Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Big Weekend

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from WT:WEEKEND)
Shortcut

This is a page for talking about and planning a Big Weekend.

Big Airport Weekend

[change source]

With all due respect to the people who created the project page, I believe that my airport proposal has not received comments. Here is what I wrote on Peter's talk page: Peter, the best part of the CCW was that it touched something that was local to every place in the world. I note that airports are distributed all over the world and that Simple Wikipedia's coverage of airports are very thin. Most articles in the airport category do not have a {{Infobox airport}}. Many are one or two sentence stubs. Please consider whether it would be fun to have a "Big Airport Weekend" collaboration that asks each editor to create or improve an article about an airport. (The airport could be civilian or military; foreign or in his own country.) Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a good idea. You have defined the goal which is to improve coverage of airports. You need to decide on a date - at least 2 weeks in the future just to give advance notice. Put a notice on Wikipedia:Simple talk and refer people to this page for details. Over the weekend you will need to keep track of the number of new articles, the number of edits, and the editors. This info will allow you to measure the success, and thank editors for helping. --Peterdownunder (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you announce, it would be helpful to mention specifics, if there are any, about what makes an airport notable for Wikipedia purposes. That way, folks can be sure to include that in any new articles. I could write articles about some local airports, but I don't know if they're notable enough. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What makes an airport notable? I suppose like all notability issues it would have to have significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. I suppose non notable airports could be added to an article on their locality, for example Tennant Creek has an airport, but maybe not notable on its own but I could add an airport section to the Tennant Creek article. --Peterdownunder (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with all above. I've also made a few tweaks to the outline below, including the date - looking at previous Weekends we've had them towards the end of the month, and I think it would be good if we standardised around that date. I also think that 13-16 is a little too soon to be announcing it now, but - as ever - feel free to revert me if you disagree. Regards, Goblin 02:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1![reply]

Big Airport Weekend - January 20-23

[change source]

The purpose of this weekend is to improve SEWP's coverage of airports and airport related articles. The 'Weekend Lead' is Racepacket

  1. Add {{Infobox airport}} to all airport articles
  2. To improve existing articles and stubs in the Category:Airports
  3. To add new articles on airports. (Any airport with regular commercial service or where a historic event happened is notable enough for an article.)
  4. Airports can be civilian, military, and anywhere in the world.
  5. Add BAW (for Big Airport Weekend) to the edit summaries to help keep track of the changes.
  6. Please use the {{inuse}} template to avoid edit conflicts.

Big Infobox Weekend

[change source]

Many articles use Infoboxes to share common data elements for a particular type of article subject. Most of the infoboxes were converted from English Wikipedia. In many cases, the names of the infobox rows have red links because the English Wikipedia article has not yet been translated, or the abbreviation used in the link needs a redirect to the article that defines the row name. For example, in {{Infobox disease}}, the row labelled OMIM was red until an article could be written to define that abbreviation. In {{Infobox City}}, county is a red link. This project would check each infobox template to address red links. Also, we could work on standardizing capitalization and other minor tweaks. This is a good project, because it addresses a wide range of Wikipedia subject areas. Please let me know if you think we should do this Big Weekend. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I think it is harder to find those kind of articles. I'd say that sticking to a topic is better. We've done biographies, cities and airports, I think we should stick to topics from Wikipedia:List of articles all languages should have? My personal preference would be history or technology... I'd be happy to work on the infoboxes though if thats what we decide. Normandy 12:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear: We would not be making new Infoboxes. We would be eliminating red links from them. For example, today I created an article that removed the AMSL red link from all {{Infobox airport}} uses. To check the infoboxes, you go to Special:PrefixIndex and search on "Infobox" in the Template space. Then look at those pages for red links. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear from more participants before we either adopt or reject this proposal. Please comment. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further to what Normandy suggested we have a tonne of red links still at Wikipedia:List of articles all languages should have/Expanded which would be a great event. -DJSasso (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal put on hold in favor of the Big Science Weekend below. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big Science Weekend

[change source]
I would support this, but I fear that some of our regular participants would be reluctant to help. Racepacket (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Science is a bit too complicated for me sometimes. If it's basic stuff then fine, but I have a feeling that this will be going into really, really complicated science such as up quarks and down quarks, etc. -Orashmatash (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the idea is that you work on articles you feel comfortable with. I think that is what caused the success of the 'big weekend' Normandy 22:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But there are only so many simple science articles. That's why I commented... -Orashmatash (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are many templates and infoboxes used in science articles that could be brought over from En. Also, if you hate technical prose, you can work on articles about science institutions/government agencies, like CERN, Fermilab or United States National Science Foundation. Racepacket (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I like it. -Orashmatash (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO!!! Very bad idea. Loses the geographical connection, and is the kind of topic some/many will feel they are not well placed to contribute to. Also, the areas of science we are weak on (eg physics) are weak because we have no qualified person to guide contributions in the area. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To combine DJDunsie's suggestion with Normandy's / DJSasso's idea, how about:

Big Science Weekend, Feburary 24-27

[change source]

The purpose of this weekend is to improve SEWP's coverage of science related articles. The 'Weekend Lead' is ___. Pick an article from Wikipedia:List of articles all languages should have/Expanded/Biology and health sciences, Wikipedia:List of articles all languages should have/Expanded/Physical sciences, Wikipedia:List of articles all languages should have/Expanded/Technology, or write about a science institution/government agency.

  1. To improve existing articles in the Category:Science or its subcategories
  2. To expand a stub tagged with {{Sci-stub}} (listed in Category:Science stubs)
  3. To add new articles on science-related topics
  4. Add BSW (for Big Science Weekend) to the edit summaries to help keep track of the changes.
  5. Please use the {{inuse}} template to avoid edit conflicts.

Although mathematics and geography are related to science, we will save them for a different weekend.

Any improvements, sugggestions, dissents? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree because not everyone likes geographically based articles—not everyone likes geography. So surely it would put people off if we have purely articles about places and buildings, et cetera. DJDunsie (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation Questions

[change source]

User:Horeki asked us to evaluate the three weekends that we have held to ask two questions "What worked? Why?" I would be very interested in hearing answers from other participants. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Horeki's ideas

[change source]

Horeki's ideas seem to be on the mark:

"Location or geography was a common factor in the Capital Cities Weekend (CCW) and the Big Airport Weekend (BAW).
Also, I noticed the twin concepts of general public use and something which might be of personal interest to contributors.
IMO, future weekend projects should incorporate these general categories. Potential "hooks" might include:
Museums, art galleries, libraries?
Forests, Parks, gardens?
Bridges, roads, dams, harbors?".

