RationalWiki talk:To do list/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 18 September 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)

Contents

Editnotice[edit]

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. ħumanUser talk:Human 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. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 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? ħumanUser talk:Human 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 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? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

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

That is the question. I'm not inclined either way, just wondering what people think. ħumanUser talk:Human 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone add 2012 Mayan apocolypse[edit]

It's unfalsafiable funzs.Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 05:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

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

When to archive?[edit]

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? ħumanUser talk:Human 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? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Someone mind turning off the voting on the archive? thanks. K61824Ahh! my eyes!! 02:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter, but what how would we do it? Halp!!!! ħumanUser talk:Human 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 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"6+18=24" 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 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)

side panel for more accessibility[edit]

Would someone mind to add a link on one of the side panels so it is easier to get here? Thanks. ThiehMonitoring virgin birth experiment 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 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... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Prettifying[edit]

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. - π 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? ħumanUser talk:Human 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. - π 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? ħumanUser talk:Human 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. - 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. - 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 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? ħumanUser talk:Human 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 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. - π 05:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Here? ħumanUser talk:Human 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. - 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 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. - π 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. - π 08:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(unident)Anyone else want to comment? - π 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 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? ħumanUser talk:Human 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). - 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 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). - π 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 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. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 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?)? Scarlet A.pnggnostic 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. - π 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. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 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. - 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. - π 12:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Other things[edit]

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

Yes, definitely. Set yourself away, please. :) Scarlet A.pnggnostic 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? - 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. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 12:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Any problems with that annoying old chalkboard? - π 12:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Not that I can see. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 12:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The polls have a fixed width if I recall. I'll see what I can do. - π 12:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
One possibility is you copy this to here or I could tweak the common.css . - 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... Scarlet A.pnggnostic 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? - π
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. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 08:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the poll will look better now even without that tweak to monobook. - π 09:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Archive/poll number[edit]

"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? ħumanUser talk:Human 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? ħumanUser talk:Human 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)

Popular items[edit]

It seems like every suggestion just gets voted down. As I type there is one suggestion in positive territory with +1. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 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. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 11:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I think they are being voted down on my test page as they use the same poll ids. - π 12:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem with this whole page[edit]

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? - 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. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 11:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a good idea, we should add that to the edit screen thing. - 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. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 12:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
You just edit this. - π 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. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 12:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I added a quick four bullet points to that as memos. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 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. - π 02:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Issue[edit]

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. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 12:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Reset[edit]

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? Scarlet A.pnggnostic 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. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 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. - π 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? ħumanUser talk:Human 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? ħumanUser talk:Human 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? - π 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? - π 10:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, I have no idea who they are. - π 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. - π 07:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

PS to Pi[edit]

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. ħumanUser talk:Human 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 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. - π 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? ħumanUser talk:Human 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. - π 03:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
It is already on the main page, not very prominent mind. - π 03:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes. I gave it a half-bump in prominence. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Add to the community bar?[edit]

I pretty much always find this via Recent changes. Should we add this to the community bar to help raise its profile? - π 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 What the ... 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? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Now added to sidebar. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Reformat[edit]

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. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a plug in the Saloon Bar and a link to which page to add to the watchlist? Scarlet A.pnggnostic 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? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a cunning plan. - π 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? Scarlet A.pnggnostic 10:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Bravom sir, bravo! Scarlet A.pnggnostic 10:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, sir! - π 10:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Damn I should have done the suggestions subpage as well. - π 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." ħumanUser talk:Human 18:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I did a rearrangement based on how I reckon it would work best. Any comments? Scarlet A.pnggnostic 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? ħumanUser talk:Human 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. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 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. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 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? ħumanUser talk:Human 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). Scarlet A.pnggnostic 15:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"create new article"[edit]

Not sure we need that taking up space here, considering "search" gets an editor there. ħumanUser talk:Human 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. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 20:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles needing cleanup / rewrite / more work[edit]

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? ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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? Scarlet A.pnggnostic 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. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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. - π 12:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Dememification[edit]

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. - π 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 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. - 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? ħumanUser talk:Human 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. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 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. AceMcWicked 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. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 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. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 20:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like we need a Gant chart then. - π 21:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
<pedantry>Gantt has two "t"s</pedantry> –SuspectedReplicantretire 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... ħumanUser talk:Human 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. - π 23:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
RW space? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
It would probably be a subpage of this if you want it. - π 23:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone think of a good title?[edit]

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. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

New articles -> Articles needing attention[edit]

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)

