Wikipedia talk:Concise

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Cornerstone/Keystone Articles

I propose that we create an alphabetical list of the "major" articles of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia already contains a list of "unusual articles," but doesn't contain an easily accessible list of "usual articles," the kind of articles that no encyclopedia can exist without, the kind of articles that other articles branch out of. I think that a list of "cornerstone articles" would be very helpful to people (like me) who like to read encyclopedias from cover to cover to understand the major concepts in the vast realm of human knowledge, but who don't want to sift through all of the minor (more specialized) ideas as they go about it. The Encyclopedia Brittanica people tried to get at this idea by dividing their encyclopedia into two sections: the "macropedia" and the "micropedia." I think that an online encyclopedia could do a much better job of listing selected "core" and "essential" articles in one place so that people who read encyclopedias for the "big," "important" articles could go about it much more efficiently. The only problem I can foresee with such an idea would be the debate over what exactly makes an article a "cornerstone / keystone" article. I suspect that the "discussion page" of such a list would be quite active, but the categorization scheme I have in mind should be pretty easily understood by most people: I am simply proposing a list of the major players in world history (From the A list, people like Aristotle and Alexander the Great), and the major ideas in science (asteroids), and the major animals of the world (aardvark) and the major cities or states of the world (Alabama, Abu Dhabi), and so on. A good way to generate such a list would be to look at an existing short (or concise) encyclopedia and see what articles the editors thought that they couldn't live without. Children's encyclopedias are also very good places to find "shortenend" or "core" lists of "essential" encyclopedia articles.

The first ten entries of the A list of such a categorization scheme might look something like this:

And so on. Other letters would proceed in the same way and then a person who is interested in the "major topics" in human knowlege could just go down the list and (given world enough and time) read all of the "essential" articles without having to wade through an index that would insert (in the case of Wikipedia) several articles between each "Keystone" idea.

What do you think? Could this be done?N2lect2el 16:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

May have already been done. Check out Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics and the various subpages. older≠wiser 17:05, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

No. That's not at all what I'm looking for. Maybe it would be helpful if we thought about calling it "The Concise Wikipedia" or "Wikipedia: Concise." The whole idea is that I don't want to have to wade through hundreds of articles about the various episodes of various TV shows to get to the "good stuff," which I consider to be the "cornerstone" ideas I discussed above. The subpages of the Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics are nearly impossible to wade through in an efficient manner. I want to get away from the kinds of lists that I find throughout Wikipedia where I have to bypass hundreds of titles of every recording Motown put out as I scroll toward Mozart. I wouldn't mind seeing Mozambique between Motown and Mozart, but the endless minutiae has to go.N2lect2el 17:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 10,000 to 20,000 Articles

Most "concise encyclopedias" for sale on Amazon.com claim to have at least 15,000 articles. As it is now, Wikipedia has over 400,000 articles and while this is clearly good, it is also somewhat unmanagable and overwhelming to people who are trying to use the encyclopedia as part of a course of home schooling or self education or just general reading. I envision this page eventually listing the 10,000 or so "essential articles" of a small set of encyclopedias. I think this would be very useful because Wikipedia articles tend to be much better than the articles found in a small set of encyclopedias and much more detailed than anything that generally gets labled "concise"; hence, a "concise version" of Wikipedia could be very useful to someone practicing autodidacticism (Self Education). I know I spent many years before college just reading encyclopedias from cover to cover and I would like to see this become possible with Wikipedia.

So the question we have to ask ourselves before adding items to the list on the main page is: "Is the link I'm proposing connected to one of the core 10,000 articles no encyclopedia should be without?" "Is it an 'Essential' " (Here, I'm thinking of the Turner Classic Movies television series The Essentials where every week they play a movie that no one who wants to be a "film buff" should go without seeing; I think this is a good analogy for what I would like this page to become).N2lect2el 23:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please also note that the 10,000 to 20,000 article idea is just a guess at the number of articles that should be listed here. Maybe, as this project develops, it will become clear that a concise version of Wikipedia is larger than most concise encyclopedias on the market. Since Wikipedia is bigger than any other encyclopedia in the same way that the Oxford English Dictionary is bigger than any other dictionary, and since the concise version of the OED is larger than many other full-length dictionaries, we might have to assume that the concise version of Wikipedia will be as big as some full-length 26 volume encyclopedias (many of which have around 50,000 entries--1/8th Wikipedia's current content).

