Wikipedia talk:Neglected articles

This page was nominated for deletion on 30 January 2007. The result of the discussion was keep and tag as {{historical}}.

/Archive

Copyvios[edit]

(From Wikipedia:Bot requests.)

Would it be possible for a bot to generate a list of articles created by anon IPs? As mentioned on Wikipedia talk:Association of Copyright Violation Hunting Wikipedians#Some ideas by me, most of the copyvio articles get created by anon IPs or newbies. It wd be great if atleast a list of articles created by anon IPs yet seeing a good history of edits can be made available. If this is not the right place for requesting report generation, please move the request to a more appropriate place. Thanks, --Gurubrahma 04:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably would be good to incorporate this into Wikipedia:Neglected articles by ranking this first. -- Beland 08:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have also found that Special:Deadendpages and Special:Lonelypages have several candidates ripe for deletion under WP:CV and WP:AFD, however these are not updated regularly. wd be raising the same at Wikipedia:Village pump. --Gurubrahma 13:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changes[edit]

Now that anon users can't make articles shouldn't some additional scoring criteria be used next time? Eugman 01:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this metric will still be valid for quite some time - there are a lot of long-dormant articles to get through! bd2412 T 03:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Only" about 9,000 left to go in the 800s. Of course the other ranking criteria - number of editors, number of edits - are still being factored in. I just cut off the list after a few hundred, and since there's such a backlog, these happen to all be anonymously created. -- Beland 06:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1911 Brittanica[edit]

A few of these articles are from, or claim to be from, the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica. I can't verify that, I can't view the brittanica pages due to technical issues. Is it worth creating a 1911 section, so these can be verified by someone, or can they just be removed? Hiding talk 20:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems useful to have them verified, which looks like it's slowly happening. -- Beland 07:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asking the impossible...[edit]

I know this may be asking the impossible, but can the scores of non-anon created pages be tied to either the age or the number of edits by that account? That would catch nonsense articles for which the author created a one-shot account. Also, is there a way to factor out automated edits? In the course of disambig fixing or spell-checking, some nonsense articles may get a remedial second edit from an unwitting passerby... Cheers! bd2412 T 05:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I like the "newbie factor" idea. Not impossible to implement, but time-consuming. Both to code and to run. Through some re-jiggering, today I managed to reduce the fetch-and-run-time of this analysis from 10 hours to 7. To generate the "newbie factor" without putting too much strain on the live site, I'd probably need to get a special dump. It would also almost certainly seriously increase the amount of time the thing takes to run, but might be worth it. -- Beland 07:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most systematic fixes are probably just people using speedy-fix tools and aren't required to be registered as bots. We could try to detect that by making a list of known accounts used for these purposes, or by looking for special words and phrases. But the Seigenthaler case shows us that regular editors also have a habit of fixing spelling and the like while leaving massive content badness alone, so I'm not sure if we'd gain so much by that. Then again, given the massive number of articles to be reviewed, every little clue helps. Hmm. -- Beland 07:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neglected[edit]

Has this list become Neglected? Doesn't seem like it's being updated.--Rayc 05:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Too (many) Towers[edit]

The top of the list is currently swamped by one stubby little article for each of the 1000s of telecommunication mast in the U.S. Someone had been tagging them as tower stubs and suggesting merges into List of masts and I started to continue the same, but the talk page at List of masts isn't even sure that page should exist. I'm not sure where to go from here; it feels like there's too many for us to tag 'em all one by one, esp if some admin's just going to have to delete them one by one afterwards. Thoughts? --jwanders^Talk 04:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to try using one modified AfD for all the mast stubs, using the List of masts article (in which they are all listed and linked) as a kind of anchor. I'd greatly appreciate any input on this mutant AfD ;-) --jwanders^Talk 04:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Trouble with Templates[edit]

I'm having trouble knowing how to evaluate the neglected templates. The instructions on the main page say to check "what links here" to see if it's being used, but WP:TFD says this isn't enough because the template could only be used with "subst:" and thus not backlinked. I'm not sure how else to determine whether or not a given template is active. --jwanders^Talk 06:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Template:PROD? Sorry, I just came to this page today myself. I'm impressed with what you've done here, especially so quickly. Maurreen 06:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, insomnia's a wonderful thing, lol ;-)

Prodding says it's only supposed to be used for mainspace articles... Now, I'm not above ignoring rules when I need to, now and again, but I can't even evaluate whether or not any of the template should be deleted in the first place! I think it's because successful templates have so much in common with our current definition of a neglected article: one person writes it, it works, and no one else ever need touch it. UUf the initial writer was a serial anon or couldn't be bothered logging in that day, poof, it scores around 800 on the neglect scale.

I think we might just have to leave templates out of the neglected article hunt; I can't imagine a few unused templates take up many project resources, and no user would ever see them by accident. --jwanders^Talk 07:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. Maurreen 07:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OLD DATA[edit]

This project is based on a data load from January 2006, it is now January 2007. Does anybody maintain this project or is it time to be put out to pasture? Jeepday 15:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be much activity (no responses to the above comment!) so I vote to shelve it. MrArt 09:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]