Wikipedia talk:The 50,000 Challenge/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Discrepancy

Resolved

Currently, there is a discrepancy between the main page's "article achievements" list and Category:Articles created or improved during WikiProject United States' 50,000 Challenge because someone added this category to Template:WPEUR10k. I removed this category and posted a note on the template's talk page. Some of the tagged Europe articles still appear in the U.S. category, but I am hoping this will resolved itself soon. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. I refreshed these tagged talk pages and the category is no longer applied. Consider this resolved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

One of these articles is at AfD

Resolved

Women's March on Seattle was nominated for deletion. It may need expansion to survive as standalone. - Brianhe (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

 Kept ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming "420 collaboration"

You are invited to participate in the upcoming

"420 collaboration",

which is being held from Saturday, April 15 to Sunday, April 30, and especially on April 20, 2017!

The purpose of the collaboration, which is being organized by WikiProject Cannabis, is to create and improve cannabis-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in a variety of fields, including: culture, health, hemp, history, medicine, politics, and religion.

50,000 Challenge participants may be particularly interested in the following:
Cannabis in the United States (Category:Cannabis in the United States).

For more information about this campaign, and to learn how you can help improve Wikipedia, please visit the "420 collaboration" page.

Any editors feel like creating/improving some cannabis-related articles and tagging their talk pages with two banners?! :p ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

People's Climate March (2017)‎

Resolved

Is anyone here willing to remove the deletion tag at People's Climate March (2017)‎ per WP:SNOWBALL? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride - June

WPUS50 participants are invited to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects throughout the month of June as part of the fourth annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign. Feel free to add new and expanded content on the project's Results page. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Related project page nominated for deletion

Resolved

I nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject North America/The North America Destubathon for deletion. Feel free to take a look at the talk page, or contribute to the ongoing discussion. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

NewPageSearch

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge/NewPageSearch

Some state WikiProjects have helpful links. If anyone wants to volunteer to monitor one or more of these lists, and log their checks, please note your ability to help. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please clarify for me? Are we counting 50,000 applicable articles created by editors participating in the project or are we counting 50,000 articles in an applicable category across Wikipedia? The latter way looks like it will tilt heavily towards article creation over clean-up and improvement. Knope7 (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, should I stop scanning article alerts? I was just trying to articles within the project's scope. There is the added benefit of editors learning about the campaign via talk page banners. (I suspect at least a couple campaign participants found there way from the banners.) But, if we want to take a much more organic approach, I can slow down. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I'll go along with consensus, but I am personally against adding articles created by editors who have not chosen to participate in this project. I am also opposed to adding mass created stubs to the article count, unless those stubs are thorough. I think it's a great idea to try and recruit those editors into the project and encourage them to wait to submit articles until they are start quality or at least well sourced and informative stubs. Knope7 (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I've stopped looking through "new page searches" to tag new U.S. articles. I'm now just making sure talk pages are tagged appropriately when new entries are added to the "article achievements" list. Or, I am updating the "article achievements" list when I see new entries in the campaign category because someone tagged talk pages. In other words, I am reconciling the list and category. I am not bothered by stub blitzes and appreciate new article creations. If quality and start-class articles are the primary goals here, then we need to establish more specific rules. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. Knope7 (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

In the not-too-distant past, there were mechanisms developed by/for state WPs to monitor recent changes to the project's articles. The one which WP Alaska had was never properly maintained and was subsequently deleted as "routine maintenance" by an admin not involved with the project and with no discussion or consensus. I haven't paid much attention to whether such mechanisms still exist. If they do, perhaps they could be added to the above subpage and monitored in order to address Knope's concerns. As I overlooked this discussion and no one has expressly told me otherwise, I've been monitoring the new Alaska articles log for possible additions to the list. I've taken a subjective approach to such, focusing on article quality or potential for such and not just automatically adding every single thing. I don't really see what the problem is with that. If we're going to limit this to those editors actively contributing, we're going to see more scenarios like the list filling up with copycat permastubs on geographic locations, articles which mostly lack any content besides an infobox and a link to GNIS. I'm seeing more and more of these every time I browse the list, and a random sampling of those articles offers no indication that this is being done with article quality in mind (more on that below). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Sorry, no longer interested in participating — I'm seeing far too much subpar crap that will never have potential being created and vigorously defended, plus I'm seeing far too much micromanagment / meddling going occurring on the project side from the same few editors. There's too much of that going on across the encyclopedia in general for me to put up with little fiefdoms of same being created hither and yon on top of it. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Articles

The idea is that people choose to join the challenge and contribute specifically towards it, not just a collection of every new article created. And the emphasis is more on existing quality improvements. New entries are fine but stubs which are just a single paragraph I think we'd be best leaving them out. The problem we have is that most people ignore the mess and just create new entries, so the mechanism with the challenge and contest is more designed at motivating people to improve more articles which are already stubs etc. Let's try to get people on board with this and contributing here themselves, it'll be slow getting off the ground but will be better for it long term. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll quit monitoring article alerts, then. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I added this call to action to the campaign page: "We also need volunteers to monitor one or more of these lists for new and expanded articles. Sign up to help!" Should this be removed? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't mind haha, I really appreciate what you've done so far and the effort you've made to get this off and running. It's just it is intended to be an active challenge, with more focus on basic quality improvements than # of stubs or entries. If you could alert the people who are contributing these articles instead, invite them to add articles here on their own accord, that would work best in the long term as it will be a lot of work to monitor 50,000 articles!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

For tracking GA/FA nominations and promotions...

Please feel free to update. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Location of this

Shouldn't we put this on the main page, or at least the top of the page in a notice?— JJBers|talk 00:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't mind. Currently the instructions just ask editors to bold GA/FA articles following successful nominations. I don't mind having a place to showcase promoted work, but right now we just have two nominated GAs. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

For tracking proposed article merges and deletions...

