Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikify

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Wikify Alert: Check out the backlog cleanup taskforce
Discussion
This talk page is for discussion related
to the Wikification WikiProject. Please
remember to sign comments.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify page.
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Support needed

Is anyone else's enthusiasm for Wikifying beginning to wane? I've put a high percentage of my Wikipedia time into WikiProject Wikify and get quite a bit of my motivation from seeing the backlog go down. From being regularly around 8500, it's crept downwards, but recently the rate of articles being wikified seems to have declined, and new articles are still being added of course. Especially seeing the November number suddenly jump by 141 today (no criticism of Elonka's great work intended) my heart sank. Well...I feel better for getting it off my chest, but any encouragement for me and others feeling the same, would be most welcome! --- Windymilla 17:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheered myself up a bit making a Wikification progress history template. It looks like this at the moment (I picked out the figures from the Wikification progress template history, taking the first edit on each Friday).
It's beautiful. Good work! Cbdorsett 18:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikification Progress History
v • d • e

Comments & improvements welcome of course --- Windymilla 23:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting to see the history, my casual observations suggested that the total was drifting down in the short term. However, as the total is a balance between those articles being wikified and those being added and detected I´m not sure what conclusions to draw from this. Rich257 00:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my enthusiam wanes from time to time. It seems that wikification is an endless task, and it does not look likely that the total will get within hundreds of zero for a long time. I am disappointed that some contributors appear to put little though in to what they add and seem to presume ¨someone¨ or a bot will come along and sort it out for them. Some people of course are simply confused by wiki syntax and contribute good content.

It´s actually quite easy to substantially raise the total by looking through the Wikipedia:Dead-end pages list, as I have done recently so will admit to raising the total. Some of those can be deleted but most need some work. I think it would be better if the dead-end pages list was closer to zero and the articles were moved to wikification, categorisation, cleanup and deletion ´bins´ because at least then there would be an idea of the task involved.

The number of fresh articles I have been wikifying has also fallen as I try to maintain the articles I have wikified in that state, so as my watchlist grows so does the daily maintenance of ´past´ articles.

I tend to think that perhaps a bit more co-ordination between those involved in wikification might speed it along. For example, do people prefer to work on longer articles or like a quick fix on a shorter one? Prefer biography or geography or technology articles or a mix? I sometimes find that if you are unfamiliar with an article´s category it takes longer to do, to find the categories, similar articles and standard infoboxes etc; equally sometimes I like a diversity. Perhaps by breaking them down in these ways rather than alphabetically by date people doing wikification could work faster and find an article to work on more quickly? An idea for discussion... Rich257 00:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does get frustrating at times. Especially when you're correcting things which shouldn't have been there to start with. (I'm currently working on an article which requires me to put capital letters at the beginning of sentences! I know no-one is perfect, but it's such an elemantary thing!) I'm still plodding through the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/Backlog cleanup taskforce, but am wikifying any stubs as I go - it doesn't seem much point leaving them undone really! -Ladybirdintheuk 10:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the empathy. It's a good point about moving articles to the wikify list from lists such as Wikipedia:Dead-end pages. As Rich257 says, getting that list (and others?) close to zero would give a better idea of the task involved. I guess one thing I don't have a handle on is how much of the addition to the wikify list is from existing unwikified articles being newly detected, and how much is from new unwikified articles being added to Wikipedia. Or to put it another way, are we gaining ground (wikifying articles faster than NEW unwikified ones are being added) or fighting a losing battle. Of course, even if it's the latter, things could turn around by having more wikifiers, "educating" new contributors, tackling the backlog more efficiently, etc. So I won't give up just yet! -- Windymilla 23:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I could turn my attention to the dead-end pages list, if project participants would like. As I said, this will raise the total of pages to be wikified, which could be demoralising! Rich257 13:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Dead-end pages suffers from the same influx of rubbish as the wikify project; once we clear out a batch, the list is recycled and more dead-end pages are added to it. Getting it done faster isn't going to help that much. Salad Days 16:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
My current feeling is that it would be great to see the Wikify backlog go down for a bit, but it's all psychological I guess: articles are lurking hidden on other lists even if we don't transfer them to the Wikify project. What do others think? -- Windymilla 21:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I need to start doing more work on wikification, I know. I get sidetracked by other things... there are a million backlogs on Wikipedia that need fixing and there just isn't enough time. For all the prettiness of the Featured Articles and more prominent content, there's still massive amounts of work under the surface. Crystallina 03:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikification is never-ending; new articles that need formatting are always being created and older articles that need formatting are always being discovered. To me, it's really the journey, not the destination (as we'll most likely never see the backlog totally disappear, we clear out a 2000 article "month" just in time for another to be added to the backlog) ... Wikification is one of the most important tasks that can be done, it covers a lot of ground, and if you're like me, you end up doing far more than just wikification if the article merits. I don't even mind when it's tagged for wikify incorrectly; I just look at it as a chance to examine and possibly improve an article in some way (that same concept is why I enjoy rolling the dice so much) ... I too get a good feeling when I see a particular month's backlog disappear, but I try not to think too much about whether or not there's a light at the end of the tunnel ... at least I know that when I log in, there's always going to be something to wikify! JubalHarshaw 20:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether my comment will support readers or depress them, but the wikify drive has always been, for me, similar to real-life work - it's like a job aspect that can get on your last nerve, but at the same time will remind you that you have "job security". A fine example would be customer support jobs... the customers sometimes make you crazy, but you know that as long as they keep having troubles, you'll have a reason to be there and help them. If you find helping interesting, it is comforting to know that you'll always have something to do. The methodical correction of wikifying a page is comforting in times of real-life stress, and for subjects that are unfamiliar to the editor, an immersive distraction from it. So in short, some may find the backlog uplifting, since there is no question of "What can I work on today?" - we always have many options of articles, subjects, and level of editing needed to wikify. Also, I noticed today that the September 2006 category is empty, and we are now up to the October 2006 backlog list. I wanted to congratulate everyone on their hard work and dedication - great job! *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 06:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I do come and go with this project but I think the most important thing is to keep the marvellous graph above in perspective. The total number of entries in Wikipedia seems to grow exponentially - therefore by keeping the number to be wikified in something close to a constant number we are driving down the percent of articles needing wikification all the time! Keep up the good work folks!--NHSavage 19:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How do you 'join' a project?

