RationalWiki talk:To do list

From RationalWiki

This page is not locked. The editing tabs have been removed to discourage people from editing the main page rather than the sub-pages. Click here to edit the main page.

I've added an editnotice for this page (if you move it don't forget to move the editnotice too. The number is the namespace number) --  Nx/talk  05:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! That's what I was whining about a month ago, your product is most awesome. ħuman 06:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I do like this. Is there a way to publicise it better? Should it take off it would be worth sticking it on the left hand menu by Saloon Bar etc. ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 12:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad you like. Yeah, I haven't figured out exactly where to put it yet. One idea is to replace the "wanted pages" (red links) line on the box over RC and WL. Perhaps the community box would be good, but I think it needs greater acceptance and use first? I suppose, looking at the RW "hierarchy" of promotion, the chalkboard would be the best place to start, and maybe an IC message? To get some traffic and more opinions? ħuman 19:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we should put a link in the newcomers' guide once this takes off, so that if people want to write articles, they know what we'd be most happy to see --  Nx/talk  19:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, that's another good place. Does anyone actually read it, though? Also, the operation whitewash cluster would be a good place. ħuman 20:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's linked from the welcome template, noobs are supposed to read it. --  Nx/talk  21:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but I "read" instructions (I'm actually an instruction sheet junkie, so that doesn't help). Do you? Do noobs? Really? ħuman 05:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Contents 1 To red link or not to red link? 2 Someone add 2012 Mayan apocolypse 3 When to archive? 4 side panel for more accessibility 5 Prettifying 5.1 Other things 6 Archive/poll number 7 Popular items 8 Problem with this whole page 9 Issue 10 Reset 11 PS to Pi 12 Add to the community bar? 13 Reformat 14 "create new article" 15 Articles needing cleanup / rewrite / more work 15.1 Dememification 16 Can someone think of a good title? 17 New articles -> Articles needing attention

[edit] To red link or not to red link?

That is the question. I'm not inclined either way, just wondering what people think. ħuman 19:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Redlink, but delink when archiving. This way it provides a convenient link if someone's going to write the article, but doesn't give us another redlink if we end up not having it. --  Nx/talk  19:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. ħuman 19:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Someone add 2012 Mayan apocolypse

It's unfalsafiable funzs. 05:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we already have 2012? ħuman 05:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] When to archive?

The Cottingley Fairies article is now a cute little stub, so at what point do we move these things to the archive? As soon as there is "something" there (unlike the Morphic field article)? When it's more complete? ħuman 21:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe create a stubs for improvement section. I know stubbot does that, but it's automatic and doesn't take account of importance/mob opinion. The only problem with this is that there are 1,317 stubbed articles (I checked), so we can't have all of them, and picking through for suitable canditates would become very boring very quickly. Totnesmartin 19:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

How about just adding "still needs work!" to ones that are blue links but barely started? That way no one will accidentally archive them just because they "exist". And yeah, let's not import the list of stubs here, they may not be things we really want anyway. But maybe a link to the VSA category? ħuman 20:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone mind turning off the voting on the archive? thanks. K61824^"6+18=24" 02:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter, but what how would we do it? Halp!!!! ħuman 03:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There's an interesting point here about whether we need more than a 'cute little stub'. The article on the Cottingley Fairies covers about all we need to say. We're not WP which is why there's a link to the WP article and, as a source of rationality all we need to say is that it was a hoax, now exposed. What more should be added? I was about to do another stub for the Fox Sisters (I'm fascinated by woo hoaxes) but all I have to say is covered in the spiritualism article. Well, there's a joke I'd like to use about they're not spiritualists, they're very naughty girls, but that doesn't justify an article. What do others think? Silver Sloth 14:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that in many cases, the "wanted articles" will end up as redirects to articles that mention them in passing. Cottingley is a nice little article. Fox sisters might be a good redirect to spiritualism, as long as they are mentioned there. ħuman 19:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Noting this edit, do we remove items if they are a bit -2 or so and have been there? I don't mean we need a hard and fast rule (The proactive thing is just acne "medicine" being sold to teenagers, do we cover that?), but we should have at least a rough guideline of when to park "to do requests". <ed poor>Please for other people to come up with them?</ed poor> Thank you for your time. ħuman 02:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If only as many people vote here as the WIGO CP then it would be done pretty quick. perhaps link this page to more places for promotion? K61824^{CP≠Child Porn?} 03:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sort of, yet. But the voting is more of a "priority" thing, not a "kill or save" thing (IMO). It's a "to do list", just because some get voted low, does it mean we don't cover them? I'm struggling to think of a way to format discussion beyond voting... section here for any given item? PS, I don't care about them because I added them, I care because we need to figure out our general "rule" for when to archive items that didn't get written. ħuman 03:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I still have my own to do list for things that I think are worth having but would probably get voted down as irrelevant. Coal and Aloe vera for instance. Those would be two different articles, btw. "Coal and Aloe vera" would be... um... odd. Totnesmartin 17:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] side panel for more accessibility