Please add links to the list to articles that you think are an essential part of a "concise encyclopedia" and we will worry about the exact number of them later.N2lect2el 23:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Is ABBA essential?

Not yet--maybe not at all. Their self-titled first album and all the songs on it certainly wouldn't be--but is the group ABBA an essential? I don't know. I certainly have enjoyed their music from time to time and they were certainly influential, but I don't know if I'd call them "essential." At least not yet. This is the type of thing that I can see us eventually debating on this "discussion page." But I think that before we worry about questions like this, we should get the clearly "essential" entries on the list: things like disco and Sweden and The Battle of Waterloo and keep in mind the fact that even if ABBA does eventually make it on to the list, their second album Waterloo never will. Please remember that the whole point of this page is to get away from "minutiae" and focus on the big picture, to make Wikipedia more accessible to the average reader, not less. There are plenty of places on Wikipedia to document every song ever recorded by our favorite bands, and while this is certainly a useful thing to do, I think there should also be some place on Wikipedia where we can get away from that if we want to and focus on the core ideas.

I hope this example is helpful.N2lect2el 00:41, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln Library of Essential Information as Analog

Another analog for what I hope this concise version of the Wikipedia might become is the two volume set of books called The Lincoln Library of Essential Information. This is basically a 2 volume, concise encyclopedia (which should be available at the library), but it presents itself as being a place to find everything you need to know to educate yourself as Lincoln did. Self-education is an important issue and I think that Wikipedia could be a very useful tool for those trying to educate themselves, as Lincold did, and as countless other people have done. But the problem with trying to educate yourself is that you don't know what information you need to learn. The publishers of the Lincoln Library understood this and put out a collection of what they thought was the most important stuff for people to know about (and they were quite eclectic too). I think that this could be easily done with a list of hyperlinks to existing Wikipedia articles.N2lect2el 14:44, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Other articles similar to this one

Are you aware of Wikipedia:Complete list of encyclopedia topics (obsolete) (particularly the history of that page) and Wikipedia:Basic topics? I'm not sure whether you are duplicating some of the effort there.-gadfium 22:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the Wikipedia:Basic topics section, but I found it to be quite interesting and I (personally) will work my way through it because it looks like it would be fun to do so--but it isn't exactly what I would call a "concise encyclopedia" either. I'm looking for something that has the "feel" of a small set of encyclopedias, where the articles are arranged alphabetically and you can just read your way through and learn all kinds of fascinating stuff. As complex as Wikipedia is now, this is basically impossible to do. I think a list of essential encyclopedia articles would make it possible.

I also wasn't aware of the "complete list of topics" idea (and I'm not a technical person so I don't understand all of the complex problems that arose during the attempt to create such a list), but I don't think that what I am proposing here is the same thing. That seems to have been an attempt to build Wikipedia from the ground up. This is an attempt to list articles in Wikipedia as it exists today. The links in the list of links on the project page are not at all different from the links to existing articles that would occur within any article I could write on Wikipedia, so there shouldn't be anything technically wrong with writing a list that contains the words "Aristotle" and "Alexander the Great" and "asteroids" (and so on); otherwise, I wouldn't be able to create an article on (say) Famous Tutors in Western History and write a sentence that contains links to other articles (something like "Aristotle was Alexander the Great's tutor, but it is unclear whether or not he ever taught his pupil about asteroids.") That system seems to work OK; I don't see why this one shouldn't.N2lect2el 16:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Some suggestions

I think that this 'concise' idea is a good one. I also have fond memories of wandering from topic to topic in the encyclopedia.