Hi- I'm planning to start my efforts to wikify articles, but was just wondering how i can actually join this project! As in how do I have my efforts "acknowledged" as part of this project? I'm pretty new here so can you please put it in layman terms! --khello 07:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Heya Khello! I just "officially" joined this project a few days ago, though it doesn't seem there's any real official process to it. I added the banner to my user page by clicking on my name in the upper corner and editing the page that pops up then adding "{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/Userpage banner}}" to that page. I also went to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikify#List_of_participants and added my name to the list of people currently involved in the project by clicking "edit" next to the "List of Participants" subheader and adding in "{{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikify/table|username|status}}" in the appropriate place (the list is arranged alphabetically by username) and being sure to substitute in my name for "username" and my status, which is "active", in for "status." I also added to my userpage a link to [[Category:Articles_that_need_to_be_wikified]] so I can access the list easily whenever I want. Sorry if I overexplain things here; I don't mean to patronize you. It's a pretty neat project, I think. Welcome! --Ben iarwain 09:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Welcome! You could let people know that your efforts are part of the project by using the edit summary shown on the project page: Wikified as part of the [[WP:WWF|Wikification wikiproject]]! Ollie 15:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Haha, no worries! I said I wanted it in layman terms... I think this project will really help me get used to all the formatting etc... in wikipedia. Happy wikifying I Guess! --khello 18:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to introduce myself as well as an enthusiastic member of this project. I've been wikifying articles on the side as part of WP:LoCE, but this project seems like a great place to continue this! John Pouliot 16:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 17:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I just wikified my first page, Average Joe (show) and it's really the first major edit I've done on Wikipedia. I'm an editing freak anyway, and I run a private Wiki at work, so I wanted to get some practice in on an active community. If you have any comments please make them in the talk page. DLPanther 22:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shortcut

lol, WP:WWF? Kind of humorous. I would prefer more something like WP:WIKI :P Anyways, I'll help as much I can. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 05:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template stealing

I don't know if it's worth asking, but would it be alright if I nicked the source for your very nice user page banner? I seem to end up making a hash of <div> tags, so it would save me a bit of time.--CarrotMan 07:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC) p.s. I am a member of this Wikiproject, does that make any difference?