This ideas are more inclusive, and almost everyone can contribute. And, because we live in different places, there won't be too much overlap. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, how about:

Big Bridge Weekend, Feburary 24-27

[change source]

The purpose of this weekend is to improve SEWP's coverage of bridge articles. The 'Weekend Lead' is ___. Pick an article from Category:Bridges or write about a bridge near you.

  1. To add {{infobox bridge}} to all articles
  2. To improve existing articles or stus in the Category:Bridges or its subcategories
  3. To add new articles on bridge-related topics (See: en:Bridge#Types of bridges)
  4. Add BBW (for Big Bridge Weekend) to the edit summaries to help keep track of the changes.
  5. Please use the {{inuse}} template to avoid edit conflicts.
  • Well, I can support this because it's obvious that all of us must have some important bridges in our country which don't yet have articles here. Though maybe the really sensational bridges have mostly been done. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: World Heritage Sites and National Parks

[change source]

This theme connects natural scenery with geographical interest. Even the U.S., which has way the most geography articles in this wiki, is lacking most of its WHS and NPs. All of these places are automatically noteworthy, and most are interesting to the general reader. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Please leave you thoughts here: Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really think this is as good an idea, if you are going to do article drives we should be doing it towards our core topics and not side topics that don't really advance the goals of the wikis. Bridges while eventually are something good to have, are not high priority by any means for a simple wiki. And in saying that it doesn't have to be science it can by any of the core topics on Wikipedia:List of articles all languages should have/Expanded which we still haven't managed to complete. -DJSasso (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DJSasso makes a good argument here for the Big Science Weekend. However, Macdonald-ross opposes BSW out of quality control concerns. Everyone has made constructive suggestions. We need to focus and agree on a definite plan. We could do bridges one month, Heritage Sites the next, and then reconsider science or infoboxes later. Everyone will have their personal preferences, but that should take a back seat to the important idea of working together. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Half empty or half full?
Is the glass half empty or half full?
Racepacket's words here deserve emphasis and repetition,
[Other things] "...should take a back seat to the important idea of working together."

In contrast, DJSasso's reasoning here creates a red herring with a false analogy.

What have we learned from CCW and BAW?

IMO, DJSasso posits assumptions and questions which are unhelpful. In other words, our guesses about "What worked?" and "Why?" have nothing to do with Wikipedia:List of articles all languages should have/Expanded

Yes, we need to be aware of what's missing from Wikipedia. However, this focus or point-of-view is not helpful when it is used to squash the slow growth of teamwork. DJSasso seems to see the glass as "half empty" ....

IMO, the "Big Weekends" were successful in part because they encouraged us all to see the glass as "half full". --Horeki (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason we can't do the same thing with the articles our wiki is supposed to have. Our wiki's goal is to specifically have the core topics. Unlike en.wiki where they have any topic that is notable our goal here is to cover the core topics simply. There is no reason we can't build teamwork with the articles our wiki needs. If anything what you are suggesting is that we ignore the goal of the wiki and work on whatever we want even if it doesn't help the wiki at all. I have no problem with us working on those supplementary topics as I said above, but I do think we should focus some of these weeks on those topics which advance the goals of the wiki. Nothing I have said is an attempt to squash teamwork but rather to focus it on something that actually helps the wiki attain its goals. That point of view has nothing to do with half empty or half full. It is simply that we should use such a tool to help the wiki instead of just making it look like we are helping the wiki. One of the biggest complaints we hear from editors here is that people here write about obscure topics too much and don't focus on the topics that we actually need. The helpful point of view would be to see how we can adapt these weekends to both encourage people to edit and to help the wiki towards its goals instead of just saying screw what the wiki needs like you suggest. -DJSasso (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For example why couldn't we have a weekend on Oceans and seas since that is an area we are missing a lot in. Would help the wiki more than a weekend on bridges to use one of the examples above. Or if that is too specific Bodies of water. -DJSasso (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
This has become another example of Talking past each other.

My words were not provocative. My tone was mild.

The timeliness and significance of These questions are not diminished by anyone's spin simply practical.

For me, any further investment in this thread is not worthwhile. --Horeki (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone was attacking. -DJSasso (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative solution: Perhaps we should give up on the idea of unanimity in selecting the weekend topic. How about we have a participant sign-up list. We alphabetize the participant list and then each editor on this list can pick the topic for one weekend. (A czar approach, based on taking turns.) The person who picks will be the coordinator for that month, and we will all have equal turns at picking the topic over the year. This approach is efficient and fair. The selection of a "bad" topic has little downside risk. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 07:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can forsee problems with this approach (as you say above) I do think we need a better way of making a decision. So something like that may actually get us moving a bit quicker. I'd go along with that. Kennedy (talk • changes). 16:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Big Weekend idea was meant to increase cooperation between us. The weekends went well, but now we see deep-seated differences emerge. An open slugfest about topics is the last thing we need, so maybe we should use an alphabetical list for weekend Czar as suggested. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with practical reasoning of Racepacket, Kennedy and Macdonald-ross. --Horeki (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's avoid the slugfest, so being czar like, I have proposed suggestions below. The only reason we should argue is to make sure there is clarity in the tasks for the weekends. We are not all going to get excited by each individual suggestion; I like biographies, so writing about airports was different for me - always enjoy a challenge. Lets support and strengthen ideas rather than tear them down.--Peterdownunder (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big Space Weekend

[change source]

A weekend to creating and upgrading articles about the final frontier? More planets, suns, systems outside the solar system, as well as other spacial bodies (e.g. Nebulas, asteroid belts, quraks). Shakinglord (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for future Big Weekends

[change source]

Please add your suggestions here.