I think that you can make some decisions rather quickly. Here is a (partial) list of what you might expect to find. Each item I list represents 100 or more articles:

Do you want to add all of the UN member states?
- How about the chief executive of each state?
You mentioned US states (Alabama) do you want provinces of Canada? What about China? (and by extension other countries).
major rivers, mountains, islands, etc.
Large cities which are not capitals of anything (like New York).
all plants that are cultivated commercially.
Sports stars (I see Hank Aaron).
- Do you want all of the 'Hall of Famer's?
- What about non-americans? Cricket? Football (European)?
Nobel prize winners?
What other people?
- Senators? All congress members?
- What about MPs from Great Britain, Canada?
- Cabinet ministers from all countries?
Olympic sports,
- and recent medal winners
Do you want any fictional characters? I noticed you have Saturn (Greek God)
- How about Oedipus
- Hamlet?
- Harry Potter?

My criteria would be that someone should be included if a politician would mention him in a speech and expect the audience to know what he's talking about.

My point in my list (above) is not that I think that any of those items absolutely must be included, but rather that the line is very gray, and the slope is very slippery, so the decisions must be rather arbitrary. Morris 01:28, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

--These are all great ideas Morris. I say, add them onto the list if you think they should go there. I certainly didn't intend for list I started to be exclusive to "American culture" or anything like that--I just think that we need a way to get away from the endless "minutiae" of Wikipedia as it exists today. Have you tried to navigate your way through any of the other existing article indexes on the wikipedia: category schemes page? It's nearly impossible to do.

But how do you decide what is "worthy" of being on a list of "essential" topics and what isn't? I'm not yet sure. But I don't think we should shy away from the task of trying to figure it out. If the Encyclopedia Brittanica people and the Columbia Encyclopedia people (etc.) can go through their encyclopedias and cull out the "essentials" so can we (and so should we). You're right, however, when you say that this process will be quite arbitrary. I worried before I proposed this idea that it was "against the spirit" of Wikipedia, which is by definition "open to every idea" (and I'm certainly in favor of that). I don't want to do anything that prevents people from writing articles about their favorite song if that is what they choose to do (I even like the fact that I can look up these articles if I need to know more about (say) The Beatles Hey Jude), but I also think there should be some way to bypass all of those minor articles if I want to and focus on the articles that are generally considered to be more "important." I know this notion smacks of elitism, but I've justified it to myself by deciding that I am in no way proposing that the "minor" or "less important" articles be eliminated or changed in any way. I think they should all still be part of Wikipedia and still add depth and detail to every article within Wikipedia--but there should also be an index of the "major articles" of the encyclopedia that doesn't include the "minor articles." The publishers of all "concise encyclopedias" make these decisions. It's probably not a fun process, but somebody has to do it.

I like your idea that an aritcle should be included if it is something a politician could mention and expect her audience to understand. I think we should come up with some more criteria like that. One that motivates me is the simple comparison to the articles found in existing concise encyclopedias. If three out of four concise encyclopedias in the library contain an article on Cleopatra, chances are that Cleopatra is an important topic to include on our list.N2lect2el 16:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

been looking through this section and i see a few issues:

Which poloticians? If a UK politition mentioned margret thatcher the audiance would definately know who he was talking about. If an american politition mentioned here i suspect a fair portion of the audiance wouldn't (or at least would only have a vague idea.
Canada is BIG in land area but in terms of population is smaller than the UK! We need to decide on criteria for whether an area of land is significant enough to warrant an entry here.
The above two show that geographic bias is a BIG issue in putting together a list like this. With most real concise encyclopedias i suspect the geographical bias reflects that of the parent encyclopedia. do we want this here or do we want to make the list as geographially neutral as possible.

Plugwash 12:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] See also

m:List of articles all languages should have. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:18, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Category

I'm going to put this in the "Editorial validation" category. There are some other things there you might be interested in. Maurreen 05:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Fewer?

