currently employed, may be used at a later date.
    • Template:LOCE/Msg - Holds the message which is displayed on /Base if no subpage exists for the requested article.
  • Template:LOCE/Cmt - The code which is preloaded when creating a subpage, to ensure proper formatting.
  • Template:LOCErequest - The end-user template which is put on an article talk page to initiate the request process.
  • Template:LOCEcomplete - LOCErequest is replaced with this once the process is complete.
  • Template:LOCEarchive - When/if requests are archived, displays a condensed summary.
  • Template:LOCEinuse - A modified version of the {{inuse}} template, with similar usage.
  • Template:LOCEcopy - A simple template to add a standardised "copyedited by..."
  • Template:LOCEproof - The same, but for proofreading.
  • Template:LOCEdenied - Replaces LOCErequest if a copyedit is denied
  • Template:LOCErefuse - Added to subpage when a copyedit is denied

[edit] Comments and discussion

I would be delighted to hear any comments, criticisms, queries or suggestions. Happy‑melon 20:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Awesome work, dude. --Otheus 09:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks excellent - speaking as one who finds the current system confusing! 4u1e 10:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
This looks excellent and I'm sure I'll get the hang of it, eventually.  :o) My only thoughts are these: 1) in the early days of the League, we debated whether we should take a strict "oldest articles first" stance (to serve the people requesting c/e's) or just allow members to cherry-pick the articles they were most interested in editing (to keep people fired up about doing c/e's). We ended up leaning toward the latter. 2) We had an initial focus of clearing the "Articles Tagged for Copyedit" backlog, as opposed to satisfying requests for c/e (a secondary interest, even for FA/GAs). I've been away awhile and perhaps these stances have changed? Galena11 14:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Nice work overall, ditto what others said above. I like the way the GAR page has a list of the oldest articles. Reviewers are still free to choose what they want to focus on, but special attention is called to the oldest of the old, so that they don't go ignored forever. Maybe we could do a similar thing here?
Also, the new page has as its first paragraph:
To list a page here, do not edit this page. If you do so, you will quickly realise that the listings you see below are based on a hierarchy of templates. To list an article here, follow this process:
I would amend it to say:
To list an article here, do not edit this page. (It's based on a hierarchy of templates.) To list an article here, follow this process:
I'm a big brevity fan – I think fewer words will mean less confusion for requesters. (We might consider explaining that sentence of how it works; those who understand will figure it out for themselves, and those who don't, don't need to know about it in the first place, do they?) I think it's also good to call it an article in both spots (or a page – either way, so long as we're consistent).
Thanks for working on this. – Scartol · Talk 17:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. Feel free to edit any of the /Doc subpages to update the wording as you think necessary - although I can't see much advantage of one of the phrases above over the other personally :D. Vide the 'oldest first' idea, I can do that, but not from an internet cafe on the far side of the world!! I'll have a look when I get back. The system is designed to support reviewers 'cherry picking', although making sure the oldest articles still appear first in each section. Happy‑melon 15:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
If people approve of this system, there are two possible methods of implementing it. Option 1: place a massive "deprecated" tag on the old page, and start populating the new page. However, the old page might take months to clear, meanwhile this page will be backing up to the rafters. Option 2: transfer all the existing requests to the new system. Any volunteers to do that? :D Happy‑melon 16:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made a particularly complicated addition to the code to facilitate a new section "old requests". This section is automatically filled with requests filed more than a certain time period before the current time. The period is completely arbitrary - it's currently set to 30 days. Does anyone suggest a different period? I suspect that that section will become very full once we start transfering requests/activating this page for new ones. Perhaps 3 months would be better. Happy‑melon 19:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with extending it to three months. Also, I'll volunteer to help moving the existing entries to the new format, if someone can walk me through the first couple (I know there are instructions, which I'll try to follow, but I learn better by doing). Galena11 14:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template directions

I'm a little nervous about the way the templates are designed. Overall, they're great. I think this will definitely help move things along like the GA process. However, I think it may be better to instruct that the {{LOCErequest}} be put at the top of the page. (It strikes me as odd to put it in a new section of the talk page – I don't feel very strongly about this, however.)