Feel free to update as the campaign continues. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Reminder: Ancestry of Donald Trump was redirected. Need to update the article achievements list accordingly... ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Dreamland Villa, Arizona

Dreamland Villa, Arizona was noted on the list as having been nominated for deletion. The AFD closed as keep within the past day or so. Unfortunately, as I referred to in my comments at that AFD, this is evidently encouraging the article's creator to also create a slew of similar articles of even less substance merely to eliminate redlinks in a list which has long been problematic and long been ignored. I don't see how it helps readers who may be browsing a category to come across an untold number of articles consisting of little more than an infobox and a GNIS link, as it can only appeal to those too lazy or stupid to just go straight to GNIS to get the exact same information. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Sorry, no longer interested in participating — I'm seeing far too much subpar crap that will never have potential being created and vigorously defended, plus I'm seeing far too much micromanagment / meddling going occurring on the project side from the same few editors. There's too much of that going on across the encyclopedia in general for me to put up with little fiefdoms of same being created hither and yon on top of it. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I applaud those who create stubs...! ---Another Believer (Talk) 09:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Confederate flag?

An item was just added with the CSA flagicon. Oklahoma would seem more appropriate to me as this is WP United States, which CSA is decidedly not... - Brianhe (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Fixed —JJBers|talk 03:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Red links at 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

I created the article 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, which is currently nominated for deletion. That's fine and all, but I'm noticing there are some red links appearing throughout the article if WPUS50 participants want to help turn red links blue. Thanks for your consideration! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@MB298: Knowing you've created many other political bio stubs, you might be interested. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America

If other editors are interested in helping, I've created many redirects to this page: List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America. It would be really helpful to create stubs for many of these entries, especially given the ongoing debate in the U.S. re: Confederate memorials and monuments. I invite all to help with this effort. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Statues in the National Statuary Hall Collection

Participants are invited to create and expand articles about individual statues within the National Statuary Hall Collection. See the following link for discussion: Talk:National_Statuary_Hall_Collection#Standalone_article_for_each_sculpture. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

"420 Collaboration" 2018

BTW, the 420 Collaboration to create and improve cannabis-related content runs through the month of April. Challenge participants are invited to participate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Archive List Numbering Problem

Hi wikipedians, there was a number display problem in the archive listing. I fixed it. Removed # in front of the "

  • " and moved it to the first item. Thanks, SWP13 (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

    Help needed for new list for 5001

    The list ends at 5000. Need to start a new list 5001-5500. Thanks, SWP13 (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

    SWP13,  Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

    Welcome

    Welcome, or Aloha as they'd say in the islands!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

    The initial stage will be to try to get enough interested people to set up a challenge for as many states as possible. Those which only have one or two and not enough can just contribute to the main list here, but feel free anybody to begin adding entries to this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

    Previously-created drafts

    Would drafts created prior to the challenge, but not significantly expanded/moved into the mainspace until November, count? I've been meaning to clear my backlog of drafts (in various stages of readiness), but would put it on the backburner for the challenge. SounderBruce 22:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

    I am not the primary campaign organizer, but I'd say yes. The goal of this campaign, as far as I can tell, is to create and expand existing stubs, so implementing an expanded draft of a nonexistent mainspace article seems fair to me (assuming the draft was expanded in November or later, too). Others are welcome to disagree with me -- without specific rules, we are going to have some hypotheticals and subjectivity here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
    I have some drafts too. I'll probably do it. - Brianhe (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

    List of new articles

    Currently, the campaign page asks contributors to list new/expanded articles at the bottom of the list. This list is going to get long pretty quickly. Are we sure we don't want to organize the list alphabetically, and/or by state? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

    @Another Believer: I think by state would be the most reasonable idea. MB298 (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    I'm not opposed, though it might be easier to wait a while then go through and sort/separate the entries. Also, some articles are about more than one state, or are American biographies not specifically associated with a single state. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    @Another Believer: I've created a state-by-state sorting, figuring it would be easier to start now when there are less than 40 entries than when there are several hundred. There is also a "Generic U.S." section at the end where your mentioned articles can go. MB298 (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks. The separate lists makes it hard to calculate the total number of entries (to reconcile with the category), but at the same time it's helpful to see sublists by state. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

    Thanks for developing this, but the people who created those articles need to know about this and be willing to contribute themselves of course. Let's keep it as a general 1-50,000 list, as it will be too difficult to monitor percentage progress with 50 separate ones, but we can create some 1000 sub challenges on sub pages for NY, NJ, Oregon, Washington etc if there is the support and then they can be tipped into this every 100 entries. If anybody can get together a minimum of five active editors for a state challenge I'll create a separate list page. Another reason why it needs ot be a big general list is that some states are way more active than others, NYC would reach 1000 much sooner than Iowa or something. However, if we run a destubathon then we'll organize it by state and have people listing their entries under the given state on the page and we could aim for a target of a certian number of destubs for each state and give a prize to the person who does the most in the time of the contest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

    I am fine with a single list, at least for now because reconciliation and tracking will be much easier. It is going to get mighty long though. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    We'll archive like Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge, no worries :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

    Keeping watchlists clean

    Perhaps moving the contributions/counts to a subpage and transcluding it on the main page would be a better idea. My watchlist is currently clogged with entries, when I would rather be watching the talk page for changes. SounderBruce 04:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

    @SounderBruce: Ah! Of course. Sorry. I moved the logs to Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge/NewPageSearch, which I transcluded above (hopefully correctly). Is this what you had in mind? ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
    @Another Believer: I was referring to the "Article achievements" section. SounderBruce 04:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
    Oh, I see. Well, hopefully the change I described above helps to keep this talk page cleaner, too. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