Cataloguing anti-scientific elected (or otherwise) members of government[edit]

Hi there, I was adding anti-scientific positions to UK political parties in response to the UK general election, and I was thinking that it may be a good idea to catalogue every present politician with scientifically illiterate views here. Be it in the form of a watch list or their own individual articles depending on how outspoken and infamous, e.g. Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin etc. This need not be exhaustive, just of those who are elected and actively voting on matters that could affect the law, and policies of their respective nations. What does everyone think? Solarius (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Dark Age Denialism/revisionism[edit]

I've been noticing a growing trend that I think should have its article, that is a growing denialism/revisionism of the Eurpoean Dark Ages, trying to turn them from what we commonly know them to be into a time of freedom, scientific welfare, economic growth, etc etc etc, untill us eeeeevil secularists came along during the enlightenment and messed things up. Basically, they're trying to candy-coat/outright deny the horror of the dark ages to make themselves seem both the heros of them and the victims of today's secular society.

It's mostly a position that's being peddled by the Catholic Church (for reasons that should be obvious.), but the protestant christians fundies and creationists seem to want to get behind this position too. Again, for obvious reasons.

The biggest peddlers of this position are the two books The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success By Rodney Starke, and How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization By Thomas Woods.

It's an important thing to have an article about, since rationalists tend to use the Dark Ages as an argument against religion being taught in schools and/or theocracy in general.

Now here's the real problem: Maybe my googling skills just suck, but I can't seem to find a half decent rebuttal of either of these books ANYWHERE, let alone both of them. Otherwise I may have just created an article by now.

Could you kindly help a guy out? It's driving me crazy. Thanks in advance. IAMELIPHAS (talk) 06:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've seen some of this stuff getting play in apologist circles. I imagine they're taking the Carolingian Renaissance and blowing it up into "the Dark Ages were totally awesome!" The thing is, the Dark Ages weren't totally dark (actually, they're more commonly referred to as the Early Middle Ages in historical literature now) and the Enlightenment wasn't totally enlightened (the 17th century saw extensive religious warfare and witch-hunt crazes). The Dark Ages/Enlightenment dichotomy is very much pop/grade-school history. I'm not really familiar with these arguments, though, and my knowledge of the Early Middle Ages is pretty sketchy. Woods is a known neo-Confederate and Austrian crank, though, so I'd bet his book is a hack job. I'll try to look into this at some point. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
In that case, there should probably be a review of one or both of these books somewhere on here. Who's interested in doing a review on it/them? IAMELIPHAS (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
You can try the Skeptical Humanities blog.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

So unfair[edit]

I voted up everything that had been previously voted down, because I don't like to see such lonely and abandoned articles. My poor little ones... show some humanity. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not Bioshock?[edit]

We've mentioned it in literally every Rand-related article. It's the libertarian Animal Farm, so to speak. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Help pages[edit]

OK, first, this page sucks ass in the worst way Cartman could imagine.

But down to business. Some aspie who fucking cares has to do a good job of re-writing some of Susan's awesome help files, regarding the default javascript edit buttons. They changed about 18 months ago, you idiots. Can we get an aspie on the job? Perhaps some mod? The files are very out of date. Oh, you don't know who Susan was? Look it up. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want something done, do it your fucking self, or give find someone to give a writing plan to. Also wasn't this page your idea? - π 07:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Morning Joe[edit]

Maybe their should be an article on Morning Joe or Joe Scarborough? I don't want to add the poll because I think I might muck up the other votes if I don't do it correctly.Man of Perspective (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

An idea...[edit]

Do you think we should set up a sub-reddit for the to-do list? My reasons are because it can serve as a better place for our article drive. We can view either more popular suggestions or more recent ones; comments can be provided to show more source info and/or comment on how an article needs work, plus Reddit's techno-wizardry means archiving isn't that hard. Here it is. I'll be working on it. Let it live or die as you see fit. Planaria Icon.png Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster Talk to me or view my art 05:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You could probably do a fair bit else with a rw subreddit. Peter mqzp 06:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Anyone who contributes a good idea on what else we can do with the subreddit will be modded. What's yours? Planaria Icon.png Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster Talk to me or view my art 16:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Reddit is a cesspool, and giving that site a doorway into RW will let their filth contaminate our wiki.--"Shut up, Brx." 13:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Moratorium for new entries on the To do list?[edit]

