Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles requested for more than a year

Please add all new comments on the bottom.

Please note, not all comments are in date-sequential order.

Reciprocal linking

Just wanted to point out that some of the links to the pages are due to the links being listed here in the first place. I suggest that some caution should be executed before backlinking special pages including user pages. Bfg 21:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you are saying. meatclerk 23:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)bv

Some of the pages uses scripts to update themselves. See for instance User:MCH-Bomb#Work requested by Wikipedia community, which listed the article request Rhoma Irami. But he didn't manually list the entry, the entry was just automatically gathered from this project page. There is no point in listing such pages as linking an article, as they provide no extra information. Bfg 07:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I though that was what you were saying, but I was not clear. I agree that listing duplicated listing that are auto-bot-created makes no good sense. But how do I differentiate that from users working on a project. Like Pachypodium_ambongense, checking the backlinks to User:Tdwin476 and reading, indicates this is a long term project. Very nasty and very involved. I noted it and watch it, but that's all I can do. It was on the Category:Cleanup_by_month list, but I changed it to expert verify. In truth this person should cut back his ambitions, but who am I to say so - I have my own.

Your comments? meatclerk 02:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I am working oin this as I go along. Bearian 22:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I accidently forgot to log in at User:71.245.156.223 when I removed two blue links. Sorry folks. Bearian 23:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Law

I am in the process of creating Stubs for all AR1 legal articles. I have been making Redirects to others that really should be put in with other articles, or are common mis-spellings. Finally, after a few days, I will erase the Blue Links. Is that O.K.? Do I need to create any special notes? Comments? Bearian 20:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am cleaning up some Blue links now.Bearian 14:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Should Legal services be redirected to Legal aid society? I'm not certain what is meant by legal services -- does it mean the Legal Aid Society, which provides free legal services to the poor, or does it mean a Retainer of a law firm, or the services that Lawyers provide? I'm just going to redirect, in a few days, if nobody else gets to it. Bearian 19:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal aid may me a better redirect target than the country specific Legal Aid Society; however, my personal view is that legal services is such a vague term that it probably shouldn't be an article at all. - SimonP 20:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I will redirect Legal services to Legal aid. Bearian 21:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Allocation questionnaire is done! It's a British legal form. I learned a lot. We should have such a form in New York. Bearian 21:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Cessate does not appear to be more than a simple definition, i.e., to end, complete, extinguish, halt, especially in Real estate law. It also can refer to the process of change of status from Executory to Executed. Should this be redirected or created as a stub? I don't think it's notable enough for a separate article. Bearian 18:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Execution also exists as a disambiguation page. Would this be a better redirect? Bearian 23:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have made more suggested redirects for several articles in the Politics and law subsection. Bearian 19:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I won't have a chance to work on more new articles until 10 April at earliest, but will cut out Blue links now. Bearian 18:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
What should be done with In house counsel and House counsel? I suggest redirecting them to General counsel , and perhaps adding a brief note re: synonyms and related terms. Bearian 14:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected House counsel to General counsel. In-house counsel is already redirected to Attorney. In house (without the dash) is redundant. Bearian 23:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I redirected Uni-causal to Causation (law). Bearian 23:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Ancillary administration and Approach the witness are done! - Bearian 23:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Jus inter gentes is done, but I'm not really happy with it. Help?. Bearian 00:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Assigned risk is started. That was a hard one. It will need a lot more work for information on other states. Anyone? Bearian 22:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Attachment of earnings is done. Someone else did Interlineation. Bearian 22:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Attorney of record is done. Bearian 21:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Deficiency judgment is done. I have also created a dead link to Deficiency judgement, and redirected it to the former stub. :-) Bearian 20:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected some artcles. Determinable has been linked to Fee simple. I've created a new section for Easements for floating easement -- an instant merge. Bearian 19:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet more Politics/Law articles

What's going on? Some of the same old, and some more, keep popping up. I don't think I'll finish these all by 1 May 2007. Bearian 20:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Could Paramount title have something to do with right of property as discussed inTitle (property), or Right to property? Bearian 20:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal advertising is done. I'm proud of it, but not so proud you can't help edit. :-) I've also added more text and references to the related Shockvertising. Bearian 01:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm on vacation, and will do minimal creation of articles for a day or two. Jump right in! Bearian 18:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I erased "Shower Man T from Boundary". I have no idea what the hell that is. It doesn't belong here, and a Google search found nothing outside of WP. Bearian 18:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I completed Cumis counsel and redirected some other articles. Bearian 20:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted some blue links, but mis-labeled the notes as red links. Sorry. Bearian 20:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Progress! I created In open court, and had to create disambiguation remarks at Appearance, Open Court Publishing Company and Open Court Reading. I'm redirecting Marital Rights to Marital life estate. Also, I'm redirecting Redetermination to Appeal and Reassesment to Assessment. Bearian 21:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm working slowly on these. Bearian 23:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Quasi-criminal is quasi-done. :-) I've also created some redirects for other legal articles. Bearian 17:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done, since June 1, a number of articles, including Assisted person, Dominant estate, Escrow instructions, Irreparable damage or injury and Last antecedent rule. Also, I've redirected Negative declaration to Not and included more information through there in Environmental impact statement. I have made several other redirects. Bearian 21:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have been a bit slow on adding new articles and stubs. I added a section on Notice of appeals to Appeal. Still working on the otthers. Bearian 04:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• I created Peremptory Mandamus and redirected Peremptory writ of mandate to the former. Bearian 23:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Plaint number is done. I also redirected Paramount title as may be seen. I created Unspecified claim as well. Bearian 20:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Blue links