    East and West Coast Challenge

    Already seeing that much of the support is East and West. @Pyrusca:, @Knope7:, @Alansohn:, @Epicgenius:, @JJBers:, MWright96 if you like I could set up WikiProject United States/The 10,000 East Coast Challenge as a sub challenge of this, and WikiProject United States/The 10,000 West Coast Challenge covering Oregon, Washington and CA etc MB298,Brianhe, Another Believer, SounderBruce? That might have more momentum than individual state challenges with low support. Those would run by themselves and we'd then "tip" the entries into this main list every 100 articles or so. Up to you. This is off to a good start already so perhaps lets focus on just a main one for a while..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

    Perhaps if we had five regional ones based on File:Census Regions and Division of the United States.svg, and split the west into south west and north/northwest we could split it into 5 rather than for each state, but it would need support to justify ones for each region. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
    Ok, that sounds like a good idea, but isn't at the same time. For the west, Califonia would fill this list, with Washington taking the 2nd. And in the east, states like New Hampshire and Maine would be useless and inactive. But in general this sounds like a decent idea.— JJBers|talk 15:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
    Good proposal. MWright96 (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
    I'm ok with regions. Maybe we could combine regions and the state by state goals? We could have five regional pages, and each could set smaller goals for individual states. It might help to either set lower goals (like maybe 200 or 300 per state) and then increase for the more active states or just set different goals to begin with so that a state like New York has a goal of 1,000 and a state like Vermont can have a goal of 200. I like the idea of keeping state specific goals to give us more achievable goals to work towards and also encouraging work on states that might otherwise get left on the sidelines. I had already been planning on picking up a less active state once states like New York and New Jersey hit their initial goals. Knope7 (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
    It looks like the most active states will be New York, New Jersey, and Washington.— JJBers|talk 16:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
    I think it may be too early to tell. We only have 17 people signed up total. There's still a lot of room to grow. Knope7 (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
    I would wait to early-2017 (most likely January) to start and subprojects. I'm going to try to get a commission banner request for this challenge to generate more attention.— JJBers|talk 23:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
    I think it's better not to wait that long. Some editors are already at work on articles. I also think some on the sidelines might be more inclined to join when they have a better picture of this project in action. I don't see the harm in setting up regional pages, or at least pages for the regions that already have interested editors. If we're going state by state, then maybe hold back on the states without any expressed interest, but I would rather see a few pages start to take shape. Knope7 (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

    Invitation template

    I've created an invitation template, inspired by Happybluemo's take on the classic Uncle Sam poster. MB298 (talk) 02:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

    Thanks! I wonder if this is something that could be mass messaged to WP United States members? ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

    Yes Ser Amantio di Nicolao can take charge of that sometime, but he's already overworked and underpaid here with invitations and AWB edits! I think for the time being let's try to get a momentum going, get many of the regulars on board and start to build it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

    Oh, I don't mind - got one thing on my task list ahead of it, but I can go ahead and run this whenever you need it done. I should have a chunk of free time tonight. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
    👍 Like ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
    Thumbs up icon Great! — JJBers|talk 15:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
    @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Thanks! I see it has been sent. MB298 (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
    Yep. Finally figured out the mass messaging tool. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

    Redirects expanded into articles

    Those count, right? What should I list them as? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

    @Muboshgu: New article, I would assume. MB298 (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
    That's what I thought, but wanted to check in. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
    +1 ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

    Scope

    Currently, the scope includes the 50 U.S. states. Do we want to expand the scope to include Washington, D.C. and/or other territories? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

    Yes DC and The Territories can have sections, we can include Puerto Rico, Guam etc, feel free to add them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

    Okay, so a complete list of US territory includes:

    There are also former territories and occupied foreign territories (though there are none currently occupied) - Wikidemon (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

    Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge/New England

    Resolved

    I feel that New England is ready for a 5,000 challenge with 833 articles per state. Do you guys agree? Or should it wait for a while?— JJBers|talk 18:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

    Hint: Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire are all part of this.

    I'd support that yup, but you'll have to get together some really active editors to make it work. User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao I know can help with alerting people on this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

    Sub-campaign instructions

    I changed the instructions on sub-campaign pages so note than new/expanded articles with check marks means the entry also appears on the campaign's main page. Reconciling the multiple lists and campaign category becomes impossible when all talk pages are tagged, but entries only appear on subpages. I think sub-campaigns are fine, but we should consider the main page list a "master list" of all articles created/improved by the parent (50,000) challenge. If others disagree, please discuss here. Thank you. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

    @Another Believer: You know the more I think about this the more I think you were right originally to split it by state. Easier to maintain a list on one page. Do you want to reorganize by state and have percentage bars for 1-1000 for each?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

    I'll let others decide the framework of the campaign. I am mostly trying to make sure articles are tagged and reconcile the master list with the sublists and category. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
    OK, as long as it doesn't get too much for you to handle. It won't be everywhere with a sub contest anyway, just those which have enough editors to sustain separate ones. Thankyou for all you've done so far!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

    Dividing Articles

    Alright, it may be real early, but constantly dividing by 250 is going to get annoying once we get to something like 2,500 articles. I propose by then we start dividing by 500, then by around 5,000 start dividing into 1,000 article tables with 2 sub tables, 500 each, then around 25,000 start diving into 5,000 article tables, then 1,000 and down to 500. Then at 50,000, divide to two 25,000 article tables, and then down the list to 500. Just a proposal for the near (or far) future. — JJBers|talk 22:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

    I wasn't planning on archiving in chunks of 250. I was planning on increasing the collapsed list to 500, then 750, then 1,000, as the number of entries grew. I am not so concerned with how we archive ultimately, I am just trying to keep the main page clean and the master list complete. :) ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
    I forgot to mention, these sub-divides are inside the table...whoops.— JJBers|talk 23:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