I strongly advise a change of the following, however:

Please add the code:
}}{{LOCE|{{{s}}}|class=class|title={{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}|date=~~~~
to the bottom of this page, replacing class by the category of this article.}}

I recommend:

Please add the code:
}}{{LOCE|{{{s}}}|class=insertclass|title={{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}|date=~~~~
to the bottom of the LoCE request page, replacing insertclass with the classification of this article.}}

My reasons:

  • When I see "this page", I think of the page I'm currently looking at.
  • It's a good idea to specify which "class" is being replaced, or – even better – use a different word for what they need to replace. (The italics do this in theory, but it never hurts to be extra-explicit with our instructions.)
  • "Class" (GA, FA, etc) has a specific meaning for us, and I think "category" is the wrong word here. I'd hate to have it confused with WP:CATEGORY. (Which is what I thought of when I first read the template.)

Thanks again for working on this; I hope my comments are helpful rather than annoying. – Scartol · Talk 17:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made the changes you suggest (easy as long as you know where to look!). The system is actually fairly robust, with a few exceptions:
  • If anyone tries to list the article base for a copyedit, it will, as I said, jam up like a blocked sink (good thing it's a disambig page!) Note placed on Talk:Base. I just hope it doesn't encourage anyone.
  • The "follow the breadcumb" instructions will not work properly if the article has already been copyedited before (under this system), as the subpage will already exist. However that's easily fixed with a few more instructions). Instructions written
  • If anyone adds any other templates to /Base, or doesn't use the approved syntax, you'll get some interesting effects. But that's easily fixed.
All in all, I'm actually rather proud of it :D. I considered asking for {{LOCErequest}} to be put at the top, but I realised it would look odd when the request had been archived for it to still be at the top. Of course, it's fairly easy to ask that, while {{LOCErequest}} be put at the top, editors place {{LOCEcomplete}} in a separate section when closing the request. That's very easily implemented: comments? Happy‑melon 15:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I dunno, that might be an extra step that just adds confusion. I think putting it in the discussion itself – while not standard – is a fair enough way to go. – Scartol · Talk 14:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Very well we'll leave it at that. Happy‑melon 20:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timetable for conversion?

With almost three weeks of discussion, it seems that the reaction to the new system is generally positive. With the addition of extra code and instructions to accomodate request denial, archiving and a list of oldest requests, the system fully accomodates the features of the old system with improved organisation and structure. I therefore boldly propose that the League implement the new system and deprecate the old one. A proposed timetable for the transfer is as follows:

  1. New page is cleared for live requests. Old page is deprecated. New requests are directed to the new page.
  2. Old requests are transfered to the new page, newest requests first. This is a low-priority operation, but efforts must be made to keep the request list in chronological order. Editors continue to clear the backlog of requests on the old system
  3. All requests are either transfered to the new system or acted upon. The old page is marked as historical

If there are no objections, part 1 of the timetable above will be implemented on November 3. Happy‑melon 21:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Support. As I mentioned above, I'll help with the conversion effort (but may need some coaching with the first couple). Galena11 14:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Retrofitting

Hi Happy-Melon,

I've just had to retrofit this new system to an article that somehow got into the new GAC section, despite having already been ce'd, proofread, and promoted to FA. I don't think I've broken it, but it was a bit of a struggle. Probably because it was a retrofit, not a request that hadn't been actioned yet. Might be worth just checking that the requests listed now are still all valid. Carre 14:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for fixing that. I'll tell you why that one got through - when I was alpha-testing the new system, I took a handful of requests from each category of the old page to use as examples, to check that everything worked alright. Of course, those example requests stayed static while on the old page they were CE'd, proofread, promoted, archived, etc. When I activated the new page for real this morning, I lazily left those example requests alone, when I should really have erased them and started from scratch. Not to worry - good catch there, and yes you've used the system quite correctly. Thanks, Happy‑melon 14:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Queston about the "old articles" section

Hi! I think the new page is fantastic and thank you for all the hard work that has gone into it. The "Old Articles" section duplicates listings that are elsewhere on the page--which listing should we use to leave comments, etc., and will it update automatically in both places? Galena11 14:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Following an "add comments" link in either section will leave comments on a subpage which will be transcluded in both places. I'm thinking of perhaps moving the "old requests" section to a new page if the main one becomes prohibitively long. Comments? Happy‑melon 19:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, since they're duplicates and won't necessarily be overlooked on the main page. Thanks for the reply! Galena11 15:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eliminate mandatory proofread?