Not sure if the coop is the right place to address this, but the current list is becoming a mile long and we still have an earlier archive of hundreds of earlier article suggestions that haven't been checked out yet. By the current rate it's going we'll have to make another archive, even with the fact that only registered users can add entries. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a problem as such, and it's entirely unclear to me what stopping people adding to a list gains us. Perhaps the list could be made more compact in some fashion; Wikipedia tends to just loosely-categorised lists of red links - David Gerard (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Seems fine to me, but it suggests that we will eventually have to switch to a different methodology for keeping track of wanted pages. No obvious alternative springs to mind.--ADtalkModerator 07:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
"Writing the article yourself" springs to mind as an alternative. SophieWilder 08:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Alphabetical lists of redlinks? (Watch me not assemble such a list.) - David Gerard (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
We've got bigger fish to fry than people making lists of shit nobody will ever do. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

What happened to the Right for the Wrong Reasons article?[edit]

It seems to have vanished without explanation. --User:Brendan Rizzo at 19:23 UTC
It was deleted for being rubbish. SophieWilder 18:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
It was nominated for deletion for being rubbish, then deleted by the author before he vanished in a cloud of butthurt. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it was just a coincidence. I couldn't have cared less about that article.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 03:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah. Makes sense. User: Brendan Rizzo at 4:07 UTC 19 May 2013

Satanic Ritual Abuse Conspiracy Theories[edit]

Do you think conspiracy theories based on the satanic ritual abuse panics should get their own article? There certainly seems to be enough material about them to justify it.

I was also thinking people who promote these conspiracy theories, like Cathy O'Brien, Ted Gunderson, and John DeCamp, should also get their own articles.

It's on-mission - start writing - David Gerard (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

"Thomas Sewell"[edit]

While creating an article for the economist Thomas Sowell might be worthwhile, there is no economist named "Thomas Sewell," and Sowell is not an Austrian. He's very right-wing, to be sure, but he's more a classic Chicago School/Freshwater economist in the Robert Lucas/Milton Friedman vein. PhiloFox (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

RE Osaka Sun and The Liz Library[edit]

Why did you take away my suggestion to make an article about this library, Osaka Sun? Faunas (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

3 New Article Ideas[edit]

Adding suggestions for new articles isn't working for me right now; Should I just go ahead and start them? Also: where should I look to see if anyone wants to help expand them? My ideas included:

Susan Shannon; author of her own fundie blog "Short Little Rebel". She calls it "one conservative Christian's view". Which,as we really know, means she's a mindless crazy fundamentalist. She has this homophobic blog entry plagued with logical fallacies and made-up nonsense where she claims to prove secular-relevant reasons against gay marriage but in reality fails hard. Some of her lines: "Pagans make the mistake of referring to Christ as a religion when he simply IS" "Gay men are dying in droves" "God defines marriage, not man". I got more; I even wrote a paper thoroughly debunking her claims; it is not published online presently.

Freedom Outpost; A misnomered neocon rag sporting the "Don't Tread On Me" flag on it's cover. Has many wingnut crank articles, and despite it's name, it opposes rights for anyone they don't agree with (ie gays, minorities, atheists, deists). Although: maybe the name is appropriate, since it where people who want freedom out of America post. Great examples of irony from there: "I am am Chrisitan and a lover of liberty" "It's not bible thumping, it's the word of God!" I look at that and think, "Hey, dude: That's dictionary-definition Bible thumping!"

Ferret-Faced Fascist: Another mixed up crank. He specializes in predicting the end times and the second coming of Jesus, claiming that non-religious people live in a "secular bubble" and that the signs of the times are impending. Like other whacks, he ignores proof of the Bible's scientific and mathematical wrongs, failed prophecies, and general lack of basis in real reality. Super Saiyan Musashi (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You can start the articles yourself. Personally, I recommend starting the articles in your user space first (simply add the article tile to the end of your username within a link like so: [[User:Super Saiyan Musashi/Susan Shannon]]. Then click the link you've created and make the article there), because I'm not sure how the community feels about more articles with obscure subjects. We don't have notability standards, but there are a lot of cranks out there: eventually you're just repeating yourself by documenting them.--"Shut up, Brx." 05:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Now I'm way too lazy to create an account, and moreover I'm not native in English, not an American (so that I could have any real idea about what's going on there) and not an experienced writer. Anyway, thought I'd like to see an article about the term freedom, in my eyes its current usage in the States resembles pretty much some damn newspeak, as a great example calling French fries freedom fries because of France not.. er, supporting the forced spreading of freedom huh? Anyway, that's pretty much all I can say myself about that topic, but I'd really appreciate someone writing an essay or something about it. -94.237.66.206 (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Added - David Gerard (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Food woo and pseudohistory[edit]