Perhaps Big Military Aircraft Weekend? Or is aviation off-limits because of Big Airport Weekend? Shakinglord (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big Weekend Artillery Weekend

[change source]

I am proposing Big Artillery Weekend. The basis is to contribute to any and all eras of artillery, from Medievial to Modern, and all kinds of artillery, including rocket artillery. Jobs will include article creation, tagging, improving and others. Please feel free to input your suggestions below. Shakinglord (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The big weekend will start February 18th to February 20th ,which works perfectly, since it is a three day weekend in the United States of America. Shakinglord (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, be bold and do it! Put a notice onto simple talk to let people know. Your job will be to keep a track of the changes to create a short report afterwards; eg how many edits, new articles, people taking part. Every new edit is one more than we had before.--Peterdownunder (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with practical reasoning of Shakinglord and Peterdownunder.

Repeating Peterdownunder's words as if they were my own, our wiki project grows in part because every small step is "one more than we had before" .... "But the "number" is not really a critical issue. While it would be nice to know the total, the idea of a Big Weekend is to draw attention to something that needs some work, and get editors to focus their editing on it for a couple of days. It also gives editors the opportunity to work together." --Horeki (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, posting to Simple Talk. Shakinglord (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big Weekends coming up

[change source]

See below for proposed Big Weekends. Details will be added as they become available.

February 2012 Big Artillery Weekend

[change source]

Coordinated by Peterdownunder

Start 18 February 2012 - finish 20 February 2012
  • Increase the number of articles on artillery
  • From all eras, and countries
  • Please add BARW (Big ARtillery Weekend) to your edit summaries
  • For a starting point check these lists that have links to wars, weapons, and countries.
Artillery has many red links to the main types of artillery weapons
List of field guns
List of heavy mortars
List of howitzers

March 2012 Big Bridge Weekend

[change source]

Coordinated by Horeki

Start 24 March 2012 - finish 25 March 2012
Working together to create a bridge
  • Please add BBW (Big Bridge Weekend) to edit summaries
  • All are invited to create or expand articles and categories having to do with bridges of any kind, including a very wide spectrum of possible subjects. Pages that need work include
Bridge?
List of bridges?
List of bridges in Canada?
List of bridges in the United Kingdom?
List of bridges in the United States?
The Simple English Wiktionary has a definition for: bridge.
Just to be clear, does this include or exclude the game of contract bridge? ;) --Auntof6 (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we should consider the headnote at en:Bridge?
This page is about the structure. For for the card game, see Bridge (card game). For for other uses, see Bridge (disambiguation).
In contrast, the headnote at en:Bridge (card game) is less open-ended: See also: Glossary of contract bridge terms
Perhaps a hypothetical question doesn't need another response? --Horeki (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a best answer to this question and any other like it.

I repeat the words of Peterdownunder:"I wish I had thought of it, go for it!" --Horeki (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joke. lol see the wink. :P -DJSasso (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012 World Heritage Sites and National Parks

[change source]

Coordinator - Macdonald-ross as this was his idea.Peterdownunder (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's this weekend!

Idea is for editors to create pages for sites in any country which are recognised as World Heritage Sites, National parks, Nature Reserves, National forests, Marine parks or Marine Reserves. Some of them celebrate our natural world, and some celebrate extraordinary human achievements. Yellowstone National Park was the first national park in the world, and the USA was the first country to use the law to protect some of its most beautiful and important places. The UNESCO list [1] is a useful tool, and most of the UNESCO sites can be found on enWP. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Horeki's version of the List of World Heritage Sites in the United States for an example of a good table format. It could be adapted for other countries. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic work has already been done, but whole sectors of the world are missing. South America, Eastern Europe, Russia and large parts of the Middle East and Asia are mostly asleep, and have few WHS pages. Of course, this reflects the uneven distribution of our regular editors. Most new pages have been put up in Australia. Infoboxes, categories and other devices have been worked on. Macdonald-ross ([[User talk:Macdonald- ross|talk]]) 07:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found an interesting thing: a number of cities (eg Samarkand and Bukhara) which were on the UNESCO list, but the pages did not mention it, and they were not in WH categories. I'm sure we do have other pages already written which only need the WHS symbol and category to enable readers to find them. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

[change source]
[change source]

Coordinator needed - this would look at reducing redlinks especially from Wikipedia:List of articles all languages should have/Expanded. I would suggest that DJSasso should coordinate this.Peterdownunder (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is too wide a target, and I'm less than impressed by the List of articles all languages should have/Expanded. The list of sports people is so US-biased as to be unbelievable. Look at the absence of football and cricket players. Look at the journalists, almost unknown outside the US. Look at the number of US universities (two lists!). The list is also date-biased, leaning heavily on people who were well-known in the late 20th century. I understand perfectly that the list was drawn up at a time when the contributors were almost entirely North American, but really, it now looks desperately second-rate. I suppose if someone thinks it will make a great Big W/E, then it will happen, but I think it better to choose a more straightforward topic. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah when I suggested what I suggested. I meant take an actual subject off the list and try to fill the links in that particular topic such as Geography or it could even be more specific as one of the sub lists under Geography. I agree that the list needs to be better balanced. It is just taken from meta and the work on this one isn't as good as the non-expanded list. My guess is because it is so large, they are only at 7500 articles out of the 10000 they are trying to have so they aren't even close to being "finished" though such a list is never finished. There are a number of subjects on the list which are good and not so biased. -DJSasso (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all the above. Would you like to suggest one of the sublists that you would like to see expanded? --Peterdownunder (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012 Big Olympic Weekend

[change source]

I would like to suggest the topic of Olympics to coincide with the 2012 Summer Olympics. There are many athletes missing from the Olympic section of the List of articles all languages should have/Expanded. Articles exist on the events and for each year, but many could use expansion. Every country has an article with a table of medal winners, for instance Belgium at the Olympics, and almost all medal winners are redlinks. We could also do articles on the Paralympic Games. --Tbennert (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Switching Big Olympic and Big Space weekends due to scheduling. In order to better track changes I am asking editors to add their name to the list below. --Tbennert (talk) 04:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors

[change source]

August 2012 Big Space Weekend

[change source]

Coordinated by DJDunsie who wanted a Science weekend. Peterdownunder (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Start 10 August 2012 - finish 13 August 2012
  • The Solar System GA effort needs to be completed
  • Missing articles need to be created
  • Stubs need to be expanded
  • Articles need to be referenced

For full details, see Simple Talk.