It might be good to start with smaller numbers. For example, collect the top 100 topics first. That's very doable, for one thing. Maurreen 05:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it will be good to create lists of 50 or 100 must-read articles for each major high-school-level subject (e.g. agriculture, art, astronomy, biography, biology, business, chemistry, cookery, computer science, culture, economics, geography, health, history, industry, law, literature, mathematics, music, philosophy, physics, politics, psychology, religion, sports). These lists may be helpful to homeschoolers. -- Toytoy 11:34, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

I think that might be covered by various "Basic topics" lists. Maurreen 04:38, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Identify categories

You'll make faster progress by identifying specific categories already defined in Wikipedia, and then identifying specific articles if there's no category that fits. You can reference a category without placing the page in the category by placing a colon in front of the world "Category", like this: Category:African countries.

For example, I'd expect an encyclopedia to list all the current world countries; and a U.S. encyclopedia would have an entry for each state. Just identify the categories, and you're set. The "country" category is too broad, but you can simply add this:

African countries
American countries
Asian countries
African countries
American countries
Asian countries
African countries
American countries
Asian countries

[edit] Suggested models?

The "Lincoln Library of Essential Information" (last published in 1984?) has already been suggested as one model. The "Columbia Encyclopedia" (June, 2000) is the (semi-)concise single-volume encyclopedia that I'm most familiar with (there are 51,000 mostly short articles in 3200 pages)(amazon). The Columbia Encyclopedia is, unfortunately an "American encyclopedia written for American readers". There is also the "The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia" (October 1, 1994, 973 pages, 1700 articles) (amazon).

Another American example is "The Random House Encyclopedia" (October 1, 1990, 1300 pages?), and the newer and smaller "Random House Concise Encyclopedia" (November 7, 1995 727 pages, 10,000 entries) (amazon}. Yet another American example is "Webster's New World Encyclopedia" (August 1, 1993, 1156 pages). Then there is the "Britannica Concise Encyclopedia" (April 1, 2002, 2067 pages, 28,000 articles) (amazon). A little more specialized example is the "Barron's New Student's Concise Encyclopedia" for ages 9-12 (September 1, 1993) (amazon).

One British example is the The Cambridge Encyclopedia (August 13, 1997, 1313 pages, 26,000 A-Z entries) (amazon). Another British example is the "Oxford Concise Encyclopedia" (December 30, 2004, 982 pages, 12,000 entries) (amazon). It would be nice to know if there are any other British concise encyclopedias, or if there are any Australian or Canadian examples.

Another questions about this project, do we use the current Wikipedia articles, or do we try to condense them to a predetermined guideline? And a suggestion: Once this list becomes more complete, it would probably be a good list to use as a guide for the articles that should be in the Simple Wikipedia. BlankVerse ∅ 00:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More systematic?

Firtly I'm overjoyed to see something like this, which is sorely needed by those of us who feel overwhelmed at times in this sea of knowledge (!), but perhaps the construction of the list could be a little more structured, as has been suggested above? For example, after a few seconds of looking through the list, France is not present! Any encyclopedia must surely have an article on all countries recognized internationally (nb not just those in the UN perhaps?). Further, there already exist great lists of the most essential topics - certainly w:Wikipedia:Basic_topics is a start.

Also, have you heard about w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Countering systemic bias and w:Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team?

I daren't add bits piecemeal, for fear of destroying some careful plan, and doubtless being highly unintentionally biased (living in a typical wealthy western country)!

Mark Lewis 21:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i just added france to the list. this is a wiki you can edit stuff if you make a bad edit it can be reverted without problems. anyone know where we can find a list of internationally recognised contries to add them? Plugwash 02:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Try List of countries! Mark Lewis 16:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Important to whom?

How do we decide if an article important to, say, one people of a country, is important to everyone? For example, would references to all of the past US presidents be relevant? And, if we're trying to be fair, I don't think we'd be able to include all past leaders of every country. Any suggestions? -- Mjwilco 14:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thats a difficult question. Almost all us presidents have probabblly had sufficiant worldwide influence to warrent inclusion but leaders of other countries are a more difficult issue. Most encyclopedias have a regional bias and i think since this is the english wikipedia we should consider the english speaking world to be the primary target audiance for a list like this. Plugwash 23:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caps or not?