Would someone mind to add a link on one of the side panels so it is easier to get here? Thanks. K61824^{ZOYG I edit like Kenservative!} 17:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we think this is ready (or useful enough) to go in the "community" box? There is a link on the chalkboard, by the way, for now. ħuman 19:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

So, is this thing working well enough to justify adding it on the left? Is it helping us get things written (or redirected)? Do people like the format? I guess I should spam the site with these questions... ħuman 01:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Prettifying

Can we make this look a little nicer such as Wikipedia portals (I like the maths)? Obviously pictures are unnecessary, but along with the proposed article list we could have; a list of on going projects (particularly those that have stalled), links to resource you need such as help pages, pages that people want to draw attention too such as those short listed for cover articles say, and just a list of things that need doing such as wikifying and catting pages. - User = 05:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not like Wp, no, we move too slow for their ideas. "Ongoing projects"? Hell we are too small to have "project groups" As far as making it look nicer, well, I'm all for it. Got any ideas? ħuman 05:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

On going projects is more like, shit we have left half done such as this and this and this. Stuff that has the potential to be on the best of RationalWiki if it was ever finished. I will mock up what I am thinking in my sandbox and link it here. - User = 06:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, do so. Remember, we can't pull an Ed Poor and say: "Here is what to do". In the end, we work on what we work on, and if you think those articles need work, maybe "you" should do it? This page is a raw place to list ideas to write about, do you also want to use it to "force" people to improve articles you care about? OK, enough whining, I'll shut up and check out your sandbox. Oh, and this page can surely encompass "ongoing projects", but do you have an idea for how to make it pretty? ħuman 06:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well here is my idea. Looks nicer, stole code from the useful links box and Wikipedia. Basically it is a one stop shop for everything that needs doing, from starting articles to getting them to cover story level. It just occurred to me we could have a house keeping list as well, such as images that need catting and stuff. If we use templates and the DPL extension right the list could be self generating. - User = π 07:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

We could also have a box for a featured goat picture if we you want to break the text up some more. - User = π 07:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Another idea is to build the whole thing out of chalkboards to give t that real, doing/just done feel. 192.43.227.18 03:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

At the irrational one, "ongoing projects" and "articles to polish" sections would seem like a good idea. Your sandbox looks interesting, although I think you might have made editing a bit hard. Like to fix your ATOW typo, where do I click? Apart from being a bit shy on "section edit" links, it looks good. ħuman 05:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, it "looks" interesting, but it is way overkill on the subpages. This thing needs to be easy for newbs and sperts alike to edit. Make it one, flat page, with copious edit links that cover sections. Way too much formatting and table crap, although I know it's needed for the pretty, but if I want to edit a section, surely I should get a nice neat edit box I can find my way around in? ħuman 05:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

At the BoNish one, sounds like fun to me also. Nice look and feel that matches what the page is for. ħuman 05:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have started to mock up a chalkboard version, the votes look bad but I can fix that in the CSS (or Nx can at least after I fail). I remember there was a change done to the template inclusion in MediaWiki 1.14, that should make edit easier now. Give it a go. - User = 05:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Here? ħuman 06:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You should find the original sandbox easier to edit now. My attempts to colour the titles for the chalkboard effected the whole wiki so I gave up on that. - User = π 06:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but I still can't fix the "ATOW" typo. Also, the hugely nested subpages are a really bad idea for a small wiki like this. They make it impossible for people to add or alter sections. As I said, "make it flat" - put the whole damn thing in one page. There's no need for sub-pages that I can see. ħuman 07:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

