I thought this page needed some work, so I've done a so-so rearrangement; it needs more attention, though. I did merge the "needs review" stuff back into the main body; I think that makes the page a little cleaner and perhaps will be more likely to encourage someone to review the articles and then remove their links from here. --loh (2001-07-20)
Yep, looks good, Larry! --LMS
I just added about a dozen topics from  -- topics popular Sept. 12-14. I think if we keep up with that list and have articles on "what's happening" online, we can potentially increase our traffic by quite a bit. Bonus points if you write a really long good article on the popular topic.
Let me add that I don't think these topics have any sort of intrinsic merit, and I don't want Wikipedia to specialize as an encyclopedia of pop culture. I just want to increase traffic and activity, that's all. --Larry Sanger
02 October 2001: I suggest we include the date posted on all Requested articles and if nobody picks them up within a given time (60 days?) we delete them as uninteresting. If they really are worthwhile, somebody will eventually re-post them.
- There is no reason to remove old requested articles. New contributors are joining everyday. Prince Charming has not stepped in the room yet. You cannot say he will never show up. If these requests stay on the page, someone will write about them sooner or later. Why the 60 days expiration?
Interesting idea. But I don't think Wikipedia has to cry out for an article on anything, it doesn't have a limited space for articles. Isnt' it enough that someone who came to wikipedia and wanted to read on a topic thought it was important enough to ask for an article about it?
When a requested article is written, should I delete the reference here? Should I move it to a section for completed requests (my preference)? Or just leave it? ---hajhouse
Whoever cleaned up the editing window recently (18 October 2001) (Larry?), thanks!
I'm thinking this page is much less useful with all the stub articles on it. I propose to remove them--going back to the way the page was originally--perhaps to a page of their own, but probably just completely. Simplicity is sometimes a virtue, and I think it would be here. A completely unwritten article is a lot more compelling than one that has a stub entry. Maybe we can use that articles-that-need-work page (whatever it's called) to suggest that some particular stub be improved. See, Magnus' software will identify stubs automatically, and heck, there are zillions of stubs that aren't listed on the page. Any objections? --LMS
- I agree completely! I don't know where the 'deemed complete-ish' came from, but it's not a good idea, either. Nothing ever seems to get removed from there. --MichaelTinkler
Well, no one else has commented, and I just noticed (again) yet another redundant page, Wikipedia utilities/find or fix a stub. I am going to delete the stubs and redirect people to that page from requested articles for all their stub-filling-out needs. --LMS