I've been pondering the backlog we have and suggest that we eliminate the mandatory proofread for each article. Instead, primary copyeditors could use their discretion whether to post an article for proof or just move it to the "Complete" section. I know that proofing is a standard "best practice", but I think it would be more effective to give more articles a once-over than fewer articles a twice-over. I don't know if this would affect the new template structure, tho. Thoughts? Galena11 15:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Implementing this would be as simple as renaming "requests requiring proofreading" to "requests requiring archiving". However, I strongly oppose with this proposal. Although our backlog is considerable, our services are much in demand precisely because it is considered a given that a LOCE copyedit will produce the "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" prose that is so difficult for wikipedia articles to acquire. Instead, I would propose tighter restrictions on requests, which will enable us to deny a larger number of requests for procedural reasons. This would work to clear the requests backlog considerably. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the /Criteria discussion page. Happy‑melon 15:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You raise some valid points here and I agree that the criteria approach would better serve the LoCE's mission. I'll ponder that for a bit and will post thoughts on the Criteria talk page later. Galena11 16:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change "requiring proofread" to "ready for proofread"?

Agree that all articles that are c/e should be p/r by a fresh pair of eyes. "Articles requiring proofread" implies that some require it and some don't. "Articles ready for proofread" makes it clear that all require it, regardless of the c/e, and that this is the next step in the process. Suggest changing. Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about an old request

Hello. Your new system looks really nice. Congratulations. This WikiProject always seems to me to have much more work than time to do it so I moved Minneapolis, Minnesota down the request list maybe a month or two ago. Did I miss the listing for this city article? Or maybe a note that it had been removed? Thank you in advance either way. -Susanlesch 00:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Lost and found. Sorry for the bother, it is in the old system at Requests for other articles which clearly states, "Existing requests here will eventually be either acted upon or transfered to the new system." Thank you very much, no rush from my point of view. Good luck. -Susanlesch 00:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help! Proofreading and the templates

I did a proofread of First Command Financial and followed the instructions for proofreading, but apparently I did something wrong and it its entry on this page and the tag on the article's talk page did not update. Can someone please help me? P.S. The problem might be that I generally do better with instructions in a step-by-step format rather than "summary" type that's currently on the page, especially with something new and unfamiliar. Happy Melon: As our expert in all things Template, could I prevail upon you to expand the instructions? *grin* Galena11 14:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I think I partly figured out what I did wrong...the Proofread and Removal sections are separate and I only really did the first part and didn't do the "remove" part. However, the template doesn't appear to have updated when I added the "proof" tag to the template code, so some clarification there might be needed. Maybe we can combine the "proof" and "remove" sections, since they typically go together? Nevermind...I figured it out. Galena11 15:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LoCE step-by-step process

On the LoCE full documentation page the question of who is to remove the proofread articles is left unclear. I assumed that the proofreader was to do this, and on my first try at the new system, I removed William Cooley after I'd finished with the proofreading. My concern with the new system, which seems fine in its inner workings, is that skilled editors new to LoCE may find the learning curve for the new process so daunting that they will give up and go elsewhere. Instead of kvetching, I've written as concise a guide for the copyediting and proofreading (including article removal) as I could. I'm including it here for you to see and comment on. If you think it has sufficient merit, it could perhaps be substituted for parts of the "full documentation page". It might be wiser to separate the proofreading from the article removal if only to make it easier for people new to these tasks to comprehend them quickly. Finetooth (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyediting

  • 1. Navigate to the LoCE Requests page and choose an article to edit.
  • 2. Navigate to your chosen article's main page. Before you start your editing session, add the following in-use template to the top of your chosen article's main page. {{LOCEinuse}}
    Edit the article as you normally do.
  • 3. When you are completely done editing your chosen article, remove the in-use template.
  • 4. Navigate to your chosen article's talk (discussion) page. Find the LoCE copyedit request box on your chosen article's talk page and click on the Add comments link. Clicking this link will open a page, the top section of which is labeled ADD REVIEW UPDATES BELOW. Cut-and-paste the following template into that top section: {{LOCEcopy|user=~~~|date=~~~~~}}
    Save the page.
  • 5. Navigate to the LoCE Requests base page. Find your chosen article in the list. At the end of the line of type related to your chosen article, insert the following: |copy=yes
    Save the page.