I think I'm gonna go ahead with it, tell me if there's any complaints.--CarrotMan 07:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure that's fine - I didn't want to give you "permision", as I didn't create the banner in the first place, but I don't see why anyone would object :) -Ladybirdintheuk 11:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Backlog cleanup taskforce

Hello! Just thought I'd do a quick plug for the Backlog cleanup taskforce. Because at the moment, the taskforce seems to consist of just me! Not a problem at the mo, but my internet time is going to be disrupted soon - I'm going to be moving house at the weekend, so will be busy with that. And I'm starting a new job in the New Year. Presumably they will expect me to do some real work during the day ;) -Ladybirdintheuk 10:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You're not the only one! I've been working on the backlog (specifically, August '06) too, though instead of picking a specific letter I've been trying to get all the biography articles. I'm on a break from school right now, so hopefully I can contribute more than I have been. RedRollerskate 20:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project page facelift

Hi, I propose to give this project page a total facelift. The new page would look exactly like the main page and yes there will be a featured article of our own, and instead of "in the news" and "on this day" we will have other features to encourge wikification! Please discuss. frummer 04:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have the time and know-how, then go for it? As long as the information stays in some form, I don't see any problems. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oliver Brown (talk • contribs) 05:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Annotation and review help requested

Hi everyone. I'm new to Wikification. The article I'm currently Wikifying lists a related source (a book) that as far as I can tell doesn't exist. How would I annotate to this effect? It seems like the verify source template indicates that I'm questioning a fact provided from that source, which is not the case. I'd just like someone to confirm the existence and relevance of the book offered as a related source.

Also, is there some kind of senior review of the Wikification process? I'd like for someone more experienced to take a look at what I've done and let me know if I'm on the right track.

Thanks! Catfood73 17:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Generally, if the sources are non-existent or even questionable, I add a {{sources}} tag. If broad sweeping statements are made with no reference, I tend to tag them with {{fact}}. My thought is, let someone else worry about sources; there are thousands of articles to be wikified. Others may take a different view.
  • There's no official "senior" review ... though a few of the more experienced wikifiers have weighed in on my edits a time or two.
Having said that, the wikify tag shouldn't be removed until the article is completely wikified.
Looks pretty good so far. Keep up the good work! JubalHarshaw 16:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Wikification Templates

Hello. After an article has been wikified, and we have this wikification template sitting on the talk page with 5 checks, is it customary to then remove the template or leave it there? Kc8ukw 04:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

After you've finished wikifying an article, remove the template. That'll take it off the list of articles that need to be wikified. If the template's still there, the other wikifiers might think the article needs more work. RedRollerskate 17:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
RedRollerskate, Kc8ukw is talking about {{wikification}}, the checklist that sits on the talk page that some people in the project use as a step-by-step guide to wikifying the article. This is different from the {{wikify}} template that sits on the article page. Metros232 17:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, OK. I actually hadn't seen that tag until today. RedRollerskate 17:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I am indeed talking about the checklist. Kc8ukw 19:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I would remove the template as it has served its purpose. I don't even bother using the template now. -- Whpq 20:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. Kc8ukw 20:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstars?

Does this WikiProject have any barnstars? If it doesn't, it should - it might help us get some more participants. RedRollerskate 17:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To subst or not to subst?

I think it would be smarter not to subst the {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/Invite a member}} template. The number of articles left to wikify will be updated periodically, and if the user templates have been pre-substituted, they will have the wrong article counts.

I have been told that templates on talk pages always use subst, but have not found a reference to this policy at Wikipedia:Template namespace#Dynamic or subst, Wikipedia:Template substitution, or Help:Substitution.

Is there any objection to modifying this article to take out the "subst" from the "Invite a member" template? Tim Pierce 17:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

For me, I would keep it as it is. If I get a message on my talk (even if it is a template) and if I would want to read it again much later (months). I would want to know what it said then, not what it says now. We also use subst on the welcome or vandalism templates, even though they also change over time sometimes. Garion96 (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The welcome, warning and vandalism templates are specifically listed among "templates that should always be substituted in the user talk namespace" at Wikipedia:Template substitution. One thing the page does not say is that "all user talk templates should always be substituted." :-) I think this is one case where subst is inappropriate. :-) Tim Pierce 03:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I never looked at that page. I just think it's inappropriate to not use subst. But I guess we can agree to disagree here. :) Garion96 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Violations Question