September 2012

[change source]

Have anyone thought about a "Adopt a Stub Weekend"? I think this is a good idea since we have too much stubs here. Best, Jonatalk to me 19:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012 Big Biography Weekend

[change source]

Coordinator Peterdownunder - the anniversary of the first Big Weekend. This could become the Annual Big Biography Weekend! Details coming.--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Putting this one off until November. I am experiencing computer malfunctions and ny new machine is not ready; so I could be offline at anytime without warning.--Peterdownunder (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What works and why?

[change source]

There are some questions which are open-ended. For example,

Two of the things which interest me are similarities and differences in the process of simplifying. For example, I try to deduce patterns.

Our best guesses suggest the beginning of a wider point of view, yes?

Hypothesis A: In part, our continuing interest in the "big weekends" has something to do with the existence of the "show any page" link at the left of each Wikipedia screen?
Hypothesis B

In part, this is a good way to build and epistemic community. What do you think about what works and why? --Horeki (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Role of coordinator

[change source]

Each Big Weekend needs someone to cordinate it. Their role would be:

  1. Decide on the dates
  2. Give notice of the event on Wikipedia:Simple talk
  3. Refer people to this page for details
  4. Make sure the goals are clearly defined.
  5. Over the weekend they keep track of the number of new articles, the number of edits, and the editors. This info is used to measure the success, and thank editors for helping.
  6. Write a short summary on the Big Weekend Page

Big forests weekend

[change source]

To improve and create articles about forests. Add categories to them etc. I would say 24 and 25 of August. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I was thinking recently that we hadn't had one. Did you mean the 24 and 25 of August? Are you volunteering to do the coordinator tasks, or did you want someone else to do that? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, It would be fine for me to be the coordinator. I was checking this page out and noticed that in 2013 we hadn't had any big weekends, so I thought that this would be a good idea. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea: I'll take part. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is everyone OK with 24 and 25 August? Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I have very important exams until 2 October, I wouldn't know how busy I am... But as stated at Simple Talk, I will try my best to create articles on Singapore's remaining forests if I have the time. :) ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 01:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with those dates. Keep in mind that you need to accommodate the dates in different time zones, so the weekend would actually run more than 2 days. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so it will be more than 2 days. What else do I need to do? Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the #Role of coordinator section on this page. You need to assign a code for people to use in their edit summaries. After the weekend, you go through Special:RecentChanges for the whole weekend to get the information on how many articles were changed, counts per editor, etc. It's described above. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about looking through each editor's contribs? The RC page won't keep everything forever, only the last 500 changes. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 10:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can set the number to more than 500. Follow these simple steps. Click on the "Show last 500" and the following will appear in the address bar in your browser: http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&limit=500 All you need do next is change the =500 to a larger number. Based on my experience, it is good to keep a tally regularly, rather than let the numbers get to big. --Peterdownunder (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. The code is "Forest weekend". Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, how about "BFW" (Big Forest Weekend)? That's more the kind of code we've used before, and it won't take up as much room in the edit summary. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I agree! Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In progress. I'm starting already. Will write it over this few weeks. "BFW" will be used when the real article is created. If I can squeeze out the time, I will write more. Cheers. :) ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 05:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

::As WorldTraveller101 has retired. Should I expect that he participates in the BFW? Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC) He is not retiring anymore. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

don't worry about it. If people don't contribute, they don't contribute. You only have to note those who do contribute. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The BFW has just started for some time zones! Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Details

[change source]

Details CODE : BFW

Contributors

[change source]

Big Lakes Weekend

[change source]

I have thought over this weekend and decided to start another big weekend called "Big Lakes Weekend". Would anybody be interested? Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I volunteer to be the coordinator, like last time. The dates could be 2 and 3 November. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 06:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd contribute! You can't mean October (unless you mean next year!) -- do you mean November or December? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, its November. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 06:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will be inactive on Sunday and will not be able to count edits until Monday morning. I will be able on Saturday. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the notice message at the top of the project page. See my message on Reception123's talk page. --~ curtaintoad ~~ talk ~ 08:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sorry but I can not be the coordinator as I have to be somewhere. I will participate briefly to the Big Weekend but can someone please take my place as coordinator? Who does, please use my sub-page User:Reception123/Big Lakes Weekend and write the results and edits there and I might be able to contribute in the morning as coordinator but then I will not be able. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 13:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We may need to postpone till the new year. We only had three sign-ups, one of which was you. We might get a better response another time. Thank you sincerely for making the offer. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors

[change source]

Big Lakes Weekend (Second Try)

[change source]

Hello, I am trying the Big Lakes Weekend (BLW) to see if it works the second time. The Big Lakes Weekend is about creating articles, editing articles about Lakes, Rivers (any natural feature that has water practically). I will accept to be the coordinator and I propose these dates : 26 and 27 April , 3 and 4 of May, 10 and 11 of May . If you would like to contribute to the BLW please write your name under the "Contributors" section. If you want to comment feel free to comment below this. --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of us should decide on a date that we prefer. Please give your ideas. --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is everyone OK with 26 and 27 April? If yes that could be the date. --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As most people don't have date conveniences the date is : 26 and 27 April . If this is not OK for either of you , please feel free to propose another date. --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Will you count edits made on April 26-27 in all time zones, or just one? In the past I think we've allowed them for all time zones, to make it easier for editors in different places. If you're not going to do that, though, just let us know what time zone you're using so we can translate the time -- it just got a little frustrating one time when the coordinator was calling an end to the event when the weekend wasn't over yet where I live. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being generous and flexible about the times is always good - and a Friday evening start for a weekend makes sense too.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply, I think counting all the timezones is a good idea. We should count all the time zones so it is fair for everyone. --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And it has started!--Peterdownunder (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Yay! Everyone please remember, if you create any new categories, it's "Lakes of", not "Lakes in". --Auntof6 (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Details

[change source]

Details page (anyone can edit) CODE : BLW

Contributors

[change source]

Even if you did not sign your name here you can contribute to the Big Weekend

Big Reference Weekend 2016

[change source]
The reference desk at the Berkeley Public Library

Coordinated by Peterdownunder and Yottie The focus is on improving the referencing of articles, finding suitable references for unchecked facts, and then removing the Citation Needed tags. Although remember, as always, the quality of the editing is far more important than the quantity.