So you don't like it because you can't fix a typo. I'll make it flat for you. - User = 08:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have made it flat. I don't like it for three reasons. 1) The page is big. 2)There is lots of code floating around which waiting from someone to knock a </div> off and screw the whole page up. 3) You can't move the boxes around as easily as the length change and you get more added and remove. - User = 08:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(unident)Anyone else want to comment? - User = 02:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess it sorta "looks better", but where are the "edit" buttons? You gotta make this easy for noobs to play with and add to... Hey screw the noobs, I can't figure out how I would add to your latest sandbox version. ħuman 05:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"2)There is lots of code floating around which waiting from someone to knock a </div> off" So don't do it that way. KISS? ħuman 05:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This is my preferred version the one that uses template inclusions for each box and opens to the section by clicking edit (also does on the title headings when it is the active page). - User = π 05:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to say, your "preferred version" may be pretty, but where do noobs click to add things? Hell, where do any of us click to add things? Oh, ok, your link sucks, if one goes to here, some of my complaints go away. While it's pretty, I really think this "to do list" is in beta and should be "incredibly easy" to edit, not require "smart brains" for people to add sections, et cetera. ħuman 06:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have rolled it back to my preferred version, try editing it is not that bad (just click the little blue things that say edit). - User = 07:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking better. Just keep it easy for the noobs, this is almost an "entry level" page, not an "expert" one. Pretty is not as important as usuability. ħuman 07:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Nah, you know what? I clicked on the "0" edit tab, and all I got was gibberish. I couldn't even find what I was intending to edit. Epic fail. No way this version is gonna go live. ħuman 07:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think your accusation of it being gibberish would disappear if the div soup was replaced with transclusions either from an appropriate subpage or the template-space. As it stands, it only looks gibberish in code because of the tables and styles, which would be removed if you put them in as templates. ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 20:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, that is how it's done. So why the div soup when clicking "0" and why no overall "edit" button (perhaps something to do with it being a user subpage?)? ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 20:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I turned it off. I was also going to turn the [0] off so nobody would edit the main page just the subpages. - User = 06:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitely a good idea. I also had a look at it and tried previewing with collapsable infoboxes. It sort of works on the right hand column but if you minimise the main one on the left, the float buggers it up. But collapsing the ones on the right would "clean" it a little if people didn't want to look at the miscellanious stuff. ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 14:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well we could rebuild it as a table rather than with floats. It would aesthetically be the same. Nx has turned off my no edit thing, although if we go live with this I can do it to the actual to do list. - User = π 00:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well here is my idea. I have taken the edit tabs away so no n00bs can edit the page only 3117z and they should know what they are doing. - User = 12:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Other things

I have a few other ideas to tart up improve my proposal for this. Would anyone be interested in seeing them? - User = 10:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Set yourself away, please. :) ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 12:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I have added a poll and a wiki fact to the proposed page above, what do you think? - User = π 12:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. The vote poll goes off the right side of my screen however (1024 resolution). I like random facts. ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 12:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Any problems with that annoying old chalkboard? - User = 12:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not that I can see. ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 12:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The polls have a fixed width if I recall. I'll see what I can do. - User = 12:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

One possibility is you copy this to here or I could tweak the common.css . - User = π 13:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That does it. I've never messed with the monobook.css before. I've also noticed the "book review" section, which reminds me about some of the things I was going to add to RW... ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 13:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well now I have a fact #2. Do you think we should go with this or wait for more input? It has been sitting there a while; however it is a big job to move it all across. I was also thinking of making templates for the borders so there is even less code to wade through and also an explanatory note about the sub-pages. How about we take 3 more days to debate this and I will set it up so it can be moved on the weekend if we so wish? - User =

Three days should be enough. There have been objections but if no-one takes an interest, we'll assume no one uses the to do list so you can add what you like. ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 08:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the poll will look better now even without that tweak to monobook. - User = 09:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Archive/poll number

"unless it has the highest poll id" - can't the program search the subpage space as well? 'Cause it's gonna be tough for people to figure out if something is the highest one, isn't it? ħuman 20:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not as simple as that, plus loading all the wigo:cp archives and scanning them would probably be a huge performance hit. One option if you're unsure whether the entry has the highest id is to leave a commented out copy on this page when archiving, then remove it later. Nx (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean the polls can't be controlled/run individually? This is the only place where they aren't in order anyway (newest at top everywhere else). Also, by the way, what are the odds, really, of the most recent addition being archived before anything else? ħuman 20:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Pretty low, but I thought I'd mention it just in case. One thing it could do is check the bestof table in the database, but since I'm planning to convert this thing to javascript (to move processing from the server to the client), I would like to keep the current way of doing things. With the javascript version, hacking in archive-checking would be easier. Nx (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Popular items

It seems like every suggestion just gets voted down. As I type there is one suggestion in positive territory with +1. Генгис^marauding 20:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be an error or perhaps a vote bot attacked us trying to get all the WIGOs down and hit this too. They most certainly weren't all that low last I checked before the big crash. ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 11:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think they are being voted down on my test page as they use the same poll ids. - User = π 12:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with this whole page