Two suggestions:

  • The China Study, every radical, missionary vegan's and wacky animal rights activist's favourite (and misleadingly named) book to slam animal products users with (who may exasperatedly annoy them back with plant rights). (I acknowledge that most vegans are decent and not insane, pushy or aggressive, and just want to peacefully munch their greens, but I fear I cannot say the same for animal rights activists.) The English Wikipedia article is tightly monitored by SlimVirgin to prevent even external links to sceptical appraisals from being added to it. The German Wikipedia article, in contrast, does cite counterevidence, though I suspect it would be removed from the English version for being original synthesis or something, because no scientist bothers to directly address the obvious crankery that is The China Study, contributing to its popularity.
  • Paleolithic Continuity Theory, basically the idea that cavemen in Western Europe already spoke Celtic and Germanic 10,000 years ago. And Hungarian directly descends from Etruscan. I kid you not. Every crazy nationalist should love this stuff. Smerdis? --84.151.168.158 (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Religious Tolerance.org[edit]

I wanted to write an article covering Religious Tolerance.org, as it's well-known and informative site that cuts through misinformation concerning various beliefs. However, I'm not sure if that actually qualifies as a mission-based article; as such, I wanted opinions before I started on anything. User:TokenSkepticMagician talk 12:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I would say an article about them would be of dubious relevance to the mission unless they are somehow abusing the rhetoric of "religious tolerance" to work some religious, political, or other ideological purpose. If they are not, we can cite them as a resource on our Atheism FAQ or something of the sort. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 08:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
We have one on Rick Ross because his site's an excellent resource - David Gerard (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ballotpedia[edit]

I always thought it was nonpartisan. I just took a closer look at its coverage of things like redistricting though, and whoever added it might have a point. Kind of like RealClearPolitics, which someone more knowledgeable once explained is meant to seem neutral while inserting its own bias. I guess it's rated lowly for being "off-mission" (probably rightly so). Rakovsky (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

SCP Foundation[edit]

Why is the the idea for a SCP Foundation article so poorly rated? If it's because you guys don't understand it that well, I can help. I've spent a lot of time on it, andI've come to appreciate it a lot. Basically, it's a horror-ish wiki pretending to be the archives of a massive, shadowy extra-governmental organization whose job is to contain and conceal the paranormal creatures, objects, and entities of the world in order to "preserve normalcy",in their words. It's fun, it's scary, and it has some real gems. And no, it is not full of memes, though it does have "memetic hazards" that do unsavory things to you if you see them/hear them/read about them/learn about them. And if you're thinking, "Well, we don't just add fun fictional material from the web 'just because it is fun'.", remember, you said you found out about it on TV Tropes, which is a fun site about fictional stuff that we do have an article about. So, my point is, go to the actual website at http://www.scp-wiki.net , check it out, and reconsider your judgement of it.

Another interesting thing about them is that the site has another fictional organization called the "Global Occult Coalition" which is a fresh take on conspiracy theories. They are a super-conspiracy which works for the UN and works to destroy the paranormal, in contrast to the Foundation's mission of "Secure, Contain, Protect". But the interesting thing is, the GOC are also portrayed as the good guys and allies(though sometimes, they do cross over and become one of the Foundation's enemies, so it really depends).— Unsigned, by: 173.72.162.61 / talk / contribs 17:19, 22 March 2014‎ (UTC)

By the looks of it, this site is small, obscure, referenced almost entirely from one other site, and possibly fictional. That doesn't seem terribly interesting to me, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the other negative votes reflected that. Just because something might nominally appear "on mission", doesn't mean we really need an article for it. - Grant (Talk) 17:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
"Possibly" fictional? :D --ZooGuard (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I like to err on the side of caution... Never underestimate crazy! :) - Grant (Talk) 20:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd say if you can write a good and clearly on-mission article for it, just do so - David Gerard (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Translation of the above: RationalWiki is not a general purpose encyclopedic wiki. It has a specific sphere of interest (a.k.a. The Mission), and that sphere is not Internet culture (see the linked page). The SCP Foundation wiki appears to fall outside of that sphere, so the negative votes are not unexpected. They are an answer to the question "Is it a good idea to have an article on this?", not some evaluation of SCPF's merits.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure 90% of the reason why we have an article on TV Tropes is because they have an article on us. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 00:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright, point taken. Thanks for explaining, this is model behavior; fostering calm, reasonable discussion.

