Template talk:WikiProjectCSBTasks

Archive 1

The following are guidelines for the tasks template:

• Everyone is invited to add articles that they feel would benefit from the attention to the invisible queue in the template. If an article has been on the template for a while, feel free to rotate it with an article from the queue, and either delete the old item or move it the bottom of the queue.
• Any item on the template must also be on CSB Open Tasks, so that when items are rotated out the article doesn't disappear from CSB view.
• The template should be relatively succint. When putting a new item on the template, it is preferable to replace an old article rather than simply tacking on another article. Be bold about this; if someone feels the replaced article still needs help, it will make its way back on the template eventually.
• There should be a balance of different CSB areas on the template. If one topic area, such as Africa or Women's Studies, appears to dominate, please replace some articles with those from an under-represented field.

Hey, what's up with the redundant link back to the template on the period?--Dmcdevit 21:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oops. It was an artifact from an earlier version of the template. I've removed it. - BanyanTree 21:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So, seeing the article request for African American literature I write what I openly admit was little more than a cursory stub, and (because an article now exists) it is removed from the visible portion of the template, rather than, say, moved to the expansion list? So, by writing a stubby article, I end up decreasing its visiblity as something that needs to be attended to? This seems wrong. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:14, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks like a process problem indeed. I'm of the opinion that every link should stay at 'Article requests' for some time, even if the link has become blue. A blue link at that line signals a very fresh article that definitely needs to be looked at (something I actually did when it was still listed there). I've pulled out the request for Tense (linguistics) for now because there is already some work slowly in progress at Grammatical tense/multilingual sources; and I've moved African American literature back in to get it the attention it deserves. Thanks for giving it a flying start! — mark ✎ 23:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I see what you mean, but creating a stub allows another needed article to be visible, and anyway, it can now go to the "expand" section. "Requests" is for nonexsistent articles, so while it still needs to be expanded, it just doesn't belong there. Maybe you should rotate out something in "expand" for AAL.--Dmcdevit 23:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(Wow, edit conflict madness.) The obvious way to spread the attention around is to rotate articles from the top of the queue into the visible section regularly so articles don't languish in the commented out portions. Requested articles are listed exactly so that anybody with a bit of relevant knowledge or enough time to do a bit of research can get the ball rolling. If there was a fantastically knowledgeable editor who was eager to start the article, it wouldn't be on the template in the first place. The fact that you saw the article request on the template and made a great start on the article that allows further item rotation seems to me to be exactly the way an open tasks template should work. - BanyanTree 23:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Recent edit summary asks why the Pullman Company is here. A century ago, it was the single largest employer of African Americans (as Pullman porters) and is generally credited the most important economic engine in the creation of the African American middle class (partly because a lot of those porters put their sons and daughters through college, etc., not to mentions some fortunes made on overheard insider stock tips). I could go on—the story is complicated, and includes a none-too-glorious role for Robert Todd Lincoln, son of the Emancipator—but I presume that is enough to explain why it's here. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:01, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Not to mention the effect of the Pullman strike on labor relations and socialism in the US. --Dmcdevit 01:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm the writer of the original query. Thanks for everyone's responses. But after looking at it a bit more closely, I have a different question. The objections of the original request for attention seem to have been largely met - too short, no mention of Robert Todd Lincoln. A new article, Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, has also since been created with much more detail on the role of Pullman among African Americans. I see that much more could be written and perhaps the article could be slightly restructured to emphasize the impact of African Americans, but in general I find the article to be decently well-rounded with no unforgiveable flaws. I had a similar reaction to Desmond Tutu, which was on the template recently. (Admittedly, I spend a decent amount of time looking at Africa geo stubs so I find anything beyond three paragraphs to be epic.)

The question is: When is an article good enough to be taken off the open tasks list? nixie seems to be making a similar observation on CSB talk. Right now there seems to be a reluctance to move articles off for fear of offending the user who put it on. In cases like Pullman Company and Desmond Tutu, where the initial objections appear to have been addressed, someone may have to jump into the line of fire and start pulling articles into "Done". At least it might result in a tidying of the page, some updated objections (which are incredibly important with requests for attention), and hopefully clarify what the consensus "still needs work/good enough" line is. nixie's proposal may be a good start. Anyone else as confused as me? - BanyanTree 02:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(hmm... right now I'm not convinced anyone is fulfilling these tasks because of this template; perhaps it needs more publicity) but in any case, I'm in favor of moving the articles past as quickly as possible. In my mind the idea is to get at least one user interested who will sustain edits even if it is taken off. The more articles filtered past (assuming others are seeing this) the more likelyhood something will catch someone's eye. If something is not being edited for a while, it would be better to move it to standby and rotate in something else that might pique someone else's interest. Otherwise it will stagnate with non-interest-inspiring articles forever. So I would say rotate as soon as we see a (content) change in the article, (or any kind of creation for requests). This is the philosophy I follow for the main Open Tasks template. --Dmcdevit 03:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I certainly eventually reach a breaking point with Requested articles for Great Lakes (Africa) conflicts. The red words taunt me every time I go to my talk page, and then I give in and have to click on the link. I'm in a twelve-step program to get over it.