The project will run from Friday 19 February 11AM UTC until Tuesday 23 February 11PM UTC (in order to allow all timezones to benefit from the whole weekend). If you would like to contribute to the project, feel free to add a comment below saying you will participate, but of course you don't have to do so. Anyone, even ip users, can participate!

To make it easier to keep track of our efforts, you should include BW in the edit summary when you edit. This will help us count the number of edits and pages we have improved. Information will be added below on how to reference articles correctly. Watch this page if you are interested. All best, happy editing and I hope to see many people participate! --Yottie =talk= 22:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problem articles

[change source]

Articles already identified as needing improvement can be found in the following categories:

1351 at 11.00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
1360 members at 20:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC) ...has increased!!
1334 members at 8:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
1327 members at 12:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
1269 members at 11:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
1214 members at 8:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
1194 members at 12:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
355 members at 11:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
315 members at 8:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
313 members at 12:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
84 members at 11:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
43 members at 8:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
38 members at 12:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
(contains only other categories)
2151 members at 1:13, 20 February 2016
2051 members at 8:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
2048 members at 12:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Referencing info

[change source]
A reference librarian at the Folger Library.

All editors should be aware of the guidelines for adding references and citations to articles. You can read these at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The sources used should be trustworthy and from a reliable source. The information should be distributed by a group that is well-known for checking their own facts as well, making sure the information is correct or true. All articles should have at least one reference. If you are going to copy and paste a reference from another Wikipedia, you will need to check it. You need to check the source is still current and supports the facts in the article.

In articles with unsourced statements, and a source can not be found, only remove the statement and tag if you are sure it is incorrect. If you think it needs further research, then leave it, and place a note on the article talk page.

When you add a reference, please try to use the cite web template. The basic options are: <ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |author= |date= |work= |publisher= |accessdate=XX February 2016}}</ref> and you need to use at least a url (a web link) and a title. If possible, please add an author, a date, a publisher and change the access date (the date when you find the reference). For more information, look at this link.

At the end of the page, if there is not a reference section, you should add one. The source text for this is: ==References== {{reflist}}

Comments

[change source]
  • Comment: So why did Macdonald-ross's comments not get moved over? Are we only accepting positivity and assent on this page? (should I talk back at Simple talk?) Probably, never mind. I just added a citation to the article I had an interest in, anyway and I didn't even copy-and-paste from English Wikipedia. Fylbecatulous talk 15:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is there a way to advertise the Big Weekend with one of those banner notices (such as the ones that show up to announce Steward elections, fundraising, etc.)? It would be on Simple only, not EnWiki or other WMF project sites. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  17:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see in the past that sitenotice was used, once, for the Wikicup, but never for BWs from what I can see. I don't have a problem with using it, personally, but the community might have to give us permission at ST. Osiris (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for later comparison, I note that there are currently 1,358 entries in that category. It would be nice if someone notes the number at the beginning and at the end of the big weekend work. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it an automatically populated category?--Peterdownunder (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is populated by maintenance templates, such as {{fact}}, its various redirects, and other templates that invoke that template or its redirects, such as {{Reference necessary}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to this suggestion. Thanks, Auntof6, for thinking of that. Msannakoval (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll also use that new Catwatch function on the relevant categories to see if that helps. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A classic Aussie long weekend perhaps?--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I will certainly chuck a sickie. Osiris (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea – I have extended it even more, until Tuesday night (UTC). --Yottie =talk= 11:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your assistance would be most welcome.--Peterdownunder (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds nice. On the Finnish Wikipedia we have every July (since 2010) a "competition" called "Heinäkuun lähdetalkoot". There we will find articles that doesn't have references at all and then we will fill those articles with references. Last year we had 40 participants (29 active = added over 30 references in a month) who added references to over 2,000 different articles. And the points are automatically counted by a bot account (UKBot) owned by a Norwegian user Danmichaelo. --Stryn (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Stryn: Cool! Do you know how the bot finds the edits? Edit summary? Viikon kilpailu looks good too. I don't think we'd ever get that many participants here though. Osiris (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Stryn: @Peterdownunder: @Yottie: @Auntof6: Not sure about a bot, but there is a new feature of Wikimetrics that enables you to easily collect contribution statistics about a group of contributors. It's called the Program Global Metrics Report. It lives here: https://metrics.wmflabs.org/reports/program-global-metrics. Simply paste in a list of user names, select the time zone, the start date and the end date and time, then click the blue button to run the report, and click "My Reports" to view the report. It provides sums of "rolling_active_editor", "bytes_added", "newly_registered", "pages_edited", "pages_created", "existing_editors". Total number of edits is on a separate report. But it's still simple to create and run. I'm happy to help with this. I've got lots of experience with Wikimetrics. Msannakoval (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does that tool show the edit summary of each edit? That's how we tell which edits are part of the effort. Not all edits by the participants will be for the Big Weekend, and people may participate who haven't listed themselves here. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yottie: and @Peterdownunder: I noticed that some editor(s) are using "BRW" instead of "BW" in their edit summaries. (That might actually be better on the off chance that someone mentions Zimbabwe in their edit summary! :) ) Just letting you know so you can track those, too. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I've found that there are a lot of articles in Category:All articles lacking sources that actually do have sources. I'm going through the whole category with AWB, taking the tags off of the ones I see that have good sources. I've been tagging these edits with "BW". However, it occurred to me that the point of this weekend is to improve the referencing, and doing this cleanup isn't really doing that (the articles are already referenced). So would y'all like me to continue tagging these changes with the BW identifier or not? I'm going to continue going through the category either way. I'll continue tagging until/unless I hear otherwise: if necessary, these changes will be easy to identify and exclude from the counting. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that your edits should be counted as BW edits. Part of improving referencing is that the tags are removed/added as needed. It does me no good to click on an article that says it needs sourcing to find out that the sourcing is just fine - removal of the tag does, in my opinion, improve the referencing in a way. --Lithorien Talk • Changes 04:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done with the run. It looks like I removed about 88 pages from the category. There are currently 2,053 still in it. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors

[change source]

Progress

[change source]

As of right now, CatWatch is showing me that the following categories have been reduced by the numbers indicated:

  • All BLPs needing more sources: 7
  • All articles with unsourced statements: 9
  • All unreferenced BLPs: 27
  • Articles lacking reliable references: 11

These are just the categories on my watch list -- there may be others I'm not watching. Unreferenced BLPs seem very popular! Good work, everyone! --Auntof6 (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Must ... destroy ... this one. It's great to see how much is being done, so quickly! --Lithorien Talk • Changes 00:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Results

[change source]

Checking the edits of the Big Reference Weekend shows that 15 editors made 486 edits to fix reference problems. As those involved will have realised, some articles were easy to fix, others required considerable time to source relevant references, so keep in mind that while quantity is easy to measure, quality is not. As well, editors also maintained the normal activities, with new article being written, improvements made, and vandalism reverted. Numbers for categories is difficult to calculate, as some problems were fixed, new ones were being identified and in many cases being created. Thanks to everyone involved, every single edit helps. And because the weekend is now over, it doesn't mean that we can stop fixing referencing errors; there is still plenty of problems to fix.--Peterdownunder (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well done to everybody who took part. The reduction in the maintenance-category numbers is pretty good. I will note that most of my edits were restoring references lost in translation. So that was a lot easier than finding sources from scratch. Osiris (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As above, every edit helps. I will say that finding sources for some claims was a lot harder than I thought it would be.--Peterdownunder (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that most of my edits were removing reference-related templates that weren't justified. (They may have been justified when they were placed, then someone fixed the issue and forgot to remove the template -- I know I've done that!) --Auntof6 (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to add the results from Catwatch, that would be great.--Peterdownunder (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will do that tomorrow, if you like, although that data doesn't show whether the changes were specifically for the big weekend. It just shows things that were added to or removed from the categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be good, it will be another rough measure of what was achieved.--Peterdownunder (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the categories listed below, I see the following changes in member count:
  • All articles lacking sources: 88 removed
  • All articles with unsourced statements: 33 removed, 2 added
  • All BLPs needing more sources: 43 removed, 2 added
  • All unreferenced BLPs: 71 removed
  • Articles lacking reliable references: 46 removed
That's a net reduction of 277 (281 removed, 4 added), or 285 total changes. That's a lot less than the count above. The difference could be due to changes that affected different maintenance categories or no maintenance categories (for example, adding references to articles that weren't tagged). In some cases, people might have forgotten to remove templates so the articles stayed in the maintenance categories. If someone has other categories they'd like me to check, let me know. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There may also have been some articles with multiple maintenance tags; the removal of less than all of them would not take the page out of the maintenance category. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  23:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mean if there are multiple tags that put an article in the same maintenance category? That's true. There could also be articles that were removed from some maintenance categories, but are still in others. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously apples and oranges in terms of types of edits, but looking at the data on the project page, this weekend had the most edits of any BW project, and tied for 2nd most editors involved. Only (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can say it was a success. I look forward to more similar projects. :) --Yottie =talk= 11:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big Reference Weekend 2020

[change source]
The reference desk at the Berkeley Public Library... again!

Following the success of the project, a little over four years ago, I am suggesting a new Big Reference Weekend for 2020. Much of the information below is copied from the previous Big Weekend.

Coordinator: Yottie — The focus is on improving the referencing of articles, finding suitable references for unchecked facts, and then removing the Citation Needed tags. Although remember, as always, the quality of the editing is far more important than the quantity.

The project will run from Thursday 16 July 2020 - 11AM UTC until Tuesday 21 July 2020 - 11PM UTC (in order to allow all timezones to benefit from the whole weekend). If you would like to contribute to the project, feel free to add a comment below saying you will participate, but of course you don't have to do so. Anyone, even ip users, can participate!

To make it easier to keep track of our efforts, you should include BW or BRW in the edit summary when you edit. This will help us count the number of edits and pages we have improved. Information will be added below on how to reference articles correctly. Watch this page if you are interested. All the best, happy editing and I hope to see many people participating! --Yottie =talk= 17:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problem articles

[change source]

Articles already identified as needing improvement can be found in the following categories:

1868 members at 17:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
1817 members at 18:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
1772 members at 17:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
1716 members at 09:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
1022 members at 17:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
1012 members at 18:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
1011 members at 17:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
1011 members at 09:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
315 members at 17:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
310 members at 18:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
310 members at 17:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
310 members at 09:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
95 members at 17:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
97 members at 18:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
98 members at 17:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
98 members at 09:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
(contains only other categories)
2715 members 17:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
2707 members at 18:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
2707 members at 17:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
2706 members at 09:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Referencing info

[change source]
A reference librarian at the Folger Library... still there!

All editors should be aware of the guidelines for adding references and citations to articles. You can read these at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The sources used should be trustworthy and from a reliable source. The information should be distributed by a group that is well-known for checking their own facts as well, making sure the information is correct or true. All articles should have at least one reference. If you are going to copy and paste a reference from another Wikipedia, you will need to check it. You need to check the source is still current and supports the facts in the article.

In articles with unsourced statements, and a source can not be found, only remove the statement and tag if you are sure it is incorrect. If you think it needs further research, then leave it, and place a note on the article talk page.

When you add a reference, please try to use the cite web template. The basic options are: <ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |author= |date= |work= |publisher= |accessdate=XX July 2020}}</ref> and you need to use at least a url (a web link) and a title. If possible, please add an author, a date, a publisher and change the access date (the date when you find the reference). For more information, look at this link.

