Wikipedia talk:Recentchanges summary

Hi Taku, I was wondering what your new Wikipedia:Recentchanges summary page is about. Perhaps it needs more of an introduction so people know what they are meant to add to it. Is it only for good articles? Is it for anything new? Should it say anything about recent disputes as well? Is it only for articles or should it include other recent changes? Should you just list a page or say something about it? I think it might be a good idea, but then I'm not completely sure what the idea is. Is it the same as Wikipedia:Wikipedia NEWS once was? Perhaps that page could be revived instead of starting this new one. Angela 06:23, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

I didn't specify because I am not the one who specifies what should be included since it is not my personal page. I will put my motivation of the page. I didn't know about Wikipedia:Wikipedia NEWS, but it seems different from this page. I appreciate your comment. Please tell me your thoughts. -- Taku

I think this page is for editing articles; Wikipedia:Wikipedia NEWS appears to be for new articles.Vancouverguy 19:26, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Is it just a place to boast about what you've done? Angela

Don't be sarcastic. It is just convenient to know what others have done. For example, if I see some pages have been merged then I can look at them to see if there is any unfinished job. -- Taku

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to sound sarcastic. I'm just trying to find out what the aim of the page is. Angela 21:50, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

No, my bad. I thought you have a bad feeling towards me. I think the page can be used in the similar manner to VfD or pages needing attention. It is more quick to look at one page to see if there is any significant change made recently. Particularly, merging and spliting off articles are scattered in Recent Changes. This summay might be a good place to report edits across articles. (Oh, good sentences I will add them to the acutal page.) -- Taku 23:20, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

It seems to me that this page could be a repository for "major changes." Just as we now have minor changes to articles, this would be a place to indicate large-scale changes. For a single article, this can still be done by utilizing the summary feature, although I admit that summaries can and do get lost in the melange that is Recentchanges. Mostly I agree that its best use is to demonstrate changes across many pages. I'm working on format ideas. They just aren't quite coming to me though. Ed Cormany 03:23, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I like this idea. Here's what makes sense to me to list:

an article which has been edited/expanded a lot in the same day
a group of articles (2-10) which have been organized in some manner (i.e. with new templates, or disambiguation resolved, redirections, etc.)

mfagan

Thank for comments. I will rewrite the page with above suggestions. Feel free to edit the page itself too. -- Taku 05:56, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

Just found this page. It seems to me that the multi-article use for templates, etc is the most useful. I'm not sure what is to be gained from an article which has been edited/expanded a lot in the same day. People who are interested will know anyway, esp. if it's on the watchlist.jimfbleak 16:18, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It looks to me as though this is an abandoned page. In that event, I think it probably ought to be deleted, since leaving it as it stands makes us look a little bad, I think, especially if a new user stumbled here. Before I start the firestorm of VfD, can anyone tell me if we're planning on reviving this? Jwrosenzweig 01:40, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It was a nice idea, but unless a lot of people are willing to maintain it, it does look bad. Maybe it should just be redirected to recent changes for now so it can be revived later if anyone wants to do that. The history of the fact it didn't work might also be interesting in case anyone does suggest it in the future. If anyone wants to revert the redirect I created, use this link. Angela . 22:29, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

I've reverted the redirect and added a {{historical}} tag to it. Graham87 13:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]