Why am I on the "Who would you like to see less of on Rationalwiki?" poll?[edit]

Is it a joke? Or am I upsetting people?--ZeroIsLogic (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Go into the edit tab and look at the code. Therein lies your answer. - Grant (Talk) 22:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
That would be a good tip, if there was an edit tab. At least, I don't see one. I see little edit links next to most of the sections, but not for the poll, and I don't see the edit tab.--ZeroIsLogic (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Because you're kind of a dick. TeenageWasteland (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Well I'm sorry then.--ZeroIsLogic (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
You could also find the same information in the page source (on Chrome: view-source:http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:To_do_list). The key in this case is '<span class="myName">Anonymous user</span>'. In case that doesn't make it clear, I'll just say: Anonymous user is a prick. You can use the edit link on this talk page to see what I did there. - Grant (Talk) 23:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

For next time, HERE is the link to the poll page, complete with edit tabs. And I don't really think you're a dick. TeenageWasteland (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I know that feel, bro. I have the slightest suspicions that Powder's rosen from the grave out of sheer hatred for me.--Madman (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)The Madman
Okay. And for anyone who thinks I am, please talk to me on my talk page. I must be doing something wrong, because I thought I had been very polite to everyone here.--ZeroIsLogic (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Did you check my comment when you made your edit? I think you'll find you've made some mistaken assumptions. The truth is far less nefarious. :) - Grant (Talk) 23:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Try logging out and looking at the poll. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I just got it. I feel stupid now haha.--ZeroIsLogic (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
You're bad and you should feel bad! Just kidding of course; I fell for that the first time too, though I happened to catch the joke as I was about to post about it. - Grant (Talk) 23:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Genetics of race[edit]

Just started a page on Genetics of Race over at my userspace. Still working on it (obviously), and any help, assistance, or hell, complete rewrites, would be greatly appreciated. The Mad World (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it already covered in our race article and related subjects like racial realism? ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
This is actually a contentious section of racial realism as we speak - David Gerard (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

hyperphysics[edit]

Hello, i recently became aware of a website called hyperphysics. It's hosted by Georgia state University, and is run by Rod Nave. At first glance it seems to be an education resource. My problem is the creationist slant of the site. False claims made include: DNA is a true code, and that amino acid selection during protein synthesis is not chemically determined http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/organic/gencode.html#c1

Other pages directly relate to god, and creationism. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/faithpathh/oldearth.html

I hope you (or someone you know) can expose this site as a stealth creationist deception. — Unsigned, by: 71.17.35.246 / talk / contribs 06:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

i do see an issue here we should do something but I am no means the person to do it ask some of the main editors Bubba41102 (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Added to to-do list - David Gerard (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I never knew that; I'd only come across it while reading on acoustics, and there wasn't much mention of God in that, of course. Wasn't much help, God or no, but sad to hear that the rest is sketchy. PacWalker 08:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Wakeman fixing[edit]

I have gained interest in the Andrew Wakeman article and would like others opinions on what needs to be fixed before going off messing about with the article, any ideas? Bubba41102 (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean Andrew Wakefield? First thing to do would put your proposed fixes (if substantial) on the talk page. If not substantial, hit "edit" and go for it, worst that could happen is they get reverted :-) - David Gerard (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
yeah sorry for some reason I thought of that Bubba41102 (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Some weird diet fad from a year ago[edit]

Some idiots from about a year ago decided it would be a great idea to ingest clay and then let it expand in your stomach in order to loose weight ( not to be confused with colonic this does work but it definetly isn't safe it is comparable to the low-carb diet in that respect but it is stupid and definetly isn't safe you can read on one persons exploit here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2707663/The-women-drinking-CLAY-lose-weight-It-s-used-cat-litter-contain-arsenic-lead-heart-attacks-Is-riskiest-dieting-craze-ever.html (sorry for long link) this does fall in the mission statement, but I can't edit the to do list Bubba41102 (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: I was able to add it so don't mind this, but feel free to discuss the idea, but nvm the needing to be added. Bubba41102 (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


Just a Question[edit]

I just wanted to know how do we add suggestions to the list? Also, is it oldest or newest ones at the top? Nergali (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hit "edit". Write your entry. Highlight it, you'll see a "click here" to add the vote around it, click there. Save - David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Moynihan report[edit]

There are at least two Moynihan reports (actually more, dating back to before he was even a Senator and recommended a negative income tax which became the Earned Income Credit) of fame, the Social Security Rescue Plan, and the Secrecy Commission report. Which one does this refer to? nobsI'm not from this planet, but let me tell u what I think.... 20:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Should we remove Social Justice Movement on Tumblr?[edit]