    Progress

    The above comment was added by User:JJBers Public, but I figured it should be a credited comment for discussion instead of an anonymous talk page banner. JJBers, feel free to revert, I rarely edit comments by other users but figured we should follow standard talk page discussion format. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

    It's fine, I just wanted to tell people the rate and remind to try to pick up the pace without dropping quality.—JJBers|talk 17:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
    Thumbs up icon ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

    Requested articles: albums

    If editors who might enjoy creating new album articles, Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Albums may offer some suggestions. Of course, this list is not limited to U.S. artists, but you will recognize some American musicians/groups. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

    tl;dr

    Every article counts that was made beyond 00:00 November 1 , 2016 (UTC) Thanks!—JJBers|talk 21:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

    Women in Red redlist

    WP:WikiProject Women in Red/Military#United States may provide inspiration for project members. Many have multiple links to references that could help a researcher get started. - Brianhe (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

    👍 Like ---Another Believer (Talk) 09:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

    Participant userbox

    Would it be all right if I were to make a participant userbox? It would say something along the lines of "This user is currently participating in The 50,000 Challenge. You can help!" JTP (talk • contribs) 21:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

    Yes! And I would proudly post it on my userpage. - Brianhe (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    @NotTheFakeJTP: Do you have a link to the userbox yet? If you do can you put it here.—JJBers|talk 17:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
    @Brianhe and JJBers: The userbox can be found at User:NotTheFakeJTP/50kUBX. JTP (talk • contribs) 20:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

    Edit: Should this be moved to the Wikipedia: namespace or as a subpage of Wikipedia:The 50,000 Challenge? I was curious as currently it is just a subpage of my userpage. JTP (talk • contribs) 18:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

    Backlog

    Recommend accepting (checking off) Arizona populated place articles by Onel5969 en masse to help reduce the backlog. - Brianhe (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

    I would oppose. I think the populated place articles are borderline acceptable for the project as many of them 1) say that it is a popular place 2) provide a map location and 3) provide an elevation. I just looked at a few that don't have population or any other feature which might meaningfully distinguish these populated places.. We should want more developed stubs and I would prefer to encourage editors with an interest in Arizona or populated places add more substance to the stubs. I think if we accept stubs en masses than we are not providing an incentive to improve the amount of content in stubs. Knope7 (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
    Hmm, well I'm not sure this is the right venue to oppose the articles. The purpose of the check mark is just to say that it met the criteria for the 50k project. - Brianhe (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
    It is the right venue. I don't oppose the articles being on Wikipedia, I do oppose their automatic inclusion in the project. I think that we first need a clearer sense of what is an acceptable stub for the sake of the project. My understanding of the project is to improve the quality of articles. The populated place articles being created are exactly the sort of articles we should be improving and expanding. I oppose saying that all of these populated places should count as achievements for the project. I think when assessing articles for the project we should set stricter minimum standards for populated places to enoucrage more in depth coverage of these places.. Knope7 (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
    Agreed...—JJBers|talk 18:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
    So is consensus then to remove the entries for populated places that have only elevation, location, and time zone noted; for example Friendly Corners, Arizona? - Brianhe (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    I would just say bar them from future addition. I would keep the ones already there.—JJBers|talk 02:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    No. If you're gonna bar them, then bar them. I was doing these articles (of which there is very little info, but meet WP:GEO, prior to this, and will continue to do so afterwards. Was adding them in support of the project, but now, never mind. Will remove them, and the tags on the talk page. Good luck. Onel5969 TT me 03:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    @Onel5969: Please don't remove the entries already on the list. It's going to cause too much disruption. And you can contribute other articles. Just not the ones your mostly making right now.—JJBers|talk 04:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    Already done. You don't want the entries. You don't want the entries. Fine. Have removed them all, and my name from list of participants. Will remove the templates from the talk pages over the next few days. Take care. Onel5969 TT me 04:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    @JJBers: @Onel5969: This project is meant to improve articles related to the United States. It seems that for many of the place articles Onel is creating, there is very little information out there other than what's already in the article. Sure, it's a shell of an article, but it's certainly better than nothing. We're losing editors based on the restrictions currently in place.
    "However, please try to avoid creating shorter stubs and unsourced material." I agree with that statement, however if simply adding a town seal to an article qualifies for this challenge, than the Arizona place stubs created by Onel5969 most certainly qualify. Just my take, do what you want to do. MB298 (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    Agree
    I admit that I was a bit stand-offish to Onel, but I really just followed the conversation and gave Onel the heads up.—JJBers|talk 04:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    @Knope7: Please come back to this discussion.—JJBers|talk 04:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    I think the populated places should be developed a little further for the sake of the project. Being populated places implies that there are people living in these places. It may be that these articles will remain stubs based the lack of sources available. That's fine, but I think we can push these stubs a little further. I appreciate the effort put forth by @Onel5969: and I apologize if that did not come across in my previous posts. I think the strength of this project is in encouraging editors to work together on a common goal. We all want to see coverage on Wikipedia improve. Knope7 (talk) 04:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    Adding, I agree with @MB298: that adding a seal is not more significant of an improvement than creating a short stub. I would have assumed adding a seal would not count towards this project unless adding the seal was sufficient for removing a stub tag or a clean-up tag. I know there are several challenges running now that are similar to this one. I'm curious if any of them have found a simple way to decide what should be included in the project or if it is just the discretion of project organizers. Knope7 (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    No worries, Knope7, it's all good. Each article I create has as much info which is available online. When I started doing this (several months ago) I was simply creating stubs on every location which the USGS named as a "populated place". A discussion ensued at AfD on several of those articles, and so now I am staying away from creating articles on any populated places which exist within another statistical entity (unless they pass GNG on their own merit). If they are a standalone populated place, they pass GEO. On these stub articles, I put every citable fact I can into it. In many cases, there is nothing beyond what is on GNIS and Hometown Locator. In some cases, there is not even an article on Hometown. However, as I find new online sources, if there is appropriate information, it is added to the article (like with the Barnes reference I just turned up). When I began adding them to this project's page, it was to support the efforts of the editors who were putting forth the challenge. And each article I added to the list met the (at the time) requirements. Regardless, I'm out of the project now, so no more worrying about my articles. Best of luck to you all. Onel5969 TT me 02:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