I have just fond a problem with this page. None of these articles show up on the orphaned page list as they are linked to from the archive, however they are basically lonely as one is going to find them in the archive. Can we develop a policy of de-linking them once they are created? - User = π 02:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Perhaps also suggesting pages that make them relevant while waiting on the To Do list would help ease the process of de-orphaning. I.e, "Jerry Springer the Opera file under Blasphemy, Stephen Green." or someting. ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 11:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea, we should add that to the edit screen thing. - User = π 11:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't really explain that on the edit notice itself as it uses the more general VoteNotice template, which just has those two procedures on. ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 12:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You just edit this. - User = 12:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I meant I was intending to put it in as part of the step 1, step 2 etc. and this can't happen because that's generic template. But I suppose adding a better description above that is just as good. ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 12:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I added a quick four bullet points to that as memos. ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 12:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What archive? This page is supposed to be handled manually. Did someone pibot it? We either create or delete, and the archive is supposed to be deredded when it comes to things that never got done. ħuman 02:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No it is archived by hand. You see the link in the edit window when, you edit the suggestions list. - User = π 02:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Issue

I'm seeing three columns, with the "random facts" and "minprojects" windows appearing to the right, outside the normal limits of the page. Of course, I'm on an old Mozilla/Firefox browser and FF always has issues putting things in the right place, it'll probably be fine in IE8 or Opera 10 which I use normally. But just in case anyone else sees it or there's an issue with the floating. ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 12:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Try tweaking it and I'll tell you if it stuff other people up - User = 12:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reset

As a side effect of the testing, the voting arrows have all gone to like -8. Can this get reset? Or have the whole thing wiped so that the To Do list is a bit clearer and more concise? ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 11:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can delete all votes from the database, but there's nothing technically wrong with the votes, they just got a lot of down votes.

+-------+------+----------------+
| id    | vote | timestamp      |
+-------+------+----------------+
| todo1 |    1 | 20090913054536 | 
| todo1 |   -1 | 20090815013710 | 
| todo1 |   -1 | 20090912004731 | 
| todo1 |   -1 | 20090811221623 | 
| todo1 |    1 | 20090714212227 | 
| todo1 |    1 | 20090614000209 | 
| todo1 |    1 | 20090610203831 | 
| todo1 |   -1 | 20090613054037 | 
| todo1 |   -1 | 20090813225323 | 
| todo1 |   -1 | 20090811005951 | 
| todo1 |   -1 | 20090908215508 | 
| todo1 |   -1 | 20090908121447 | 
| todo1 |   -1 | 20090809113502 | 
| todo1 |   -1 | 20090910005303 | 
| todo1 |    1 | 20090613013926 | 
| todo1 |   -1 | 20090812090757 | 
+-------+------+----------------+
16 rows in set (0.00 sec)

I've omitted the ips for privacy reasons, but there are a lot of -1 votes from one two /16 ranges. Someone might be abusing the system, but there's really not much we can do about that. -- Nx / talk 11:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I just recall hearing from π that the down votes were do to experimenting on the sandbox more than real votes. ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 11:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The poll ids got double used on my sandbox, because I didn't think the whole thing through. Most of the entries there were just stupid. - User = 01:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The voting certainly looks suspect, what with all those "-7"s. Question: even though my need to have the vote extension improved to accommodate this project page, does voting actually make sense here? I guess in one way - if it worked - high votes encourage research and page creation? Low votes encourage de-linking and archiving? Thoughts? ħuman 02:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You really need to fix the voting, and not muck up things like that again. Right now it looks like every item is getting the thumbs down. Can you just add 7 or 8 to every vote and get it over with? ħuman 07:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No, but I can delete all votes from the two offending /16 ranges. And how should I fix it? What do you suggest I use instead of IPs to identify voters? -- Nx / talk 09:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I have tried to counter it by voting back up, can we clear them and start again? - User = 10:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to clear every todo wigo, even the archived ones. I'd rather just remove all votes from those two ranges (see my oversighted edit). I don't want to make a habit of it though -- Nx / talk 10:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't see oversighted edits, why not can't just do the one's that are active? - User = 10:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I have no idea who they are. - User = 10:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There is someone (and I have my suspicions who) that does come along and vote all our WIGOs down. - User = 07:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] PS to Pi