Are articles whose names are not proper nouns capitalized? For example, would stars, slavery, or creation be capitalized? -- Mjwilco 14:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Reply: They are article titles, so yes, they are capitalized. Go for it! 11:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Future of this page

I and others have over the past month added various articles to this list. I myself have acted more or less arbitrarily and randomly. I'd like to know what other editors, in particular the creator, think about this list in general and after these major additions? Is the content going in the right direction? Is the goal really to have some thousand topics? Karol 18:44, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quantity

Anybody have an estimate for the number of articles listed here? Maurreen 18:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Count the screens (use PgDn), and multiply by the number of lines per screen. --Nexus Seven 03:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Around 4,500 articles. Lincher 02:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to complete the whole list from scratch in a day

Using a word processor, a sorting program, a macro program, and a duplicate purger program, this entire list could easily be rebuilt from scratch in a day (8 hours, give or take), and completed to 15,000 or 20,000 entries, as desired. The current list can be included in this operation, so that the previous work (and links) of others is not lost. The first step is to make a list of all of the topic lists from Wikipedia which are basic enough to include its links in Wikipedia:Concise. Once the list of such pages is complete, copy each of those articles to the Wikipedia:Concise page. Once that is done, it can be data massaged, just as the current page has been. I've even found a solution for sorting piped links automatically. --Nexus Seven 03:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The only program type mentioned above that I don't have is a duplicate purger (that works on WindowsXP). If you know of a free one available for download on the internet, please let me know, for it would be extremely useful for list creation and maintenance. --Nexus Seven 03:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have created the list on excel. I can order it and add the people (which is normally a hassle to order when they are in the [[|]] format. Any additions will be placed on my excel file. Some articles still need to be trimmed for their lack of importance (in general not WEB related). Lincher 21:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Topic lists, and articles with topic lists, to include

[edit] The following lists have already been included:

animals (from the article)
countries
basic english
inventions (and inventors)
music (basic topics)
architecture (basic topics)
historical concepts (basic)
visual and design arts
list of sports
list of hobbies
highest grossing films
entertainment
dance
cooking
classical topics (basic list)
holidays (list)

[edit] List below any more topic lists you think should be included:

Note that duplicate topics will be purged during list construction, so you don't have to worry about overlap. Please include the links to the lists that contain topics you think are essential to include in Wikipedia:Concise:

~~List of Presidents of the United States (for politician and leader names)~~ DONE
List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom (for politician and leader names)
List of Nobel laureates (for scientist and leader names)
List of philosophers (for names of major philosophers)
Academy Award for Best Actor (for actor names)
Academy Award for Best Actress (for actor names)
Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor (for actor names)
Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress (for actor names)
Academy Award for Directing (for director names)

--Nexus Seven 03:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The sad thing with the list already added is that half of that stuff is non-notable, I will thus try to trim it down to the very best stuff. Lincher 21:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess someone will have to pick through the list. --Nexus Seven 00:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I will do it, and will also add the link for the WP:VA too. (I'm around 7400 topics). Lincher 22:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Trade unions in country articles- a complete list (mostly red) of WikiProject Organized Labour assessment department "top" rated national trade union articles.
Category:Top-importance articles - as rated by the related WikiProjects.

--Bookandcoffee 20:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

- IMHO, the very LAST thing a concise encyclopedia needs is the above suggested in depth coverage of the Oscars, which after all is a political popularity contest without a whole lot of real meaning, no matter how one individual may desire one. Concise means heavily edited to present the high points, so the only need is an article giving a survey of that topic, or anything entertainment related for that fact. A concise encyclopedia surely has no business covering biographies of entertainers like sportsmen, actors, or other pop icons. Influential authors, composers, and the odd public figure with unchallengeable gravitas and influence certainly, but a popular author (Arthur Conan Doyle, C.S. Lewis, C.S. Forester, etc.) who really hasn't influenced history or society--not qualified right with other entertainers. Those have, at best, a local cultural impact, not a world wide influence, which I would take as the proper measure. My two cents--otherwise better figure on another 200,000 pages for 'notables' topics as well. Best regards // FrankB 17:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Has the list at Wikipedia:Vital articles been included in Concise yet?