Hello. I started to wikify Virtual patient, but just because of how it is written, I am suspicious that is was copied from somewhere. But, the person who posted the article doesn't seem to use Wikipedia anymore so I can't ask them, and I can't find a copy of the page anywhere else online - perhaps it came from a book. What do I do in this situation? Because I can't prove it to be a copyright violation, do I just assume everything is fine? (It might even be, after all.) Kc8ukw 00:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, this does set the alarm-bells ringing, although as Wikipedia:Spotting possible copyright violations says, it could be innocent. Anyway, as a solution, from WP:CP:
Probable copyvios without a known source: If you suspect that an article contains a copyright violation, but you cannot find a source for the violation (so you aren't sure that it's a violation), do not list it here. Instead, place {{cv-unsure}} on the article's talk page, but replace FULL_URL with the full URL of the article version that you believe contains a violation. (To determine the URL, click on "Permanent link" in the toolbox area, and copy the URL)
I'm not sure of the procedure from there, but i guess that is for someone else to worry about! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 01:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the tip. Kc8ukw 04:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zouavman Le Zouave

Hi everybody! I know you people are having trouble wikifying all those articles, so I came to help you guys out. Okay, I'm not Rambo or anything, so I won't be able to be like a super-savior that comes and changes everything for the better. I'm just another hand at work. It's a little help, but it's better than nothing. ^^ Good luck to you all!

--Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • See my edits!) 18:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New contributor

Just a quick "hello" to all! I've decided to start participating in WikiProject Wikify and have read the project page, added myself to the list of participants, etc.

I've started looking at the articles mentioned on the August 2006 backlog page and feel pretty confident I know what needs to be done to most of them. However, as I'm very much a newbie Wikipedian, please feel free to leave any comments or critisism on my talk page, should you wish.

—XhantarTalk 02:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Copycat ^^ Just kidding! I'm new on this project as well, that's why... :p And the thing is you have exactly the same strategy as me... I guess I can welcome you even though I am almost as new as you, hahahah ^^ --Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • See my edits!) 02:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status of August list of articles to Wikify

Hey, I went to the list of articles to Wikify for August 2006 and I decided to post up an overall status of each article.

  • Tales of Legendia NPCs and Locations I don't find anything too ugly about it except from the fact that the actors' names are listed in an unusual way. I think they should be listed at the end of the paragraph concerning the character(s). It should also be noted that the article was proposed for deletion, and that the AfD procedures will only take place starting tomorrow (January 16, 2007)
Wikified and moved to List of Tales of Legendia NPCs and locations, as per talk page. —XhantarTalk 11:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • See my edits!) 17:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] news

Hey Zouavman - I've been slowly working my way through the last of the August wikifys as it would be so good to see this bit ticked off and finished. I'm in the process of getting some expert help with Nikah Misyar as it has been quite a controversial subject so even wikification could be a little sensitive. Also notified the creators/major editors or Tales of Legendia NPCs and Locations that it had been prodded for deletion (pretty unfairly) and could do with some attention. Thanks for giving the hints and tips for the articles above - always good to have some input on the best way to fix up an article. Madmedea 11:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Just had a look for the Pakistan Educational Alliance on google and other than a registered office address I can find no information about the organisation (and the article seems to be actually talking about a different organisation - the "Chaudhry Rehmat Ali Memorial Trust". Very odd. I've left a comment on the talk page if anyone has any ideas - otherwise I might propose it as an AfD as there is no way to verify the information Madmedea 14:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some progress

Hi there,

I've done what I can to North Sydney Demonstration School, obviously picking the one requiring the least amount of attention! Actually, I've discovered a wonderful little thing called Infoboxes in the process, and might have gotten a little carried away. :P

Anyway, that's that, then.

Some other articles wikified by yours truly are as follows. Feel free to let me know if I've messed up anywhere (including style changes and such):

—XhantarTalk 13:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks to all!

Well, seems to me like the work is done... I'm happy this went so fast! Thanks to all! --Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • See my edits!) 19:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, good work all! I'll give you a few days off before you start on September ;) →Ollie (talk • contribs) 20:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Gutenberg Encyclopedia

I was about to start Wikifying Aberration in optical systems and noticed it is mainly copied from the Project Gutenberg Encyclopedia. It's not a copyright violation, because the source is public domain, but do we really need to duplicate this source? What is the best way to handle wholesale duplication of public domain text?

Also, the text itself dates to 1911. I wonder about the usefulness of copying scientific content that is 95 years old. Optics is not a new science, but I personally don't have the background to investigate the reliability of this source. What to do, what to do...