Should we remove this from recently created articles? It's a red link. Does that mean it wasn't actually created yet? Also, how do I move Alister McGrath to recently created articles? QuantumDude (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I removed it and moved McGrath in its place. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Transmedicalism[edit]

Wouldn't we have to prove that the medical definition of transgender is wrong or something? Because IMO, if we don't, then it probably just means that truscum are just run-of-the-mill elitists, and those are a dime a dozen in the LGBT community. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png It took him 0.2 seconds to lock the door. 13:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

CAIR source[edit]

That source linking CAIR to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood seems a bit suspicious to me. I don't know how trustworthy SourceWatch is (since we have noted it's full of moonbats), but they claim that though the Investigative Project on Terrorism refuses to disclose its donors, that they (somehow) have found that they are getting their money from various rightwing and pro-Israel foundations. Can anyone vet this for me? ConfusedLiberal (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

SourceWatch is generally pretty good with facts - David Gerard (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

John Lydon (Johnny Rotten)[edit]

This may be more for shits and giggles than anything, but it might be interesting to have an article on John Lydon, better known as Johnny Rotten, the frontman for the Sex Pistols. It's clear that he likely says outrageous things for the sake of being outrageous, but it might be interesting to list them anyways. Someone who slams any idea of socialized medicine, various cultural touchstone bands, the idea of celebrity charities (including the old canard that Live Aid didn't help anyone and helped pay for weapons), and this little anecdote concerning the Lost Cause of the South as seen in his second autobiography: https://books.google.com/books?id=8nyXAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT368&lpg=PT368&dq=john+lydon+anger+is+an+energy+nelson+winbush&source=bl&ots=a5-FstKwTk&sig=SsSrJszGMxH91GYejvGekAafsyk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMIysDq3siaxwIVC6oeCh02UARi#v=onepage&q=john%20lydon%20anger%20is%20an%20energy%20nelson%20winbush&f=false— Unsigned, by: Mmoore29 / talk / contribs

Then add it to the list instead of breaking the formatting in this talk page. Vulpius (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
How do I do that? I'm literally quite new here.— Unsigned, by: Mmoore29 / talk / contribs
John Lydon. Please do add to the article.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

This Christian looks at pagan stuff so much you might think he is one.[edit]

He also see 666 in Google http://theopenscroll.blogspot.ca/2015/09/decoding-googles-new-logo.html http://theopenscroll.blogspot.ca/ — Unsigned, by: 68.148.171.6 / talk / contribs 08:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Video Games As Art[edit]

I think it would be pretty sweet if we could really touch upon the notion of video games as art, namely stuff like the big debate people in the gaming industry with Roger Ebert; what video games have in common with other works of art like movies, paintings, music and other art forms, to make video games art; and really how all forms of art, especially video games, can affect us, positively or negatively, since art stirs emotions within us. Granted I'm probably giving a bad summary of the kinds of stuff I'd like to see in the article, but there's lots of intelligent minds and undoubtedly people who enjoy video games here at RW, so I think such an article could be really worthwhile here. I can't edit the main page obviously, so that's why the suggestion is here. Jon91919 (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Causality[edit]

I would like to thank the contributor who pointed out that we don't have an article on causality. I will most certainly create an article for it after I get back from work, as physics is kind of my thing. Might start out a bit stubby but it won't stay that way for very long. QuantumDudeI am beyond your understanding 18:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Ferguson effect[edit]

I created a page for the ferguson effect. It was my first attempt at creating a page so it might needs some editing to make it more RW.--Bonesquad11 (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Left handedness[edit]

Should there be a page on (left-)handedness - a certain amount of woo and prejudice if not worse (though, apparently, some lH machine operators were paid more because they could reach places others couldn't) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Should it be in new articles?[edit]

Warranted conspiracy theories is listed under new articles, but it's just a redirect to conspiracy theory. This seems wrong to me - even if you believe the redirect is accurate, it's not a new article. Annquin (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Usually we'd leave it in the list noting "currently a redirect to". OTOH someone may feel in a given case that just a redirect is sufficient. That said, I'd concur with you that in this case it isn't and it should go back in the list - David Gerard (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Gentrification[edit]