    Wikipedia:The 50,000 Challenge/Appalachia

    Due to Kentucky being at 7 signatures and North Carolina being at 5 signatures, and other states being around 2-4 signatures. I would recommend starting a project similar to the New England sub-challenge with the states in the Appalachia region. This includes,  North Carolina,  Tennessee,  Kentucky,  West Virginia, and  Georgia. If you want too, any of you can create, but I would feel it would be deleted if I did.—JJBers|talk 17:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

    It sounds viable, but I'm increasingly thinking that it would be best to keep the sub challenges at a minimum and just work on one list, it's easier to keep track of everything that way.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    I am beginning to wonder about all of the parallel geographically-based challenges going on. Why? What is the point of concentrating editor attention everywhere all at once? Now there's a New England sub-challenge, which is preceding an already-planned Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The Northeast Challenge (announced on the main page here). When is any regional challenge going to close, and free up editor attention to deal with any other region? Maybe I am not understanding something obvious about how things should work. --doncram 19:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    The Northeast Challenge is a timed challenge like the African Destubathon, but not about destubing. The New England Challenge is a non-timed challenge simlar to sub-challenges.—JJBers|talk 19:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    This would also merge the North Carolina challenge, so they'll be still five challenges.—JJBers|talk 00:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    An Appalachia grouping would leave New Jersey somewhat isolated. Knope7 (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    Maybe a merge with New York?—JJBers|talk 01:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    I think that would be helpful. Another option is to create a Mid-Atlantic grouping, including Pennsylvania. The benefit to that is I think Pennsylvania is being included in the Northeast. Knope7 (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
    I think so too. I'll remove "Penn State" out of the listing for now.—JJBers|talk 05:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
    As a quick reminder, this would probably just move the original North Carolina page.—JJBers|talk 17:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

    I think we'd be best merging the state ones started into this, too much maintenance and confusion on separate pages I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

    I think it's best if we merge most of the sub challenges and drop the idea. For contests doing regional cluster ones like this is a possibility, but we just haven't the editors to sustain multiple challenges, and it confuses people on knowing where to post the articles. I've merged all but Pacific NW and New England for now. The Pacific one looks like it just about has the support to run as a sub one. I wanted to see how they'd be received as sub challenges that's all.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

    I'm saying, maybe add Arizona to the Cali/Nevada sub-challenge and keep it to talk page. Remember, removing sub-challenges causes just causes as much havoc.—JJBers|talk 17:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
    There just isn't the support to sustain it, if regulars like MelanieN have no interest in contributing then it's not going to work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
    Hey, don't use me as a reason to call anything off! 0;-D I don't happen to be into things like challenges and contests and edit-a-thons. But I assume some people are, and more power to them. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

    Shortcut for adding new articles

    I just added an article to which I made several improvements. When I went to add it to the section on "Article achievements", there is a message below the most recently added article: "Add an expanded or new article here! Click '[edit source]' to add!" I tried clicking, but there is no hyperlink. Was I looking in the wrong place? (Since there was nowhere to click, I opened the edit screen and scrolled down to the bottom, which was not a problem.) Eagle4000 (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

    It's meant to symbolize where to click in the section head to edit. Almost all hyper links will be colored blue too.—JJBers|talk 03:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

    Proposed Guidelines

    @Knope7: @JJBers: @Another Believer: @Brianhe: @Dr. Blofeld: Related to the above discussion, I think it's time to create create some simple, flexible guidelines for inclusion in this project. Here's a basic draft:

    1. New articles should include a minimum of at least three sentences or 400 characters of text.
    2. Expanded stubs should include a minimum of at least five new sentences or 800 new characters of text.
    3. Articles that have been copy-edited or significantly cleaned up, or given an infobox

    Any suggestions? MB298 (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

    I think we shouldn't constantly add rules. The whole purpose of the previous discussion because it was clogging the list. I would feel it would be a bitter better if we just didn't have this.—JJBers|talk 05:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    @JJBers: I created the guidelines as just that, guidelines, for editors working on the project to use. They're non-binding, essentially proposals. I've removed the fourth provision. MB298 (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    I agree that there needs to be minimum of three sentences and some threshold for expansions. The idea is not to record every minor edit.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
    I was thinking about it last night, and I thought of some changed to the guidelines to make it easier for entries to get in. This also helps dilute some other entries, like un-needed stubs.
    Guidelines
    • New articles should include a minimum of at least one paragraph over four sentences or 350 characters of text.
    • New articles being added to the list also have to be notable enough to survive a deletion.
    • Expanded stubs should include a minimum of at least six new sentences or 750 new characters of text.
    • Articles that have been copy-edited or significantly cleaned up, or given an infobox. Adding images to articles with a heavy need of one also qualifies to the list.
    What doesn't qualify for the list
    • New articles being under the size of the minimum threshold.
    • New articles being un-notable, or speedy-deleted.
    • Small expansions of stubs that are under the standard.
    • Additions that don't have those items, or minor edits.
    • Additions of non-free images that are easily found. (Like a short Google Image search or easily accessible documents)
    • If you feel a article qualifies for this with out meetings these standards, please sort discuss it on the talk page.
    Final Notes (Not for the main page)
    • These guidelines are non-retroactive. Please do not removed your, or other's current entries.
    • If a document is not obliviously violating this, please don't remove entries without going on the talk page and notifying the creator/editor.
    • @Another Believer: The ending of the New Page Search for adding articles. Instead it can be used to notify the editors of the challenge. Please add your own entries.
    If you have any problems or suggestions please discuss below. Thank you for taking your time to read this.—JJBers|talk 17:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

    Thank you, @MB298: for starting this discussion. I would like to see any guidelines expressly say that getting an article to Good Article status counts. It's probably already covered under significant clean-up, but hopefully making it as clear as possible that Good Articles are accepted will encourage editors to pursue that goal. I also think that the guidelines should say about cleaning-up articles that are tagged with some clean-up template.