Catfood73 23:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You could put a banner on the top, perhaps the 'attention from an expert' one, then make a note on the talk page asking for it to be checked for accuracy? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 10:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The article appears to have been deleted now. When I see wholesale copying, the first thing I do is check the article history. In may cases, there was either a previously good article that has been overwritten, or a valid stub article, to which it can be reverted. In a case like the one you've mentioned, I would expect that the topic would already have been covered under a different name, and start searching for a target article to redirect to. Also, there are many wikiprojects where people with subject matter expertise can help out. -- Whpq 14:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The article is at Aberration in optical systems. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 14:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--will tag for expert attention. --Catfood73 13:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose of Wikification?

Going through the articles that are tagged for Wikification, I find a tremendous number that are copyvios, advertisements, or simply not encyclopedic in nature. It seems to me that Wikification isn't appropriate for these articles; they probably need to be removed anyway.

Is the Wikify tag being used too much? Should we encourage Wiki readers to use other, more specific tags, for articles that may not belong in the Wikipedia at all?

Catfood73 23:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Personally I don't mind finding copyvio's as part of the wikification process. I don't think anyone would tag an article "possible copyvio" for someone else to track down, at least if they thought it was possible for them to track it down. Wikification seems like a good time to check for things like that. Kc8ukw 00:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I do get annoyed sometimes as I find a fair proportion of articles I'm ending up either prodding for deletion or nominating them for a AfD debate if I'm not sure. I guess "wikify" ends up being a bit of a catch all tag for the articles that need a bit more than copy-editing. I guess its better that they're flagged and one of us pays some attention to them, then sitting in the Wiki-ether until someone happens upon them. Tis frustrating though and I encourage all other Wikifipedians to be brave and prod/nominate for deletion if you're not happy that an article should even be on here - all you're doing is starting a debate. Madmedea 09:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About copyscape.com

I tried to use this site, but it has a limit of 20 free searches per month for all of Wikipedia. I was invited to sign up for a "Premium account." Hmmm. It seems like a hugely useful tool. Maybe WP should invest in a membership? However, to get the biggest bang for the buck, I would strongly recommend a policy that WHEN an article has been checked by that service AND PASSED, the editor should make a note of the fact on the relevant talk page so that other editors do not check something that has already been checked. That is, of course, if each check costs a specific amount of money. I wonder how much they charge? Cbdorsett 18:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this would be useful, but I'm not sure how one would go about "controlling" access to the site. They seem to work on a prepaid basis. Once signed up for a premium account, you can purchase any amount of searches (min 100, max 10,000) at $0.05 per search. These then need to be used up within 12 months. Also remember that copyrighted information can be added to an article at a later stage, even though the article was previously checked for copyvio and indicated as such on its talk page. It might be a good idea to discuss this at The Village Pump as well. —XhantarTalk 18:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that this would be easily workable as you would need to have well-controlled organisation, to limit the access. I've not used Copyscape but using article fragments as search arguments in Google seem to work well for me in finding most copyvios. And for those that look very suspicious but for which you cannot fnd the source, there is the {{copypaste}} tag. In many cases, the article itself has a link to the original source where the text was copied from. -- Whpq 18:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John La Rose

Hi, I created the wiki page on the late John La Rose last year. I checked the page just now and noticed there's a notice at the top of the page saying that the entry need to be "wikified". What does this mean and how do we go about "wikifying" it?

We're very concerned that the notice might lead users to believe that the information is somehow inauthentic or suspect. I am a Trustee of the George Padmore Institute(see www.georgepadmoreinstitute.org), a research and archival charity founded by John La Rose. Our duty is to ensure that information about John on the Net is authentic and accurate, hence my concern to make the entry confirm to Wikipedia's standards so there can be no doubt about its authenticity and accuracy.

signed:

Jamrocker 13:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jamrocker, I'm replying on your talk page and the Wikify project talk page. Don't worry too much about the "wikify" tag - it just means that someone has noticed that the article isn't currently formatted to wikipedia standards - with sections, an infobox, categories etc. Although it often also gets used as a coverall clean-up tag. I'll have a go at wikifying it for you. But what you could do to further improve the article is add footnotes to show where the information is from - wikipedia doesn't allow "original research" (WP:OR) so it is important to show where in the reference works you've listed you've got the information for the article. Ideally every "fact" should be cited with a footnote or other citation (see WP:CITE for the guidelines). But as I said don't be panicked by wikification --Madmedea 14:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Participants

Yesterday, I went to the contribs page of a few participants listed as "Active", only to note that they had not edited in months (some have not edited since as far back as the middle and last half of 2006). I originally wanted to see some examples of other people's work in the project to make sure that I was on the right track.