We have a blurb about it in White flight. Does gentrification really need its own separate article?CorruptUser (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, from my understanding, gentrification is the process of a wealthier class usurps a poorer class by increasing the property value. It is more of a free market failure than pure racism since it is usually, but not always an ethnic issue. White flight is the process of a community, in this case, richer whites, taking their capital and fleeing because they don't like the idea of assimilating with another ethnic group. White flight is harder to legislate while gentrification is easier to legislate, but right-leaning libertarians tend to argue against such anti-gentrification legislation because they see it as an infringement on the free market; the opposition towards anti-gentrification is more of a "colorblind" racism than white flight which is more of an overt kind of racism. Both cause ghettoization but for very different reasons.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 03:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Two new ideas for articles - How can I add submissions on the to do list?[edit]

Hello, I don't know how to add suggestions on the to do list, and I would like to add the following:

--78.193.246.137 (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Posted.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC) 22:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks!--78.193.246.137 (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


Hello, I have a similar thing![edit]

I'd like to suggest an article on Special Economic Zones, given on how they effect the government of their countries and how widespread they are. (Perhaps even separate articles on FTZ, ZEDE, Et Cetera?) But like the guy above me-I'm not even gonna attempt to spell his name- I'm not sure how to add that on the To-do list. ChikinRamen (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

A "new suggestions about current events" category[edit]

So, we have subsections for suggestions that have a lot of votes, however, shouldn't we also have another category for suggestions which are new and thus might not have as many votes, but are about current or upcoming events which may need immediate attention (so, for instance, if the article about Brexit were still a new suggestion, it would be put in that category, so that we would be able to react to the suggestion quickly and thus make an article about it or down vote it if we feel like it) as opposed to most other articles where we more or less have all the time in the world? TheSocktor (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

New suggestions appear at the top of the "recent suggestions" section, which should be somewhere fairly prominent on the page but now seems to be buried way down under lists of old suggestions that nobody's ever bothered to act on. We need less sections (by getting rid of most of that debris) not more. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Concur - the 50-75 list should be merged back in - David Gerard (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

On the "assault rifle" suggestion.[edit]

An assault rifle is, basically, a gun that fires an intermediate cartridge (eg. 7.62x39mm, 5.56x45mm, 7.92x33mm, 5.45x39mm), reloads with detachable box magazines (NOT clips, there is a difference, which I will not get into here), and is capable of either burst or automatic fire. An assault WEAPON, on the other hand, has two definitions. The one all the "derr terkin err gernz" crowd is yapping about is pretty much any spoopy-looking gun with heat shields, pistol grips, flash hiders, or any combination thereof, amongst other things, that are, according to them, largely defensive and TOTALLY not a means of compensating for something, despite often being marketed as such.

A semi-auto only rifle with a pistol grip or folding stock (Say, an AR-15 or a Ruger Mini-14 or SKS that certain people got a hold of) does not count as an assault rifle, as it is not necessarily in an intermediate cartridge (9mm Parabellum ARs exist, and mall ninjas have been known to put their .22LR target rifle in a chassis with pistol grips and folding stocks), and it is, as has been stated, only capable of one shot per trigger pull. KelTec's PLR-16 "pistol" (Seriously, it's a freaking carbine, stop trying to hide it.) also does not count, as, well, it's only capable of semi-auto fire.

While I do support civilian ownership of firearms (Hey, in a world where this kind of crap happens, you have to have SOME way to defend yourself and public property.), I do not support people on terrorist watch lists being able to largely defend their right to kill innocents. Assault rifles, light machine guns, APCs, and whatnot should be in public hands, not that of some rednecks or some fundies ranting about the end-times.

Two cents from TheMyon (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC) .

"Hey, in a world where this kind of crap happens, you have to have SOME way to defend yourself and public property." <--- This strikes me as odd.
Outside of the US and a very few other countries, gun ownership for purposes of self-defence is virtually unknown. The mindset that guns are something everyone should have for their own protection really doesn't resonate in most parts of the world.
Besides which, why should it be down to private citizens & their guns to "defend public property"? Surely that's the responsibility of law enforcement bodies. & Why on earth cite Cliven Bundy's movement - an example of legally owned guns being used to illegally occupy government land - as anything justifying civilian gun ownership? ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
It's entirely unclear this discussion belongs here - David Gerard (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

We need an articel on Theodor W Adorno![edit]

I tried to add the suggest but I had bug which made this not work.— Unsigned, by: 149.210.131.21 / talk / contribs

Well, we already have this article. It's best to add anything on him and his fellows to this article and make a redirect if necessary. P.S.: you can sign your posts with ~~~~ - it gives everyone reading a discussion nice information like the time of the post and the author, etc. NameThatNobodyTakes () 16:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Developmental Dictatorship[edit]