    @JJBers: I'm not clear on what images would count under your proposed guidelines. Is it only articles tagged as needing images? Should it be articles tagged as needed images or adding multiple images? Knope7 (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

    Articles tagged with the need of images.—JJBers|talk 02:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

    Agreed that there should be guidelines. Those above sound perfectly good to me, but there should be something, even if the guidelines are "if you make any edit or create any article, go ahead and add it". Just about setting expectations and for what sort of project it is. I initially felt enthusiastic about this project in part based on seeing that short stubs and minor edits weren't included. But then in clicking through some of the links, and reading some descriptions, I saw an awful lot of very short stubs and minor additions, which admittedly affected my enthusiasm as it suggested maybe it was not what I thought it was (i.e. more of a competition than I anticipated, with people adding minimal content in order to add something to the list, or otherwise a "whatever you want to do is cool" sort of thing -- both of which have value, but neither of which is what I understood to be happening up front). In other words, guidelines describe what the project is, and should be clear and adhered to. But take that with a grain of salt, since I'm just sort of sticking my nose into an endeavor many of you are much more involved with. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

    I agree with some of your concern about minor edits, although I do think they are not yet a major problem yet. I like the idea that this challenge pushes us to do more than we might otherwise do. Still, 50,000 articles is a huge challenge. I think some of the minor improvements are not for personal satisfaction so much as attempts to move forward towards the larger goal. I think there needs to be a balance between quantity and quality. Probably the best way to drive up the numbers is to create an environment where more editors feel welcome and encouraged. If we focus on encouraging more substantive improvements (de-stubbing articles, creating quality new articles, addressing clean-up tags, and even pushing some articles to Good Article status) we'll stay on a pretty good track. Hopefully we'll keep picking up editors. Knope7 (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

    Sunset proposal: ending soon

    If not right now, how about ending this as of January 31, and then having a post-mortem discussion party. If there'd be some consensus to end this, I would like (with any other volunteer) to prepare and announce some awards for good accomplishments achieved. --doncram 01:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

    The goal is 50,000 article improvements. I see no reason to sunset this anytime soon. Knope7 (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


    I am opposed to the idea of ending this 50,000 challenge prematurely, since it has only been running for 2 months. The original mission seemed to be encouraging more participants to getting existing articles advanced from the stub class. I have seen some evidence of what seems like "mission creep" that causes diversion from the main objective. New rules have been proposed, and sometimes treated as if they were etched in stone. Then there has been considerable discussion about automated edit counts, and other housekeeping items. For what it's worth, I think we should forge ahead adding meaningful content to articles that are sometimes lacking (or just outdated) in this area. The rest can usually be fixed on the fly.
    Anyhow, thanks to all those contributors working on this project. Bruin2 (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

    Count is off

    The reported count is at 865 now, while there are currently (as of 1/1/2017) 1,365 articles identified as improved in this campaign in Category:Articles created or improved during WikiProject United States' 50,000 Challenge by placement of {{WPUS50}} on Talk pages.(There are currently 8,937 pages in the category by automatically updated count, which updates occasionally.) The discrepancy is partly that pages listed in subchallenge pages are not necessarily copied over to this main page. --doncram 01:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

    The reconciliation and tracking process became near impossible, with the many subpages, entries being added or removed based on editors' opinions as to what qualified as proper participation, etc. Bummer... I was really hoping this could have been a successful campaign. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

    PacNW subproject

    There has been steady addition of articles to the project page, but after the kerfuffle sometime in late Nov or Early Dec, no one is actually verifying articles and checking them on the list. Will someone from the main project be able to take up the task or should the project just be abandoned due to lack of any interest?--Kevmin § 00:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

    My proposal would be maybe doing semi-random checks. Instead of checking every article, maybe check one out of every 5 or 10. That would still make it possible weed out some non-qualifying entries while being less of a burden than checking every article. Knope7 (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

    Proposal

    I believe that at least for now, that three changes should be made to the sub-projects, due to the problems that have been happening to them.

    1. That the state of Arizona be added to the California/Nevada sub-project
    2. Then, merge the California/Nevada sub-project with the Northwest sub-project, renamed to the "West Coast XX,000 Challenge."
    3. With the New England sub-project, add the states of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, and Delaware to it, and rename it to the "Northeast XX,000 Challenge."

    —JJBers|talk 02:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

    I deiced to add just New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, and rename it to the 10,000 Northeast Challenge. —JJBers 22:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

    Songs

    For song articles, should they be tagged with the state the singer/band is from, or just a USA flag? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

    I think the American flag is more appropriate, unless the song has a strong connection to a specific state. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

    Draft-class United States articles

    Project participants might consider browsing Category:Draft-Class United States articles to see if there are any articles worth moving into the main space, and perhaps expanding/improving along the way. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

    Icons

    Is there a policy for adding other project icons to the list of article improvements? While it's great that the 420 Collaboration is adding articles to this, I'm not exactly wild about the idea of adding icons to the list. Right now, it looks like we add state flags, ga icons, and the 420 Collab icons. Either we should start adding more icons for other projects or I think maybe don't add the cannabis leaf. Anyone else have thoughts? Knope7 (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

    I think we shouldn't overthink this. :) ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    I think it's a fair topic for discussion. Knope7 (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    Sure, and sorry, I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I just meant I don't find them troublesome and I am comfortable with folks using or not using them. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

    American films not about America

    Should an American-made documentary about Japan be included here? I'm thinking of The Departure (2017 film). ☆ Bri (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

    Went ahead and added this documentary and credited the filmmaker's home state. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
    Sounds good. Don't overthink how close a subject should be to the U.S. to consider. The rules for this challenge are pretty loose. :) ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    How many articles aren't getting logged?