There was bot awhile ago that was deleting blue links from this page. Has this been turned off, or what? Just curious... Mashford 16:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

More articles done

This week, I completed District registry and Originating application. I also redirected District registrar and Reach through claims to material created in other articles. Bearian 15:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles requested for more than a year?

The very top of wiki page says "Articles that have been requested, but not created, prior to 5 February 2005." Sounds like articles older than a year to me. Shouldnt all these articles be placed in the "Articles requested for more than two years" page? Thanks for the info in advance. calaka 19:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's requests for more than a year, but less than two years. — Northgrove 15:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Günther (music)

Since I'm not 100% sure if "(music)" is intended to refer to something else than the artist Mats Söderlund, I didn't do it myself, but if it's about the same person as the artist who call himself Günther, a redirect to that article is probably sufficient. — Northgrove 15:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes! you're right. Chubbles 06:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Updating

Just wondering about the updating system for this page...it looks like User:SimonP used to do the dumping here; is there a regular crew of people who look this over? Is it possible to have a bot update the page? Chubbles 16:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am guessing a new approach is in place? For example, he is waiting for all of the articles to either be created/redirected/ or removed for being non-notable before he brings out a new batch of articles to be created. That's just my guess though. Maybe he simply forgot to update :p. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

inline style vs list

I find the inline style hard to read and browse, and would prefer a bulleted list (possibly multicolumn) Jasy jatere 09:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Cubop

I'm not sure if this page is still active or not, but I'm removing Afro-Cubop for music because a stub already exists for Cubop which is just a shorter term for the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Namaps (talk • contribs) 00:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to redirect the article afro cubop to cubop if you want :). That way, there wont be anyone requesting afro cubop again :). Cheers!Calaka (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The results of the discussion were Unmerge Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year and Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than two years. -- Bebestbe (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Requesting a change in the location of this page. We are coming up on the one-year anniversary of any articles being added to this list, so it is now de facto comprised almost entirely of articles requested more than two years ago; in fact, most of the redlinks here were requested three to four years ago. Since there is no real effort to work through the article requests pages, and since article creation has been deemphasized as a priority in the past year or so, it seems unfeasible for any group of editors to keep up with the (massive) volume of requests such that they could be filled or denied within one year's time. Chubbles (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: see also the conversation here on an idea for organizing request information. Chubbles (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I say leave it where it is. At this point the rate of filling these requests is pretty low so I don't see much point in expending energy on sorting out how old all these requests are, especially if it's something we'll have to redo every year. Better to spend the energy doing more useful things. Just my two cents. Kaldari (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should mark it as inactive/historical? Chubbles (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than two years. Bebestbe (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's precisely where I was going. Chubbles (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that you commented in that MfD. The problem raised at that MfD is that there was no one to maintain the two-year page. I think Articles requested for more than two years gives significantly more motivation to others to create the articles, so if you want to populate and manage Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than two years the MfD reasoning no longer applies. Please feel free to populate Articles requested for more than two years. Bebestbe (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no one willing to populate these pages. Hasn't been for nearly a year, see? There is no convenient mechanism for doing so, and I don't know how SimonP did it; perhaps he was doing it by hand, although I presume he probably had some kind of automated help. Chubbles (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the recreation of the wikiproject Articles not created for 2 years if it can be regulated as it once was. If you are happy to Chubbles, I suggest you go for it and take control over these 2 pages. (I am not sure what happened to simonP but yes he was updating them previously and seemed to be doing so in an automated fashion. Perhaps he used the AWD tool? Anyhow you have proven a more than compitent person to do this shown by the large number of articles you have created from this list and the many you have analyzed and subsequently removed for being non-notable. I am currently during exam mode (but i saw this on my watchlist and I hence had to say a quick message of support) so I am unable to stay here long, but when I come back do expect a barnstar ;).

Oh and good job Bebestbe for the excellent pruning/article creation from that list. This list will almost be finished! I can feel it haha. Cheers all!Calaka (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Ignoring this list, we should be able to wittle down this project before the July 16, 2008 turnover date. Bebestbe (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Bot_requests#.22oldrequestbot.22_for_Articles_requested_for_more_than_...