Is it wrong of me to actually support this idea, even if weakly? That is, the fastest way for non-developed countries to be developed is to be placed under a ruthless dictatorship that will drag them into the year of the fruitbat, kicking and screaming? Japan was placed under strict Allies control and had the shit beaten out of them after WWII. Korea was under a dictatorship for two decades before the country liberalized and became an economic powerhouse. West Germany was anything but a fun place to be for many years, and that was a "cultured" country with its own democratic traditions even if rudimentary. You can't just go into a country and announce elections and BAM! First world nation! You need the secret police to knock some skulls to keep everyone in line, the food needs to be delivered to the people so they aren't starving to death, the health agencies need to provide basic care and especially public health campaigns such as de-worming and fortification of food (seriously, those are BFD's that no one cares about), and then you need an education system that will churn out semi-competent workers in order for the economy to progress and a stable society to form, and only then can the country begin to liberalize. It doesn't need to be a foreign power that does it. The country itself can do it, if the people in charge actually want it rather than going full Machiavelli and intentionally stifling development. But it's going to involve a lot of skullcracking. CorruptUser (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

So in essence colonialism can be awesome if only the right people do it? You can of course argue that case in the article, but we should also offer reasons why it's not a good concept I am not the Ombud's man 15:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Not at all. None of the countries I mentioned were colonialized. My point was that tyranny can be an improvement over rampant infighting and tribalism, and it's possible for a tyrant to drag a country forward. I'm not talking "hellholes" like the east side of London, but real hellholes like DR Congo or Somalia or Syria. Can be a local tyrant such as Peter the Great. Can be foreign tyrants such as the occupying allied powers in Japan. Crack some skulls, bring safety, and the country can begin to develop, and eventually the crime and unrest becomes manageable enough that your police can replace their tire irons with rubber truncheons. StickySock (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

How does most wanted work?[edit]

Is the most wanted list automatically generated? Nazi experimentation has been created and should be removed but I don't know if that happens automatically or someone actually curates that list by hand. Annquin (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not updated automatically. It's literally just a section on the page.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. But how primitive. I moved it manually anyway. Annquin (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
It also saves me from voting down entries on Most Wanted to see if they magically disappear when they fall below 75. Annquin (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Two new subjects: Michèle Rivasi and Rachel Parent[edit]

Hello, I think the following personalities should have articles devoted to them, due to their notoriety at promoting pseudoscience:

--78.193.246.137 (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Braving Ruin tweet[edit]

https://mobile.twitter.com/BravingRuin/status/970275531647315968 FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 20:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Terrence McKenna[edit]

I'm rather shocked that RW doesn't have an article on McKenna's Stoned Ape Theory. It's outlandish, and yet, faintly plausible enough to be philosophically interesting. --96.89.105.180 (talk) 05:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

If you know enough about it, you can start a page on it, or perhaps better yet McKenna himself. Bongolian (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

A brief explanation as to the colours and what they and the numbers signify (and where to go to find the relevant discussions) would be useful (and the contact details for 'the prolific writers Anonymous and 'Someone Else Do it'. Anna Livia (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Updating list[edit]

In penance for creating 1 or more articles and not removing it for the list, I had a look for articles on the TODO list that actually exist and removed 4, 3 of which were created recently but one wasn't:

  1. Labour Theory of Value
  2. James Damore
  3. Alien abduction insurance
  4. FPÖ/Freedom Party of Austria - actually created in 2017

There are some other suggestions that exist as redirects and are covered reasonably well in other articles and I'm not sure if they need a separate article

  1. Billy Graham rule
  2. 5:2 diet
  3. The Passing of the Great Race

-- Gospatric (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Missing/lost treasure[edit]

There could be an article covering missing and lost 'treasure' - with links to the Beale ciphers, the Oak Island Money Pit: there is a Wikipedia list and 'many others' (only partially overlapping)- and can 'round up the usual (RW) suspects.' Anna Livia (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate entries[edit]

The following titles have duplicate entries, either on this article or in the archives: Social engineering, Cult of Saturn, October surprise, Globalism, Detroit, Argumentum ad YouTube, American Council on Science and Health, Hippotherapy, Ahnenerbe, Socionics, Howard Stern, Gavin Menzies, Emergency manager, John Bolton, Long Island Medium, Eyewitness identification/Eyewitness testimony

Also, The Simpons and Metabunk.org both have 100+ votes but haven't been added to the Most Wanted list yet. NothingToSeeHere (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The term 'woke'[edit]

The other place has an article on it - why not RW: needs someone with more knowledge of the subject. Anna Livia (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)