My question: should we manually edit the participants list to change those that haven't edited in months to "Inactive"? It would be nice to have an idea of how many active wikifying editors we have working on the project.

As for the original concern, a list of pages I've worked on in the scope of the WWF project is at my toolbox, listed by day. The recent work has mostly been in the October 2006 backlog. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 21:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I ran across this post while reading through here - your toolbox gave me a lot of guidance on wikification goals. Thanks! --Sesameball 03:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eep, old articles needing wikification

I've just been trawling through past wikification categories, and found these two articles on Denise Levertov and Process (engineering) which have needed to be wikified since October 2005 and May 2006 respectively. Because they were both in non-existant categories, I thought I'd post them here in case no one found them for a long time. I'd do them myself, but, to be honest, they look a bit overwhelming! While I'm here, I don't suppose there's a tool that makes wikifying easier? I might be more inclined to participate if there was. Cheers, -Panser Born- (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just removed the date from the tag so they get redated for this month. Rich257 21:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've found the Internal Link Suggestion Tool to be very helpful in Wikifying articles. Also, when I first arrived, I had the wrong idea about what the wikfiy process actually is -- it's more simple than it looks. There are really only three basic steps: Add internal links (the tool makes this easier), format a lead sentence, and format the article into sections (with headers). You can knock out somewhere around 20-30 articles a day from the backlog without too much effort, and I've found it to be quite interesting. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 09:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Navigation popups can also be useful for checking the destination of links without having to click on them. Rich257 09:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please... "Wikify" does not mean "link everything that can be linked"

See WP:CONTEXT. Links should be selective. There is no point whatsoever in linking, e.g. 1930s in an article about Goddard Lieberson, since that article does not contain any thing bearing even tangentially on the life and accomplishments of Goddard Lieberson. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really agree with this point. Of course links should be selective, but linking of years and decades provides the reader with the opportunity to get a quick feel for the cultural, technological and political "flavour" of the times. In the example given, Goddard Lieberson (worth linking to in this discussion I think), mention is made of musical performances for the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, and recordings of musicals from the 1930s and 1940s. Following the 1930s link for example, you will find that this was a time when radio was becoming more significant, the first BBC TV broadcasts were made, swing music was becoming popular, Disney and other animations were produced, entertainers such as Al Jolson, Bing Crosby and Louis Armstrong were active, etc. All of that could be interesting background, at least to me, and therefore to some others, and hence bear, albeit tangentially on Lieberson's accomplishments. Just because a link is there, the reader is not forced to visit it, but they do have the opportunity to broaden & deepen their understanding of the original article. Also note that WP:CONTEXT says that "Stand alone years do not need to be linked but some users prefer it". It certainly does not imply that it is wrong to give historical context by linking years or decades. Windymilla 21:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, it wasn't just the decades. What on earth is the point of linking rpm, for example? Links interfere with readability, and while it is true that some readers might want to pursue rpm or 1930s there is a perfectly good Go box right next to the article that could be used for that purpose. Or they could go in See Also... Dpbsmith (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
As rpm is an acronym a reader may not know what that stood for. It seems sensible to link it and so give them a chance to understand the text.Madmedea
  • With regards to linking years, there is no agreement. See WP:DATE. I don't bother linking years myself. -- Whpq 15:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


Are there any further tips on linking somewhereelse on Wikipedia? I get frequently reverted because of my willingness to help. ;) Readability indeed is an issue, but on the other hand "thick" linking may help discover many interesting articles - to read and to develop. And how about multiple occurences of a keyword - should I link once or each time (assuming it is suitable at least once)? 83.9.14.249 11:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Reply - Good guidance is available in the Manual of Style and in particular, the Manual of Style for Links -- Whpq 11:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

I think you guys can give incentives so people join and clear the backlog. Take Wikipedia: WikiProject Biography, they give out barnstars to those who contribute by reducing the backlog dramatically. Maybe you guys can follow their suit. OhanaUnited 21:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ther is a barnstar about somewhere I created, but I stormed off before it got approved so I dunno if it did. I can dig out the image and let you have it as an 'unnofficial' one - or you could try ot get it improved (get me on my talk page grab it). In other news, yes hail mary, Errant is back to help you out! Wow I remember helping kick start this project and it looks like it needs some TLC :) oh and loads of wikifying to be done I see. They WILL keep adding those articles won't they. Give me a week to fail my exams and I'll be back editing. (PS now FireFox comes with built in spellchecker I will finally be able to type properly spelt replies and articles. woot!) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 00:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woot!

