Wikipedia talk:Stub Contest

Archives

User:Casliber/Template blitz

Right, for anyone who liked the template-fixing aspect, I am hashing out an idea at User:Casliber/Template blitz with discussion on the talk page - all input welcome as to what else I can count. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now renamed User:Casliber/Golden Gnome...watch this space...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Running proposed

Right, changes this year...

.first, I did like the lucky dip but what I would do this year (and should have done last year) is limit of one prize for each entrant - hence more entries increases the chance of winning a prize still but capped at one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.I have doubled the bonus points for a big increase. I think buffing articles significantly should be weighted better. Encouraging more writing always a good thing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
obviously the ten year date will move forward to the start of the contest...opening up a bunch more articles for bonus points....
I have expanded the upper size limit of eligible articles, as over the years I have found there are some commonplace articles that could do with improving that were just a bit too big and really could do with work.

Any other ideas most welcome. Alerting @Cwmhiraeth:, @Dr. Blofeld:, @Smallbones:, @Andrew Gray: and anyone else who might be interested to comment. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good (I seem to have this watchlisted). Proposed timing? Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sounds good - I agree expanding the size limit to 200 words should be more useful. Amkilpatrick (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea too. Chickadee46 talk 03:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I haven't asked WMUK yet but am thinking that aiming for the month of October would be feasible. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposals seem good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems good. I would apply for a larger grant for this though from WM, more prizes might motivate more people!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do I sign up to be notified when this contest starts?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, check back here in a couple of weeks. Otherwise I will ping you when I know more....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Long Stubs

Gross national income is far larger than a stub, yet it is in class=stub and has {{econ-stub}} at the bottom of the article. This is the opposite kind from the Stub Contest, but some editors may like to look at Wikipedia:Database reports/Long stubs and do a few fixes.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some just need renaming. If an article has improved properly it might be a start or C class. Really depends...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Postponing...

Mainly because of Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon (breathes sigh of relief as someone else is doing one...mwa ha ha) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated, comments, concerns

(I'm new. Forgive me if the right action is to take the initiative and update myself in those parts that it would be reasonable for me to do. This is is not directed to anyone in-particular and what exists/ed is presumed to be part of a collaborated effort, realizing people move away from old projects. What criticism there is, the intent is for usefulness.)

I got here because Wikipedia:Contests is reporting that this stub contest is active ("ongoing") but with end dates in 2019. Wikipedia:Stub_Contest#Rules directs contestants to Wikipedia:Stub_Contest/Entries to submit "diffs". These pages don't mention 2019 and don't say "ongoing". The Wikipedia:Stub_Contest message box details has conflicting info, saying "three times" while listing out 4 completed contests - 2004, 2013, 2014, & 2015 - (but no mention of the "2019" "ongoing" contest and its easy to error referencing "2018" as a viable typo when misreading (unexpected) signature & date in the message box. Then,at the end, the summary of past competitions only mention 2004, 2013 & 2014.

Quickly, reading the page, it starts to feel outdated, contrary and incomplete. I went to the talk page - that was duplicated and shared among several related pages. All of the posts are from 2016 and discuss that year's contest. (The talk page archives from 2013-2015 weren't initially very eye catchy and were missed at first; the archives contained extensive discussions from 2013-2015. The 2004/2005 archive wasn't included (but it exists elsewhere). Neither was the recent 2019-Women In Red.)

As a new person to Wikipedia, I was confused by the principal directions on Rules sending me to Entries for the following advice:

"The contest takes place over one month, during which time an editor or editors knuckle down and improve as many articles as possible, and submit diffs of their work at Wikipedia:Stub Contest/Entries." Wikipedia:Stub_Contest#Rules

"Right, this is the place to come and sign up below when we next run the contest. Just copy and paste the following under the next section.....and on 0:01 GMT ...start your engines....." (following a second paragraph with links to "scoreboards" there is a short script) Wikipedia:Stub_Contest/Entries

Had there been an active project (which I had hoped there was), I'd sincerely not understand what's meant by "following under the next section". (I'm assuming the script copied). Shocking, as it may be, there exists those unfamiliar with scripts, code, etc. (and/or less confident in acting on presumption)(and/or letting others know about their inexperience and ask publicly for help). While I am the former, I do acknowledge those who fit into the latter two.

First, I thought maybe it was a script to coordinate a notification system that the project contest would begin and who was participating. Other theories developed. I did try and go find instructions.

I went to Wikipedia:Stub_Contest/Entries/December2013, Wikipedia:Stub_Contest/Entries/September2014, and Wikipedia:Stub_Contest/Entries/August2015these all instruct to go to that year's scoreboard to receive instructions but there wasn't anything notable (instructions dubious - maybe they were edited out at some point?). The talk page is archived by year and could of easily been missed by a newcomer. Searching for the specific script using several keywords and a scan through the talk and other pages yielded no answer.

I noticed participation had a dropped-off between 2013-2015. The other talk dialogue was regarding other types of instructional (scripts/programs) help, not initial to begin. It is intimidating for someone with less technical experience to see how to begin. I suspect a little extra hand-holding in the beginning with improved directions and maybe there would be greater participation in the future. The challenge for the stubs is a good project for advancing skills on WP and a fun form of encouragement to contribute.

While it isn't explicitly explained (anywhere I could see) the obvious immediate need is to counter the "ongoing" status on the contest board and let people know there is no active Stub contest going on right now. I was able to determined the project was on hiatus starting 2016 ("postponed" - from talk) after evaluating some contrary and less visually structured details. It would help to just have it at the top of the page.

The associated pages could use a good clean-up. If the WIR went ahead and had their own separate version of the Stub project, then others may want to do so too. It would be easier to have all of this information in the same place. WIR provide some directions (script, etc.) in their newsletter but it isn't the easiest thing to access or not feel overwhelmed reading from. They were using the same script ideas but it does feel like some advice and steps are being left out that should be there for participants and project coordinators. ... Thanks for hearing me out. (Please send an FYI to my talk page to let me know if a response is made here.) Roxanne-snowden (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]