[edit] Proofreading

  • 1. Navigate to the LoCE Requests page and choose an article to proofread.
  • 2. When you are done proofing, navigate to your chosen article's talk (discussion) page. Find the LoCE copyedit request box on your chosen article's talk page and click on the Add comments link. Clicking this link will open a page, the top section of which is labeled ADD REVIEW UPDATES BELOW. Cut-and-paste the following template into that top section directly beneath the similar template already added by the copyeditor who preceded you: {{LOCEproof|user=~~~|date=~~~~~}}
    Save the page.
  • 3. Replace the {{LOCErequest}} template on your article's talk page with {{LOCEcomplete|date=~~~~~}}
    Save the page.
  • 4. Navigate to the Requests base page. Find your article's entry (template call) in the Requests base page list. Cut-and-paste it to your computer's short-term memory (clipboard). Delete your article's entry from the Requests base page list.
    Save the page.
  • 5. Navigate to the finished article archive and add the template call from your computer's short-term memory (clipboard) to the top of the list. Replace {{LOCE|{{{s}}} with {{LOCEarchive
    Save the page.
This is helpful, but I don't understand why all the templates are needed in the first place. Please have a look at my comments here. – Scartol • Tok 01:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outdated CE Requests

Hello all,

Love the new system btw. However, it seems that many articles on the requests page were put up for copyedit long ago, and have since progressed through GA and even to FA. Also, it seems that quite a few have already been copyedited by users outside of this Wikiproject. Considering these two facts, wouldn't it be a more efficient use of the League's resources (and a windfall to the backlog) if some of these outdated requests were speedily moved to the proofreading requests page and cleared from the project all together? --Malachirality (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Feel free, and be bold! Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is my request to copy-edit Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) not showing up?

On 20 November 2007, I posted a request for Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) to be copy-edited. However, my request does not show up on the list of requests. I find the new method of filing requests rather confusing, and believe I have somehow botched up while filing the request. Could somebody check for, and rectify, any mistakes I made while filing the request? Thanks in advance. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to help, but I can't figure it out. Were there any problems in applying the code from the request page? The template looks to see if the page already exists, and does other things afterwards. If there were any snags then things might not get listed. Please explain any abnormalities with applying for the CE so that someone more tech-savvy than I can help out. – Scartol • Tok 19:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This project was recently revamped by Happy‑melon. The copy-editors too are getting used to the new procedures. I would suggest posting this question on Happy-Melon's talk page. Include what steps you took and what resulted. Perhaps there is a glitch, or something that needs to be clarified. HM has been a huge help in this. -- Incidentally, has this article been copy-edited by the League before? There is something up there in the Instructions that repeat requests require special templates etc. Good luck, Unimaginative Username (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • When you first added the LoCE Request template, did the message box look like example at this link? If not, perhaps it is indeed an issue with previous copy-edit requests. If so, then were all the steps followed? See the worked example here. I'm sure that Happy‑melon would be interested in your comments on your experience, or any suggestions. Unimaginative Username (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think I might see the problem. The article is already FA status. There has been discussion that the League should not copy-edit featured articles, as they are presumably already excellently-written. Discussion here. If there is a special reason why this article should be re-copy-edited, I would try the "repeat requests" procedure described below the main (green) instruction box. Unimaginative Username (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I followed steps 1-3 under "Listing" to the best of my ability. If you edit the "base" page, you should see the request, which, as of time of writing, is sixth from the bottom. However, the request does not show up on the list of requests (I used Opera's "find as you type" feature, and after typing "mass", found no matches). By the way, I requested that Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) be copy-edited because the article was nominated for a featured article review --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I see that the FAR was closed because the nominator had four nominations going at one time. Also, that there were challenges regarding references, layout, formatting, fair use, and other content issues that are far beyond the scope of a copy-edit. Please see the criteria for making a copy-edit request, which are described briefly at the top of the Requests page (under the "Instruction" heading), and in detail here. When consensus has been reached on all of the challenges to the article's content, and that the content is stable, then it would be appropriate to request copy-editing. (I don't know whether someone else deleted the request for these reasons, or why it isn't showing here. But these other things should be addressed first, in any event.) Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the appearance on the LoCE/Requests page seems to be related to the FAR category. There is one other FAR listed at base (Elizabeth I of England), and that isn't showing up at LoCE/R either. Carre (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Carre, good catch! I'll mention this on HappyMelon's talk page. Someone has already posted this on HappyMelon's talk page. Hope HM can get to it soon. I don't know anything about the mechanics of this system..... the Mass Transit article still needs to have the content issues resolved before copy-edit. Thanks for the catch. Unimaginative Username (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Hildaknight seems to have fixed this! I left a Barnstar on behalf of the League in gratitude. Unimaginative Username (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, and well done Hildaknight! Sorry I've been away - real life attacked me without warning. Yes Hildan found the problem, and solved it in exactly the way I would have done. Happy‑melon 10:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to have helped solve the problem. If you wish to do me a favour in return, you could read this post I made on the project's talk page. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No offense meant, but wouldn't it be less confusing if your username matched your signature? Cheers, Unimaginative Username (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Simplification