If not, it should be added to the list of things to include above. --Nexus Seven 00:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

There is a link to [[Development]] on this page that is linking to a disambiguation page. It might be better to add in the individual articles that are listed there and remove the link to the disambiguation page. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk 09:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative is disambig page

One article - Alternative, links to a disambiguation page. Should it be removed and replaced with Alternative rock? Jack 23:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stage (disambiguation)

There is a link to the disambiguation page of "stage". This should be clarified so that the link directs to the intended article. Cfrydj 16:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Size of page

The project page is really long at this point. I'd like to move each alpha section to its own subpage and transclude them from the main page. Any objections? -- SilverStar_talk 12:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have finished doing this. -- SilverStar_talk 15:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additions

I've taken the liberty of adding W. S. Gilbert, Gilbert and Sullivan,< and Arthur Sullivan, as they're hugely influential, particularly on the modern musical, immensely popular for about a century and a half, and co-authored one of the most performed stage works in existance, The Mikado. I don't think this is particularly controversial... Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why isn't this a wikiproject?

Given that I've heard of the other efforts in the see also list links (See also: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, WP:CORE, and Wikipedia:Vital articles), today I just stumbled on this page from a Whatlinkshere special page. I personally find most 'concise' encyclopedias sadly lacking, and would suggest something more like 45,000-60,000 as a better aim point, but that's immaterial here and now.

If this were a project, it could have a template tagging management system (tracking pages: nominated, scored, sorted, and disregarded) and matching categorisations, etc.) to organize the materials and the effort. Much of that would be supportive of parallel efforts like GAC/FAC, and certainly beats the basis most 'cruft articles' slide through in those initiatives--more people are needed to pay attention to that GAC/FAC voting, as the fans overwhelm 'the regulars' almost making a mockery of the whole process and the project establishment. Yet that is our highest quality aiming points... so what are our prospects for that driving overall higher article quality?

A template like [Template: concise] can tag accepted articles, Category:concise list them, and [Template: concisenom] and [Template: conciseNo] signify a page is nominated and consensus-discarded respectively. The latter wouldn't need a category, as the Whatlinks here list would be sufficient... all that need be is the template shows in the edit preview list of templates so double tagging can be avoided. IMHO, 'concisenom' should tag with an auto-category, of precisely that same short name, and both that category and Category:concise would become familiar marks of a quality article. Hell, I'd support having any article not qualifying for [Template: concise] tagging, to have extra hurdles such a mininum number (quorum) of votes for advancement in both GAC and FAC proceedings. That would eliminate all the effort put into fringe interests, and bring that process closer in line with the intents of WP:NOTE, which I don't wholly agree with, but agree that all quality needs raised and such measures as this and that guideline help do that as they impose nudges (derivatives or marginal rates) in the right directions to achieve better quality.

At the very least, one can argue the categories in question would be a good way to track articles that need be of the highest quality and point editors towards patrolling them vigorously, not to mention prioritizing bringing them up to good and FA status. Apparently, we here on the English project are lagging dramatically in both those initiatives from some of our sister wikipedia's. The other possibility with such tagging is to have [Template: concisenom] auto add pages onto a master list page, same as See also Templates: afd , rfd, cfd, and tfd do to their respective administrative pages... or sub-pages. Breaking things up into sub-pages sorted by time of nomination into discussion pages based on month, week, or even days is possible depending on nomination traffic. That gives a watchlist link anyone participating can track, or at least a common page to patrol systematically.

Bottom line, I would hope the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council would act to integrate several of these initiatives and aggressively promote this as a precursor qualification to GAC/FAC, perhaps unclogging those efforts, and that this sort of tagging would be an umbrella effort tying into those other efforts. Hope you see fit to draft all those participants into some overarching Wikipedia:Wikiproject Quality, administered as a project of said council co-ordinating all these quality impacting efforts, with this as a key participating measure. IMHO, this is a great 'First Stage' idea to aid the rest of these measures. Best regards // FrankB 17:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC) (Xpost: VPP)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/n/Wikipedia_talk%7EConcise_2871.html"