Wikipedia talk:Task Center
 | This is not the page to ask for help or make test edits.
To make test edits, please use the Sandbox. For other help, please see our main help page. |
| This is the talk page for discussing Task Center and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days  |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
A new job to encourage improving broad topic article
[edit]Title is pretty self-explanatory. Here's my proposal:
Expand a Broad-topic Article
Improve our coverage on broad-topic articles. It could be as simple as copyediting or adding sources.
(Higher level denotes decreasing broadness)
CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm just gonna boldly add the job in and see if anyone reverts. This talk page is not watchlisted by many. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, seems like a great addition to me! I edited the template to include just the random link, think it looks simpler and clearer that way. The categories themselves aren't that useful, especially when we already have the structured lists under More information. the wub "?!" 23:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Revising DoubleCheck placement
[edit]From what I gather, DoubleCheck is meant for somewhat advanced editors, and it goes beyond checking for vandalism. I have three primary (related) concerns:
1. DoubleCheck being in the Anti-Vandalism section makes it appear as a specific tool against vandalism, rather than a tool for generally reviewing edits down to source verification. This is exacerbated by:
2. Lack of documentation: The documentation on DoubleCheck is limited and hard to find, especially with regards to how it‘s intended to be used. This further contributes to unclarity.
3. Categorization: The section containing DoubleCheck is marked as being for „intermediate editors“; that would be appropriate if it were a vandalism checker („is this vandalism, yes/no?“), but its intended use seems to go beyond that in terms of scope and complexity.
These are my opinions, largely informed by inference and talking to some people; I‘d love to have a more solid ground to rest my argument on, but there is no documentation (as far as I can tell, maybe I‘m just missing it). Actualcpscm (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• WikiLoop DoubleCheck no longer functioning
[edit]the tool just displays an application error on launch and has been like this for a long while. So I suggest it should be removed from the page. KaraLG84 (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, Wikipedia:WikiLoop DoubleCheck even has a notice directing people to Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism/Tools instead. I'll replace the link here with that. Mlkj (talk) 11:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Translating an article
[edit]A related topic could be added.
Many Wikipedia pages are quite specialist. Contributing to adding a section for those who are novices in the subject could be valuable. Giving the resources to get started. This would complement the see also pages that support the knowledgable or expert reader.
This doesn’t need foreign language skills. It does need skills that many teachers, trainers or support workers have.
Note, I am a naive Wikipedia editor. I want to encourage Wikipedia to be more accessible, both in their audience and the writers / editors who contribute.
I find there is a lot of material I SHOULD read and understand before making changes, but I get overwhelmed. So far, this means I have mainly contributed to talk pages. CuriousMarkE (talk) 07:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
A new task could be added - "Adding Images"
[edit]It could say, "Take some images with your camera for an article, upload them to Commons, then add them to the related Wikipedia article." Félix An (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)