It strikes me that this page could be simplified even more into two basic categories: articles whose FA - status is being/about to be tested and articles whose GA status is being/about to be tested. Couldn't we just have two sections, one for GAs and one for FAs? Wrad (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Now I look at it, I guess that's about how it's organized already. Wrad (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requests backlog stats

This graph might be of interest - I wrote a short script to parse the history of WP:LOCE/B to track the increase in requests of each type. Does anyone have any bright ideas as to where the massive drop in mid-December came from? A massive clearing drive? Happy‑melon 13:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Instructions slightly confusing

  • Re the template element class=articletype, the message box itself says "replacing articletype by the classification of this article," while the instructions in II say "You need to replace class by the type of article that you are requesting a review for." Thus for an article of, say type FA, it is unclear whether we want to enter class=FA or FA=articletype.
    • Fixed. Happy‑melon 22:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I copied and entered the code from the LOCErequest template per instructions and saved the page. My edit displayed simply as the code from the template rather than with graphics and text markup as per other requests on the page. (I then tried removing the first two close curly brackets from the code to see if that might help; it didn't, but I guess that if it's not working either way, I may as well leave it and wait for somebody to fix.)

I figure that somebody from the project will spot this soon enough and tweak anything that needs tweaking, but I'm still curious about (A) whether it displayed correctly (in which case IMHO instructions should say to expect this result) or (B) what my mistake was. Thanks. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Essentially you did everything correctly, with just one exception: you added the code to the wrong page! As it says at the top of the requests page, adding anything there will not have the desired effect, instead, you needed to add it to the "base" page, where it will have the desired effect. I have made this addition for you, so the request will now display correctly. You need to complete the final step, which is to create a subpage for the request: go to this page and follow the instructions. You did the right thing asking, as this system is a bit complicated. When it works, it works well, though. Happy‑melon 22:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks much. :-) -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tel Aviv

Tel Aviv was copyedited in February when it was at its first FAC. It has since failed 2 FAC's and all main issues have now been addressed in preparation for another following a Peer Review. I cant seem to nominate it again because the talk page box is coming up with the past CE. It now seems that the prose is the only remaining issue with the article. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment

I have nominated 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment for FA-status. User:Tony1, a professional editor by trade, asked that I have a "word-nerd" review this article for awkward prose. There is some of, no doubt, as I never claimed to be a good writer. I'm not sure about the nerd part, but many of you have a way with words. If someone has time, could review this article for awkward language? I have also created a formal request using the template, but due to the FA nom, was hoping for a faster reply here. Cheers, Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page maintenance

Is anyone maintaining this page? The articles listed under FAC are woefully and miserably outdated, I'm not sure the FA section is correct either, and I haven't seen an article come through FAC in months that actually got any help from LOCE. It seems that if someone would keep the page up to date, it might help prioritize and process work here. If LOCE is no longer working in conjunction with FAC, we should probably delink it from {{FAC-instructions}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sandy referred me here since it seems the FACs and FARs are not being updated, and I want to do my part and all. If someone is able to show me how to do that, I can try to keep up with the promotions and archivings at the FAC and FAR pages. Let me know, please. --Moni3 (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
MelonBot updates the article status parameters whenever I remember to run it - I'll do it when I get home. When I get a toolserver account (ie at the next blue moon :() I'll be able to set it up to run on a regular basis. Happy‑melon 09:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Funny that this topic was just brought up. I was just going to propose removing entries over 6 months old. I agree. Removing super old requests now. I think this will help users who stop by and think about helping out, but feel overwhelmed about where to start. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)