Wikipedia talk:WikiProject JETFA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

oh dear god, this is a real wikipolicy? I was hoping this was going to be a humorous redirect, but instead, I'm here--G double U B 21:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

No, this is a WikiProject. See Wikipedia:WikiProject for more details. --Celestianpower hablamé 21:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Tags

I agree the tags are "ugly" and see no problem with atempts to reduce such ugliness. Just wanted to comment that when I do RC Patrol, if I stmble onto an article that is need of cleanup, I oftentimes tag that article if it is an area of expertise that I'm not familiar with, hoping that it will be noticed in the cleanup register and someone who does have background or knowledge in that area will grab the ball and take care of it. The whole wikig=fy tag is probably less useful and in many cases, it may just be a way to get an edit in on a different article and quickly resume patroling. Just today I saw a wilderness area article being created, and since I have background in that, I commenced inserting an infobox and started an expansion. I guess what I'm getting at is that in many cases, lots of people use the cleanup tag so that a more knowledgable editor in that field may grab the ball.--MONGO 00:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The {{wikify}} thing is really awful. {{cleanup}} is less so, but in situations like this you should be using {{expert}} or somthing similar, not {{cleanup}}. Just my thoughts. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 14:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

This project seems overly hostile to those of us who do tagging during RC/NP patrol. I'll always come back to clean up or wikify an article I tag (eventually) unless it's so far out of my scope of expertise that it would be impossible (I was unware of {{expert}} until now). The tags are useful. Perhaps the project should focus more on clearing out the {{wikify}} and {{cleanup}} backlogs than discouraging the use of the tags. android79 21:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I mean if I see an article that desperately needs wikifying or cleanup, but I don't have time to do it, or god forbid, don't feel like doing it, should I just move on, leaving the page untagged, possibly for months, until someone else comes along and notices it again, maybe months later? That being said, I think that it is good to encourage people to take the time to wikify/cleanup the articles they come across, but maybe not with JEFTA, because it's a little offensive and more likely offends people who have been doing legitimate work tagging articles, like android above and others.--Kewp 04:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] just edit - what?

sometimes it takes work to improve an article, you know. I've been meaning to have a go at Chronology of the Ancient Near East for months now, but it would cost me several days' work to do a decent job. The cleanup tags are there to warn people that "we know, but nobody has gotten round to it yet". Baad 01:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but {{wikify}}ing an article takes very little effot at all... --Celestianpower hablamé 16:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General Comments

First off the name. It could be a little less aggressive so as not to put people off. While I realize that there is a certain level of frustration with people labeling articles with the wikify tag instead of doing it themselves, the name is a little offensive. It's way too close to RTFM which is never used politely.

The project appears that you are asking everyone to never tag an article but to jump in and edit (beyond Wikifing) even articles that they do not understand. There are far too many articles with that particular tag on it. While I have several times Wikified articles that I didn't know anything about it's possible to find ones that are impossible to do anything with except tag. Tonight I found this Interrupt Descriptor Table and it already had a Wikify tag on it. I was going to start on it, when I read through it. I assume, but don't really know, that it's some sort of computer related article. All I could do is dump an expert tag on it. The subject is so closed to me that I could not even begin to wikify it.

You need to make it clearer that you are talking more about the Wikify/Cleanup tag than any sort of knowledgable editing of articles. On the project page you talk about not using the merge tag and again jumping in. The other night I found two similar articles on Formula 1 racing. I know a bit about the sport but nowhere near the level required to merge the two. So that's how I tagged them. In the hopes that someone with the skill to do it would notice rather than not wanting to do it myself. Cheers CambridgeBayWeather 12:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above, though i feel it more strongly perhaps. I also sometimes just tag something instead of totally editing it. I spend too much time on wiki as is! I really think you should refrain from implying that tagging is lazy, this is very harmful for the open all-contributions-are-welcome spirit of Wikipedia and furthermore just pisses good-intentioned but time-challenged wikipedians (such as myself) off. --The Minister of War 10:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DISBAND JETFA

Okay, so many people have issues with JETFA. It was never meant as a jab at RC Patrollers, or time-pressed Wikipedians, and it just seems to be doing more evil than good. I am going to push for the disbandment of JETFA. I hope everyone understands that it is important to edit articles, and not just leave them tagged. Maybe this WikiProject has served its purpose already. The issue of not passing the buck to other editors has been brought up, and gained prominent attention. I hope all of the members, and those people that agree with JETFA, but have not signed in, understand that what I'm doing is for the best. To everyone else, please continue to edit the frickin' articles. Try to remind yourself that tagging an article is not exactly fixing it. JETFA was a good idea in my mind, but was turned into somewhat of a bad idea in execution. To all those I offended, I am sorry. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark)|My RfA 15:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Can't we just change the goals? Aim it at wikifying articles and encouraging editors to join, rather than targetting users who do tag? It's a worthwhile project. --Celestianpower hablamé 16:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps. But I would just rather not be a part of something this divisive. If it gets an overhaul, I will think about returning, but at this point, I have had enough. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark)|My RfA 16:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I was not offended but just concerned over the name. If it was called something a little less confrontational such as ETA then I think things might have gone a bit smoother. I agree with the aims of the project insofar as not just dumping a Wikify tag and moving on. It's a good idea with a unfortunate name. At the very least Lord Voldemort should be thanked for attempting to do something about a problem that the rest of us never really though about.
The name came from a very common Internet acronym RTFA, as well as RTFM. It wasn't meant to be offensive. Anyway, just thought I'd fill some people in. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark)|My RfA 20:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical roots?

I know this page is probably defunct by now, but just thought I'd pass along this little Bible verse: MT 23:4. I am not really a Bible freak or anything, it just fits soooo well. See you later. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Tee hee, I like it. And for those of us unfamiliar with it: Matthew Chapter 23 (King James Version) – MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 14:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 13:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)