Anyway, perhaps my comments belong on the open tasks page talk as most of my comments were addressing its structure, though it of course ends up reflecting in the template. The Pullman discussion sparked some thoughts so I responded here. Sorry for the confusion. - BanyanTree 03:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BanyanTree: I didn't go look at the present state of the article before posting my initial comment above; I assumed the implicit question was "why would this corporation qualify for CSB", not "why would someone say this article needs improvement". I believe that when I put it on the list some time last year, it was barely a stub. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:53, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

That actually was my initial question, and thanks for the quick response. The follow-on question popped up after your and Dmcdevit's response, when I actually read the article and started wondering what was wrong with it. - BanyanTree 14:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In an effort to get this more publicity, I've changed the box and background so I could put it on the Community Portal. Perhaps we'll want to create a second one to keep the old design. But then again I'm also afraid the backlash on Comm. Portal will change it back. See if you can make it look nicer for the big time. In any case, it's an easily revertible move if you all don't like it. I'm just Being Bold! --Dmcdevit 04:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't figure out why the <> </>> characters appear in the upper left of the box now. Can someone who knows how please fix it. - BanyanTree 15:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Been fixed :) --Dmcdevit 23:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yup, that one was tricky. It took me a while before I found it. I randomly commented out parts untill I found it. Jeltz talk 10:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A request (ie. red) is entitled Women's history? First of all, I do not know what is meant by this to be able to make it correct. History of women sounds odd (though it could be done). Alternative titles: History of women's rights or Social history of women? Any ideas? --Oldak Quill 09:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The request on the actual open tasks page states: History of women or Women's history or whatever, we don't seem to have one (though we do have History of women in the United States), if that helps. The first line of History of women in the U.S. is "This is a history of feminism and the role of women throughout the history of the United States." so maybe a global article is requested. - BanyanTree 12:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand the aim, I was mainly querying the naming. I will rename to "History of women" now. --Oldak Quill 17:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I notice that Image:Anti-systemic flag geog.jpg has been re-added for the template. Any reason for this? It's about enough to put me entirely off of the project, and I doubt I'm alone in that. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:50, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel that strongly about it, however, the 'todo' picture was far better. — mark ✎ 08:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This symbol seems to practically announce "We are POV warriors, and maybe not very ethical". I will have no part of that. -- Jmabel | Talk 15:45, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

The edit summary was "put in CSB pic, clipboard is redundant on CP". I've changed it back since people seem to like the clipboard graphic better. - BanyanTree 16:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, I agree that that's the impression the flag gives, with the pirate feeling and all (although when looking closer it becomes apparent that it is actually a rather clever way of visualizing the systemic bias; I think the pirate association was not intended). — mark ✎ 17:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not enough to put me entirely off the project, but I'd rather we didn't have it. It looks like the flag of the United Nations Pirate Agency or something. If we need to have a little logo even a globe or something would be better, to emphasise our aim of achieving balanced coverage of the whole world, but really we don't need our own symbol, the clipboard will do fine. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmph, I'm the one that put it in, but I had no idea it would be controversial. I just noticed that The main Open Tasks has the clipboard, so I thought this one should have a different picture, it is redundant. So, with this thought in mind, I looked through the CSB and saw this pic (which had also been on the old CSBCOTW template). I don't mind if you want it changed, but I still think we should have a different one. I hadn't even thought on the pirate association. We could go with this one... Thoughts? --Dmcdevit 22:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That would be harmless. But what's wrong with the clipboard? This is a template, the fact that there is one context in which it is used that there is another clipboard... so what? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:35, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Again, it's not a big deal, but the main formatting concern for this should be for the Community Portal, as that's where most see it. After all, we vary line length, color, etc. to fit on CP, so why not picture. Plus, contrasted with the ordinary clipboard, I thought this would draw the eye's attention. Or something. --Dmcdevit 04:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, in the template it says "do not make the line too long", well... I've moved the blue links into this section and it's now 2 very long lines. Should we trim a few? Addhoc 14:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the second line into standby, hope that's ok... Addhoc 15:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the 9/11 attacks to the list. It is perhaps the most systemically biased article on wikipedia. The section on conspiracy theories omits to mention several things that raise THE most serious questions about the validity of the official story. One of the things that isn't mentioned is that two police officers who were at the CITGO gas station near the pentagon at the moment of the attack saw the plane come in from a completely different angle than the one required by the physical damage recorded afterwards. They both said on camera they would be willing to testify in front of a court of law. Lots of people have attempted to include this fact into the article, and someone (a moderator, I guess) keeps editing it back and threatening that wikipedia is not a soap-box, and you will be banned if you do this again. I have no idea who is doing this but I urge anyone and everyone to attempt to include the missing information to the 9/11 attacks article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppk55 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]