I posted a bot request here to see whether a bot can be created to perform the sorting updates. Bebestbe (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In implementing this bot request, β^{_{command 2}} requires that new posts to WP:AR1 and WP:AR2 be in a particular format ("we would need to impliment a method for timestamping these request, and maintaining constant formating of the pages. we would need a template {{requested article|John jane doe}} and a HTML comment for each line with a timestamp <!-17:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)-> if we can do this then creating a bot to maintain those pages will be no big deal. it will be able to maintain old lists and remove the pages that get created.") If you object, please post here. Otherwise, we'll go forward with the time stamp and other changes. Bebestbe (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

See my response, but the tool that I am adding should make this easier. it will go through the page history and find when it was added and add a timestamp for that result. a early version is User:Betacommand/Sandbox. Once this is done we can be a lot more flexible with indexing these request and working with future request. any suggestions would be welcome. β^_command 02:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The format changes may affect Wikipedia:Requested articles, so I copied info from this page to here to that talk page. Bebestbe (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Update

I've been manually putting together an update for this page. This is the first for about a year, and I've really noticed how much longer it is taking for requests to be cleared. When I created these pages more than 80% of requests were filled each year. Now that number is more like 10%. I personally don't feel that AR1 is useful with those numbers. Copying a full 90% of the requests page helps nobody. To get a useful list of aged requests I've actually gone back a full three years to June 22, 2005. There are a probably about a thousand remaining requests from that date, which is a manageable number for an AR# page. If anyone wants to see for themselves, here are some past editions of the Applied arts and sciences requests pages:

• June 22, 2007 about 90% redlinks
• June 22, 2006 about 70% redlinks
• June 22, 2005 about 20% redlinks
• June 22, 2004 no valid redlinks

- SimonP (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Simon. When a request reaches an AR# page, sometimes it is concluded that the topic is not notable and the request is removed from the AR# page. Is there a way to ensure that the original request does not makes its way back onto the AR#? As for updating the AR# pages, we should have WP:AR1, WP:AR2, WP:AR3 pages. If it only makes sense to update WP:AR3, then perhaps that is what we should doe. Having WP:AR3 will make the back log clearer and give a stronger sense of urgency than listing the three year old requests on WP:AR1. We should only need WP:AR1, but until that time, we should have WP:AR2 WP:AR3 as well. Bebestbe (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The way I update these pages is I go through the redlinks on the aged requests page and check the "What links here" to make sure they are still listed on one of the current request pages. Thus as long as a request is removed from the main requests page when it is found to be invalid, it won't appear here by my method. At the moment I think it only makes sense to have an AR3 page. Both AR1 and AR2 would have thousands of links more than is useful. - SimonP (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The requests for AR1 and AR2 probably could be worked on just as easily where they are now rather than move them to AR1 and AR2 where they would still be behind AR3 requests. Checking the "What links here" link for each article is a lot of work. Hopefully, the bot will free us of this. Are the associated requests on the main article request page (AR) removed when the request is added to ARX? If not, then subsequent removal of an unfilfilled request only at ARX will leave the request at the main article request page where it eventually will make its way back on ARX. This might cause overlap in efforts. Bebestbe (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've always left requests both at the main AR page and at the ARX page. Thus if you do find a request is invalid, you should make sure to remove it from all the request pages it might be listed on. - SimonP (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Guytons PV Graph

This is the same as a Pressure volume diagram i believe. It could just be a stub added to that article if neccessary --Runnersrock (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Where do the links link to

hi there i was thinking about maybe tackling an article or two here but some of the artists for instance could be one of 2 artists of the same name, is there any way to find out what page is listing the article to be created? as this would shed more light on the subject Chopki (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability (people)

So I've been clearing away the Artists section for the last week or so and I see that some articles still seem to be around because there are questions as to a person's notability. Can I suggest a general consensus for AR1 that if you can't find *any* information relating to a specific person on search engines (and/or Google,) then that person probably isn't notable, by default? If the artist is from an older period, and now deceased, it only stands to reason that hey, if we (the human population, in general) haven't heard of them, and aren't talking about them yet, we probably aren't going to, especially when noone has written about them already. I would be quite comfortable removing the remaining Artist redlinks as they stand as of today, because I've looked hard for a mention, and I'm not getting anything. If anyone has any suggestions for an art WikiProject that may be able to contribute their expertise and knowledge re:paper sources, go for it. Interloper557 (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree! If someone does find something in the future then no one is stopping them from adding the name back to request the article or even make the article themselves. Good job on the clearance.Calaka (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

actually i had been using this page as a reference for work to do on wikipedia. For example i am creating an article on ringo manga (see my user templates). Please will you redirect me to a page with more articles for creation. EDIT: found the links at the bottom of the project page ^_^. EdGilmour (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Automation

The content for this page appears very outdated. Couldn't the additions to this page be automated with a bot? I.e. for each of the requested article sub-pages:

1. compare the requested article page content from a year ago to the current requests
2. if an entry is not already in the list, insert it to a page listing old requests in that sub-topic, organized by section header.
3. as the final step of the bot job, re-order the sub-pages.

Those sub-pages would then be included here. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

"Miscellaneous" heading

Why is there a heading "Miscellaneous" but no content? George8211 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)