    Many, many new articles are being made that aren't added here. You have to know about this (and remember about it) in order to log an article created, expanded, or what have you. There's lots more activity at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/United States articles by quality log, but much of that may not be of use. Thoughts? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

    Is it in the spirit of the challenge to include articles by people who didn't sign up? The gap is probably mostly in that group of individuals. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    I had thought of this more as having the general goal of creating/improving WP:USA articles without as much considering this as a venue for our spirited efforts in improving the project. That's good food for thought. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    It's a bit of a tree-falls-in-the-forest thing to me. If we recognize folks who don't know about the challenge, or equivalently, folks who didn't sign up to be recognized, how does that incentivize creation or improvement by them or by anyone? Seems it only dilutes the joy for those who did sign up, making the achievement of the 50,000 bar a hollow administrative effort. But maybe that's a minority viewpoint. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    Maybe not. I just looked at this and said, "we're only 5% of the way to the goal in almost a year and a half???" as though it was a bad thing. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    The majority of USA article improvements and article creations are not listed here. Specifically vast numbers of historic site articles, and articles linked from them, by editors of WikiProject NRHP, which has its own automated tracking system at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Progress. The 50,000 challenge was set up badly IMHO in that listing is manual and required multiple edits on different pages, and it has mostly not been rewarding for editors to make listings. It is too big and vague and manual and unrewarding, unlike the small focused editing campaign in England or Wales which it was supposedly modeled upon [I meant the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon challenge which ran for one month and included prizes for winners]. It sucks away energy and goodwill that could go into better, smaller, time-limited campaigns. --Doncram (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    Here are some numbers. While The 50,000 challenge logged what, about 2,500 items (5.39% x 50,000 ?), WikiProject NRHP has logged 9,923 significant article improvements (4,767 new articles to full stub; 1,643 improvements out of sub-stub status to full stub; 3,513 separate improvements stub to Start, based on wp:NRHPPROGRESS comparison from 11/2/2016 to 3/27/2018). Which means that three to four times as many U.S. article creation or improvements are happening outside this 50,000 Challenge, from historic sites articles alone. Many more improvements in U.S. Ships, Military History, Sports, other topics. Only a small fraction of U.S. improvements are covered in this 50,000 challenge, and there is no reporting available on individual or WikiProject achievements. No prospect of any scoring, prizes, or whatever; there is just overhead here. --Doncram (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
    Well, hm. Nobody has to participate if they can't bear the overhead of logging their creations. I'm not sure I get your drift. Sure, incentives would be fun, too. Maybe – probably – we should start creating barnstars or something. I am tracking leaders as part of an effort to recognize participation. We could go further. But either calling it quits or recognizing people who don't even know that they are being counted doesn't make sense to me. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

    Editor counts

    I've made a list of editors contributing to the US50 list here. Will update when we hit 1,000 but thought people might see a sneak peek. - Brianhe (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

    Well, we hit 1,000 (congrats Yoshiman6464 for putting us over the top) and I've updated the contributor count list. - Brianhe (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Brianhe: Thank you very much. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 21:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
    Congrats to all of you who have run this project, even as I've been more inactive than ever recently. —JJBers|talk 00:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Updated the list again today. There are now more than 10 editors who have contributed more than 50 articles to the project. More than 5 have contributed more than 100 articles! ☆ Bri (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Quick update for articles 2,001 through 2,500 here. Another Believer is way out in front for this group. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @Bri: No credit needed for all my stubs, lol. Other editors are creating much better articles. :) ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Another update for articles 2,501 through 3,000 here. Another Believer leads again. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Updated for articles 3,001 through 3,500 here. Guess who has the most? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

    Article types

    It's unclear to me what kind of articles you are looking for. I spend most of my time in Wikiproject Jazz, which is certainly an American subject, though not exclusively American. If these articles work for you, then I'm in. Articles about musicians are not limited to one state. Hope that's OK. I don't want to pick a state.
    Vmavanti (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

    Lists of participants

    Feel free to revert my changes, but I've collapsed the 2 lists of participants (one separated by U.S. state, another more general), in order to reduce the amount of scrolling needed to add new entries to the list of articles. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

    Talk page banner

    Do we want a talk page template to add to articles improved by this challenge? Something along the lines of Template:ArtAndFeminism2015 article or Template:Wiki Culture Crawl 2016. These are helpful because they promote the project and can be used to categorize entries automatically (such as Category:Articles created or improved during WikiProject United States' 50,000 Challenge, or whatever). ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

    That would be great, I would do that if I the power to do so.— JJBers|talk 16:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
    I am happy to create. Does the title Template:WikiProject United States 50,000 Challenge seem appropriate, and the proposed category name above? I'd prefer some feedback from project organizers and participants before creating so we don't have to move anything later. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC) @Dr. Blofeld: Do you have preferred template and category names? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
    I'm onboard and will help as able ... ping me if you need assistance, I've done these before. Ah, edited to add -- could we get a shorter template name? Maybe {{WPUS50k}}? - Brianhe (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
    I'm certainly not opposed. Maybe we should note on the main page which new/expanded articles have had their talk page marked appropriately? Ideally, the project page and category will always show the same number of entries associated with this campaign. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