I like the new layout. Especially all the "right side" stuff. We might have the beginnings of something great here, as long as that isn't an 80's song title. ħuman 02:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

PPS, we should start lobbying to add this to the "Participate in RationalWiki" section on the main page, once we get that vote "-7" bug worked out. ħuman 02:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I spent sometime cleaning up the formatting to make editing the page easier. The boxes I created could also be used to redo the mainpage so it is about six line long. - User = 02:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. As far as the main page (or this one), just don't nest things two edits deep, ok? (Not saying you did, just a request). Was there a bug in the voting, or just some woo troll voting them all down, do you think? ħuman 03:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

When I copied it over to my sandbox what I suspect happened is that it started from the highest number there, so from that point onwards, if you created one there it would have the same number as one created here. - User = π 03:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It is already on the main page, not very prominent mind. - User = 03:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes. I gave it a half-bump in prominence. ħuman 03:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Add to the community bar?

I pretty much always find this via Recent changes. Should we add this to the community bar to help raise its profile? - User = 11:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with that, I never see this one either. Some of the suggestions for articles have been there for at least 6 months, it seems. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 11:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's on the main page and in the "useful links" box on RC/WL, do you mean adding it to the WIGO navigation thing? ħuman 20:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Now added to sidebar. ωεαşεζόίď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reformat

Okay, I was wondering if it would be worth reformatting (well, rearranging) the To-Dos. Basically, as far as I can tell, not that many people are voting either up and down - which could be due to people not using the page, but this is inconsistent with the number of people voting on the polls. So my hypothesis is that people don't know what is new and what is old. Hence, I propose to rearrange it away from categories to something more along the lines of WIGO where we have most recent stuff at the top and it moves down as they get older. Perhaps a second section at the very top for recently created articles that need the attention. My second suggestion would be to perhaps bump the prominence of the list to the WIGO box on the front page. ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 18:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue against changing the order, I see your point about "what's new" not being obvious. Although, of course, it doesn't matter if something is new or not, its potential quality for an article is not affected by how long it's been gathering dust on here. As far as the link, it's in the "participate" box, where it belongs, and it's also in the "useful links" box at the top of RC/WL. I think one problem might be that since all the info got moved to subpages, they aren't on anyone's watchlist. ħuman 19:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a plug in the Saloon Bar and a link to which page to add to the watchlist? ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 17:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a permanent link on the chalkboard thing? And perhaps the link could be "hot" and actually add the page to a user's watchlist with one click? ħuman 19:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a cunning plan. - User = 10:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As cunning as a fox who used to be Professor of Cunning at Oxford University but has since moved on and become the UN advisor of Cunning Planning? ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 10:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Bravom sir, bravo! ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 10:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, sir! - User = 10:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Damn I should have done the suggestions subpage as well. - User = 11:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup... "Hey, Pi guy, what people really should be watching is RationalWiki:To_do_list/Suggestions, the to do list page itself hardly ever gets edited now that it's all in subpages." ħuman 18:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I did a rearrangement based on how I reckon it would work best. Any comments? ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 11:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really, the key is to have people actually come tot he page and occasionally write an article from the list... if what you did helps "git 'er done" then that's great. Perhaps an intercom message telling people about the "new articles" section might be good? ħuman 18:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

We'll see, then. Pi's intercom trick may work if people use watch-lists but my rationale behind the re-ordering is that it shows what's "new" more easily so people have an order that they can skim down the list, rather than re-reading old stuff and potentially skipping over new things. I think the actual main thing driving the fact that not many people vote on and use the list is either A) they want to write their own stuff rather than put it to the vote first (understandable, yes, but this will save us a lot of unessary "delete" discussions such as with the Sean Manchester thing. And B) People are mostly here to laugh at Conservapedia rather than for Rational Wiki - I did a cheeky "user contributions" check on most people a few days ago and found that even some of our top posters are lucky to make 1 in 10 edits to the mainspace. ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 19:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You bring up a good point - misinterpretation of the voting. Just because something gets low votes, or negative votes, doesn't mean it shouldn't be written. Perhaps we should simply remove the polls and bullet-list the items? Putting things here isn't to "put them to a vote first", it's just because the person didn't have time, energy, or information to even create a stub. ħuman 21:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I quite like the voting, it does work in certain circumstances. I've put one or two up to test the waters because I didn't want to write a stub and put work in only to have to spend even longer defending it against a "mission" or "delete" discussion. And it worked out quite well. People might mis-interpret it or have their own separate criteria, but I think wisdom of crowds would balance that out eventually. ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 10:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point, that makes sense. I guess that was what I was thinking in the beginning - a few "up-votes" go a long way in encouraging a new article, whereas a few "downs" make one prepare better for the storm? ħuman 05:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much how I figure it works. I have no problem with anyone bypassing this list if they're sure they can do a good job on the article first time and they're sure it's on mission, but this is a quick and easy way of figuring out what people think will work without wasting time and space. If someone thinks it's still worth it even after a negative score, then they know that perhaps someone will come along and question it - on the other hand, once the article is written, people might change their minds (which is why we need explanations and references in the To Do items). ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 15:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "create new article"