At the end of the page, if there is not a reference section, you should add one. The source text for this is: ==References== {{reflist}}

Contributors

[change source]

Feel free to add your name below

Comments

[change source]

Is there a way to sort through eligible articles by topic? As in "show me history articles in need of sourcing" or "show me 1960s popular music articles in need of sourcing"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking of the group effort to improve this new article the other day. Should we tag every change in which we add a source to an article "BW" or just once per article? One "BW" per article or one per edit-that-adds-sources? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkfrog24:Tag all the edits, with BW or BRW, which contribute to the Big Weekend project! This will help us count the edits. We will count the number of articles manually. --Yottie =talk= 17:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 (change conflict) @Darkfrog24: I'd say any edit that you would consider to be part of the big weekend you should tag "BW". I don't suppose it matters whether you tag each edit or once per article; I'd go with once per edit personally. Maybe a user who has took part in one of these before could clarify. IWI (chat) 17:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yottie: Yes this is what I thought too. IWI (chat) 17:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do we want people to add references one by one just to increase their number of qualifying edits? Do we want people credited for each article they add references to, or for each reference they add? I guess either would be valid, as long as we're getting good references to reliable sources. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's always hard to stop people chasing edit count. As I said in the initial blurb, I think it's a question of quality over quantity. As long as the references are added/fixed, I don't mind if it's one edit or several. --Yottie =talk= 10:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should count articles, not edits IMO. IWI (chat) 10:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As in previous editions, there will be many ways to track progress. We will, of course, also be counting pages improved. --Yottie =talk= 10:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first article I clicked on was a hoax that I deleted; can we count that for stats?? Haha! Only (talk) 11:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Only: I suppose in a way haha. IWI (chat) 11:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Only: Definitely counts! --Yottie =talk= 12:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[change source]

Had there been a discussion as to what topic would best fit the idea of Big Weekend, I would have said the following:

  1. We chose topics like airport, bridges, etc., because whatever age you were and wherever you lived, you might be able to contribute. I know that's not true of this topic. Really, the only people who really understand why references are necessary are people who have been to university. And I bet it doesn't fly with our younger audience. It is true that we have many articles which are technically defective because they do not say where the information comes from, and are without even a credit to En wiki, where sources are almost always available.
  2. Secondly, it takes a certain amount of sophistication to contribute to "someone else's page", and that sophistication also comes with age. Actually, some of our foreign language editors might be happier than the younger English-speaking ones with this one. But as a rule, we have few foreign-language editors joining in the BWs.
  3. Such sources as we do have, if placed by experienced editors, may take into account the ability of young people or foreign-language users to understand what the sources are saying. After all, if one can't understand what the source says, it may as well not be there. And, very typically, sources published in journals are all but incomprehensible to any who do not know the field in question. It is not so much that sources are needed as a formality, as that they are needed to support the idea that the encyclopedia (WP) is soundly based. But even if soundly based, they may be of no help to the reader, because the readers' grasp of the language is not good enough.

Well, I'll certainly do some editing, but whether it firs your spec is another matter! Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only university students understand why references are necessary? I had to cite my sources in middle school papers. As for 3., my view is that not all readers may care if the references are done properly, but it's more of a help to editors who want to verify information, especially on Simple Wikipedia. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Macdonald-ross: Thanks for your comments, it's always good to have your input. I know you had reservations last time we ran this, and I definitely get some of the points you make. I agree it's not going to appeal to everyone and not everyone will understand why references are important. Nonetheless, it was one of the most popular Big Weekends in terms of participants last time, so I have high hopes for this one too. --Yottie =talk= 14:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Macdonald-ross: I disagree with your assertion that "only university students understand why references are necessary". I have never been to university and I have a very clear understanding, as do most Wikipedia contributors. Furthermore, I recall citing sources in secondary school. IWI (chat) 14:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There may be merits in your replies. We'll see. I would think that people who contribute regularly to WP are already special amongst their age-group. I would be overjoyed to see this kind of work done by users who were not regular members of the wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Macdonald-ross: I agree that most non-regular xontributors may not be totally familliar with this process. This is true. IWI (chat) 15:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So far so good on the "someone else's article" issue, but not for the best reason: There are so many articles in the "needs sourcing" category that it's easy to select one that I feel confident about. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resource list

[change source]

I think we should start lining up sources that are good for many things, especially if they're searchable. Feel free to add any source to the list below. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Amphibian animals: Amphibiaweb
  • Animals (many kinds: IUCN Red List
  • Australia (animals and other things): Western Australian Museum
  • Famous people
  • History
  • Politics
  • Science (many kinds): Eurekalert This contains plain-language press releases from laboratories. Sometimes they link to the professional study.

Results

[change source]

Thank you everyone for taking part. I hope that everyone enjoyed the challenge of finding and adding references, or generally making pages on the Simple English Wikipedia more reliable. Whether you contributed one change or a hundred changes, whether your edits were big or small, thank you. It all helped. I have run through the statistics manually, and can see about 201 changes by 7 users. Judging by the results by category, we have helped fix about 177 pages which were lacking sources or had unsourced statements. I know that this may not have been the most accessible task, as referencing does have its challenges. I hope, however, that people will be keen to keep on adding sources to articles, so we can make our Wiki better. If anyone would like to suggest another Big Weekend, for the future, maybe we could turn this back into a monthly event! Watch this space. --Yottie =talk= 09:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big World Heritage Weekend 2020

[change source]

Given that the revival of the Big Reference Weekend project seemed to work, IWI suggested a repeat of the Big World Heritage Weekend, coordinated by Macdonald-ross back in 2012. We have decided to keep this one simple, and focus only on World Heritage Sites.

Coordinator: Yottie and ImprovedWikiImprovment — The focus is on improving existing World Heritage Site articles, creating new World Heritage site articles and updating the lists of sites for each country. As always, the quality of the editing is far more important than the quantity of edits.

The project will run from Friday 14 August 2020 - 11AM UTC until Tuesday 18 August 2020 - 11PM UTC (in order to allow all timezones to benefit from the whole weekend). If you would like to contribute to the project, feel free to add a comment below saying you will participate, but of course you don't have to do so. Anyone, even ip users, can participate!

To make it easier to keep track of our efforts, you should include BW or BWW in the edit summary when you edit. This will help us count the number of edits and pages we have improved or created. We will add information below about which pages are good to start with. Watch this page if you are interested. All the best, happy editing and I hope to see many people participating!

Contributors

[change source]

Feel free to add your name below

Comments

[change source]
  • So I think when improving the list articles, we should try to keep the same simple table we have. I don't see it to be very helpful to copy the enwiki tables. They are long and complex but many of the tables created here in 2012 are simple and display the information in a more clear way. IWI (chat) 21:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For a specific example of what I mean, compare the table on List of World Heritage Sites in the United States with en:List of World Heritage Sites in the United States. IWI (chat) 21:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List

[change source]

Results

[change source]

The Big World Heritage Weekend 2020 has come to an end and the results are in. First and foremost, I hope everyone had fun writing and learning more about the amazing sites around the world. I certainly did! As ever, whether you contributed one change or a hundred changes, whether your edits were big or small, thank you for all your help. I have run through the statistics manually along with IWI, and we have counted about 376 changes and 56 new articles by 7 users. This is an estimate, as we tried to count all edits, even those not marked as BW. If anyone would like to suggest another Big Weekend, for the future, feel free to leave a message on my talk page, or below! Thanks again for all your hard work.--Yottie =talk= 12:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next topic suggestions

[change source]

Opening this thread so we can brainstorm the next topics. Here are are a few ideas to help us kickstart the discussion...