    OK, I created Template:WPUS50k, which can be added to talk pages of appropriate articles to add them to Category:Articles created or improved during WikiProject United States' 50,000 Challenge. Of course, others are welcome to edit/improve the template. Perhaps display the American flag instead of the "info" symbol? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

    Some placeholder graphics thrown in ... Brianhe (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks! Realizing now adding "2016" to the category might be misleading in the future, since this campaign may go into 2017, but maybe we can worry about that later? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC) I went ahead and created a category without "2016". If there are future campaigns, we can disambiguate then. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
    Inserted new graphic courtesy Happybluemo - Brianhe (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    I reverted your edit before seeing this comment because I thought the poster image was too large for the talk page, not it mention it caused text to wrap. However, I added the artwork to the campaign's main page, where I think it is put to best use! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    That's OK but we need to replace the right hand side placeholder. Brianhe (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    Done I guess.— JJBers|talk 15:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

    Can this banner ({{WPUS50}}) be merged into the parent {{WikiProject United States}} banner as an optional parameter? It seems like the two templates would and should never be used separately and it would slightly clean up some of the clutter on some of the busier talk pages where this template is currently present. - PaulT+/C 15:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

    @Psantora: Not every U.S. state is in WP:WP US. I think the issue on clutter is making the template collapsible when there's many projects associated or maybe even resize the image. – The Grid (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    I'm confused. By definition, every article tagged with {{WPUS50}} would necessarily also be part of {{WikiProject United States}}. I understand that the reverse is not true and that is why it would be an optional parameter of the WikiProject template and not something that would always be included. Am I missunderstanding? I'm thinking of something like this: {{WikiProject United States|WPUS50=yes}} (in addition to whatever other parameters are being used for that particular page). - PaulT+/C 20:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    I guess you're right about that - hard to think when your state's WP isn't within WP US (and that is another issue altogether that I peeked at the history) – The Grid (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

    Articles from 4Q2018

    I'm taking credit for new articles and major improvements since last quarter of 2018. Hope this is OK. Thanks, SWP13 (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC).

    Progress

    We're only going to be approx. 10% complete after 3 years?! Oof! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

    @Another Believer: 27 more years to go! AmericanAir88(talk) 20:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

    Coronavirus articles

    Hi Another Believer, your last 2 articles need your name. Thanks, SWP13 (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

    SWP13, Well, to be honest, I shouldn't take much credit for those. I've made edits to both but mostly via forking out from other articles. Both have been edited by many editors. If you'd prefer, you can add "by many editors" or similar. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
    Ok. I thought you forgot. You can give credit to yourself and others. :) SWP13 (talk)
     Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

    what is this?

    Saw this four years ago when it was created. Had to remind myself by looking at my comment above. I thought the idea of destubbifying was a good one, but people seemed to just add any old edits to the list, effectively turning it into a game/competition for WikiProject United States. That's fine, I guess, but four years on, I can't imagine anyone is destubbing articles for this who wasn't going to destub that article otherwise, so it just seems like it's now a counter to see how many articles we create/edit about [a country that's not hurting for representation on the English Wikipedia], rather than an active drive/competition. I was surprised to see the tag some George Floyd protest articles. Presumably it's because my name is on the participants list? IMO what a WikiProject (or other group) wants to do to keep track of how many articles we have is well and good -- I'm not not so sure a four-year-old drive is a good use of article talk page banner space (I certainly haven't created any articles as part of this drive since it started). Hope that doesn't come off as harsh -- it just got me wondering what the point of a drive is if it lasts for years, there are no standards for inclusion, and its participants don't actually know they're participating. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

    Rhododendrites, Thanks for sharing your thoughts here. I'll reply as someone who recently added the challenge banner to many George Floyd protest articles. I don't have a strong opinion about this challenge's future. There seem to be a few editors who remember to update the list after working on U.S.-related articles, but perhaps this is a bit arbitrary? As for the protest articles, I really consider the state/city articles forks of the parent and U.S. list, so I was just trying to attribute editors' collective work on those and related pages. You are welcome to remove the banners from pages if you wish. I really don't have strong opinions here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

    Help needed for new list for 6501

    The list ends at 6500. Need to start a new list 6501-7000. Thanks, SWP13 (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

     Done I got it ☆ Bri (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

    Removing red links

    Is it ok, if I remove the red links from the archived section so that it would be more accurate then what we currently have. HawkAussie (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

    Article Addition Questions

    Hello. I'm not exactly a new Wikipedia editor at this point, but I've only semi-recently started looking beyond just making articles, and into the more behind the scenes administration of Wikipedia, and I have some questions about the 50,000 Challenge. If there are better places I could be asking this, let me know.

    So, the 50,000 Challenge is something I found out about fairly early on, but I think I've been contributing to it incorrectly so far. I did not realize that I was supposed to put my articles on a list on the WikiProject page. My main question is this: Should I go back and put the relevant, start and lengthy stub articles (like Lorenzo T. Durand, Vernon J. Brown, and Eugene R. Cater) on this list now, even if some of the articles are more than a year old? Or should I start to just make a habit of putting new articles I make on the lists on the Wikiproject page. All of these pages have been made since the project started in 2016.

    RoundSquare (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

    Same question. I've been editing geography and biography articles for a while but didn't know about this project, can I add things I've edited since then? Or only recent edits? originalmessbusta rhyme 20:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    I don't have a sure answer for you (I had the same question when I started), but I didn't go back and add retrospective articles. I just started putting them on the list from that point on. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

    Should a German ship involved in a California investigation be added here?

    MV Rotterdam Express? Or too tenuous a US connection? I think she is regularly involved in California-Asia trade. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

    Progress Bar

    Can I update the progress bar to the current distance it should be at? Cherrell410 (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

    • Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:The_50,000_Challenge/Archive_1&oldid=1207422481"