Not sure we need that taking up space here, considering "search" gets an editor there. ħuman 05:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

and all the suggested articles are redlinks. Let's ditch it. Totnesmartin 15:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, as a point, if you click on it while it's empty, it jumps to editing the main page. ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 20:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Articles needing cleanup / rewrite / more work

Part of the "to do list" should include drawing attention to existing articles on mission-related subjects which need developing or rewriting or have major problems. I can't find how to do this on the page as it is now. There's an "Articles needing RWification" category, but I suspect things have been sitting in it a long time, as it seems to be connected with Project Whitewash. Can we maybe add a list of articles needing work on the to do list page? ωεαşεζόίď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Already there, on the right side -- Nx / talk 20:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Weaseloid is getting at the fact that there isn't a place for specific articles, the Articles needing RWification is already there, but it's contents is a bit lacking. So we either need to take care of that category more or flag up some articles in a new or separate section. Possibly take "Articles needing RWification", and get a randomised list of them to appear? ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 20:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, things put in a category just tend to stay there. I thought the point of the to do list was to make the things that need doing more noticeable & prominent. ωεαşεζόίď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have set it so that three random articles from each cat appears under the title. - User = π 12:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dememification

If someone wants I could create a bot that checked each mainpace article for a list of memes and cat them as requiring dememification if they contain any. - User = 01:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean like metaphor or sarcasm? Or do you just mean assfly and teh? I think that might overdo it, some articles make good use of our heritage of all meeting on 4chan. ħuman 02:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about, teh, moar, assfly and other such easy jokes, I guess I am using MC's definition here. Each article can be looked at and the meme can be judged on it merits, I would just like a list of the articles that contain such things, so we can start lifting our quality standards a bit. - User = π 02:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, as long as the change isn't automatic. Can you do it without catting, or is that the only way to make a list? I just think that in some cases, the occasional "teh" or "moar" might fit an article's tone. I doubt we need a single "assfly" in the mainspace... oh, yeah, except at the snarky ALS article, I suppose. Could you make the equivalent of "unstub", a template that is invisible but tells the bot to ignore it next time 'round? ħuman 20:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, actually. I think we do need to start raising the quality somewhat - which would possibly require an official manual-of-style, but we may be able to get away without one for now. Funspace stuff I don't usually give a rats ass about. Also, would it be possible to check articles that are "unfinished", i.e., without a "see also" and "footnotes" section (there was a bot some time back that changed all the variable ones to the generic "footnotes" title), although that would practically be all our stubs so may be a bit pointless unless you can exclude the stubs from such a search. ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 20:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been changing every "teh assfly" I happen across. Some articles all most exclusivly use "assfly" instead of Schlafly. Ace^McWicked 20:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. But a lot of them are buried in random articles that aren't well linked to, so the bot will help with that. ArmondikoV^{...I'll extrude your snake!} 20:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the search function wouldn't be finding all occurrences? If that (8) really is the full list, then given that at least 6 can be deleted or moved without much argument, there doesn't seem to be a huge problem. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 20:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like we need a Gant chart then. - User = π 21:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

<pedantry>Gantt has two "t"s</pedantry> –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 21:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't topics like this really be discussed at the Saloon Bar? People might think we're only discussing the todo list page... ħuman 23:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Fell free to move. I am going to make the chart any way, just out of interest. Whether it is mainspace or my userspace, will be the outcome. - User = 23:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

RW space? ħuman 23:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be a subpage of this if you want it. - User = 23:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone think of a good title?

It'd be good to have an article on the supposed phenomenon of heart transplant donors changing their personalities to that of the donor, but I can't think of a shorter title than that. Any ideas? Totnesmartin (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has it under cellular memory. ωεαşεζόίď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New articles -> Articles needing attention

I propose we expand the "New articles" list to include any article that is in serious need of fixing. One example was Catch-22, which wasn't new when I added it, but was about to be deleted. -- Nx / talk 18:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)