Thanks for starting the conversation, Infogapp1! I like both those suggestions, especially castles. I will add a couple to the discussion, as per my talk page:
Oh, now we're talking. I really like both options actually and I'd be happy to help where others would lean towards as they're both as equally important. Though in terms of sourcing, animals may be a little bit tricky since they tend to have lesser information (data + images) than nations? If it's not an issue, then both are a fair game. — Infogapp1 (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd go for that! There are (at least) two kinds of work here: new page creation content work (which would include new page creation and stub expansion) and cleanup work. Maybe it would be good to alternate the weekends between the two. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't purpose of the big weekends is to focus on one specific thing and grind that really hard. Just using the maintenance category is just, "big everything weekend", right? Naleksuh (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not if you pick a specific category. -Djsasso (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​​ Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe what Chenzw was trying to say is that it would be focused on the entirety of the maintenance backlog, which of course is "big everything weekend" and a bit broad. A more specific category is what I was trying to suggest, and is in line with previous Big Weekends. How about Big Red Link Weekend? Naleksuh (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A Big Red Link Weekend would mostly be creating articles. If we're going to choose a maintenance theme, I'd rather see something that would clean up errors or other kinds of issues, such as things under Category:Wikipedia cleanup categories. Examples could be things under Category:Wikipedia backlog or things in the maintenance categories. Maybe we could focus on everything in the sourcing section of the backlog. There are things under Category:Wikipedia maintenance that don't actually need anything done, such as things in the tracking categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also be happy with a Big Cleanup Weekend as suggested by Chenzw and Auntof6. Useful task for the Wiki and it's easy to track progress via the number of articles in the relevant categories. --Yottie =talk= 21:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yottie: I could go for that, though I think that stubs need work; there’s over 5,000 of them that need expanded. But yeah, cleanup would work --sithjarjar666 (my contribs | talk to me | see my enwiki profile) 21:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
* Big Cleanup Weekend sounds good. When do we start and which pages/lists should we take a crack at? --Infogapp1 (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
* I like Auntof6's idea of alternating between content and maintenance. --IWI (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm down with whatever the group decides. Perhaps we can start with the redlinks this week? Can tackle the maintenance ones next? --Infogapp1 (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well it won't be this week, it will be in just under a month. For now, I think this should be a monthly thing, for the purposes of higher participation and easier planning. Also, if we are going to follow Auntof6's idea, the next BW will be a maintenance one, as the last one was content creation. --IWI (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I guess I'm being overly excited. --Infogapp1 (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related to de-stupificiation, some of our elder states people will recall the Wikipedia:Article Cup/Stub 10 of ancient times. I still have that trophy kicking around somewhere in my basement, aka talk page archives. Only (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This looks fun. And wow - 2010...Curious: Did you guys have to manually check all of those tallies or Hashtags was already on hand to help at that point? --Infogapp1 (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to make some comment about how the organizers had to make a long journey to gather the data, trudging uphill both ways! --Auntof6 (talk) 05:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Listen here, whippersnapper... Back in my day... We didn't have no fancy "hashtags." Honestly, I can't remember when those came to be. And we definitely didn't have Visual Editor. But for the Stub Cup, we just self reported our progress and the organizers verified it. So I would record that I expanded X article, and the people running it would go into the article history and calculate how far it got expanded to award points. Only (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! I, too, certainly prefer old school honesty system =) --Infogapp1 (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still refuse to use the visual editor :P --IWI (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The good old days! My 1 point looks rather sad... Must have been a busy time for me! I think a Stub Cup 2020 could work, based on the same principle of logging one's articles to minimise work for the organisers. I think it should probably be kept separate from the Big Weekend, though, and maybe run over a longer period of time. I would be happy to organise/help organise, if there is an appetite for this. --Yottie =talk= 19:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+1 on the Stub Cup 2020 for sure. --Infogapp1 (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a Stub Cup in October? --Yottie =talk= 11:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big Cleanup Weekend 2020

[change source]

Hello everyone, Following on from the discussion above, there seemed to be interest in a Big Cleanup Weekend, so that is exactly what I am proposing.

Coordinator: Yottie — As per suggestions above, this will concern all categories in Category:Wikipedia maintenance. The weekend will start on Friday 4 September at 11AM UTC and will end on Tuesday 8 September at 11PM UTC. As ever, feel free to sign up below, but of course this is not compulsory. All help is welcome!

To make tracking our edits easier, please remember to use BW or BCW in your change summary. Also, I realise the Maintenance category used is quite large and all-encompassing, but this should give editors an opportunity to edit within the categories they feel most comfortable and confident. I hope to see lots of people involved. Drop me a message on my talk page if you have any questions. --Yottie =talk= 11:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors

[change source]

Comments

[change source]

Just a quick notice to say that the Big Cleanup Weekend 2020 has officially started! Remember to mark you edits with BCW or BW to make it easier to track our progress. You can make changes to all articles in Category:Wikipedia maintenance. A good category to look at within this is Category:Wikipedia backlog. This includes:

Happy editing! --Yottie =talk= 11:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Results

[change source]

The Big Cleanup Weekend 2020 is now over and the results are in. Thank you to everyone who took part, as ever. All your changes are very much appreciated and really help improve this Wiki! This time we saw some great changes: fixing templates, simplifying articles, correcting broken links, adding images, adding references, and more! As usual, I have run through the statistics manually and I have counted about 409 changes by 7 users. This is a great result, and even though it is about the quality of the changes, not the quantity, I think we can safely say we had both quality and quantity this weekend! If anyone would like to suggest another Big Weekend, feel free to leave a message on my talk page, or start a section for the next event below! Thank you once more for all your hard work.--Yottie =talk= 10:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Big_Weekend&oldid=8892212"