The October 2006 backlog is officially done! Great work, everyone. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 18:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tags script (shameless plug)

Hi, I put together a small script that I figure some of you might find useful. Basically, it adds a pull-down tab to your browser (only tested with Firefox) that puts several several frequently used maintenance templates at your fingertips. If the show_cwli paramter is set to true (please see the instructions), it also adds an option to have the current article checked by the Can we link it tool which makes wikifikation quite a bit less tiring, in my humble opinion.

Further information and installation instructions are here. The script should be pretty self-explanatory and straightforward to use. If you encounter any problems though or have any questions/suggestions, please don't hesitate to either contact me directly or leave a reply here. Thanks & cheers, -- Seed 2.0 13:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Proposed merge from Wikipedia:WikiProject Linkification. This is probably best discussed here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Linkification. About all there is to merge is some members, and change their Linkification userboxes to Wikify ones. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Well, the soft deletetion thing says we are already merged with them. - Flubeca t 19:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles awaiting wikification from 2005

I started to check pages from as far back as jan 2005 and to my suprise there was still a few articles, sorted most of them but would it be a good idea if they were retagged for may 2007 so they don't get missed again? say everything up till May 2006 is retagged? Thatguy69talk 22:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that whould be a good idea- Flubeca t 01:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The reason pages keep appearing from that far back in time is when another editor does a revert om the article and it pulls up the old wikify tag. This has always been an annoying issue because those pages don't show very well. --Brad 21:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recruiting Task Force

We should get a recruiting task force. Also, many people like organization. We need more wikifing tools- Flubeca t 01:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a Toolbox ... lots of useful links there. JubalHarshaw 20:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I mean't like a checklist (Really Step by Step) for wikifying an article. Whould help newcomers go faster. - Flubeca (t) 00:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Status Definition

Could someone fill in the status meanings on Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/table? I added a useage definition, but am not sure what the community uses each status for. --SB 21:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Ill work on it. - Flubeca (t) 22:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Done - Flubeca (t) 23:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --SB 01:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture description

Can we (or should we) wikify the words in the description of a picture? OhanaUnited 10:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I would expect that the caption for most pictures echoes some element of the article itself, and so any links to be added would be better served in the text of the article. -- Whpq 12:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A project/drive some of you might be interested in

I'm trying to get a drive together to set the week of June 21st aside as a massive cleanup effort for Wikipedia. Wikification'd be a part of it. Hopefully we can cut into that backlog quite a bit (and yes, I need to un-busy myself.)

Anyway,if you're interested, the link's currently in my userspace: User:Crystallina/Gnome Week. Crystallina 03:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/Page wikified/template script

Creator of the above named template's last edit was sometime in April, so Im posting this here rather than on his talk page. Why does that template even exist? (Its transcluded on 140 article talk pages) If there is no good reason for its existence it should be removed from all 140 talk pages that contain it. If there is a good reason somebody could fix it up because its rife with errors. For example categories are manually added (rather than being included within the template), page name is one of the parameters (when template should be able to read its position without it), its not even in the template namespace... Shinhan 08:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

i'm editing as someone else now and a bit busy on some electronics related articles. I know there are errors - when I wrote it a) I was a bit shaky on the syntax and b) the page name couldn't be automated properly (w/o talk: adding to the front). If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/Page wikified that is the parent template that is used to put it on pages...
It is not in the template namespace cos it was discussed at the time and we decided not to - it was used at the start of the project to promote it a bit on talk pages (all the other wikipojects have them :P) but was later dropped as it was a bit spammy. As I see it it is doing no harm atm, hardly wasts space and it would be more productive to spend the time spent taking it off 140 pages doing something else :)
Thanks for bringing it up though! --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 18:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old Backlogs

I created a category for articles from the old backlogs. See the to-do list for links. -Flubeca (t) 17:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

How about we start placing notices on editors' talk pages that tells them their article needs to be wikified (or cleaned up, or what have you)? It might get more editors to start fixing their own articles instead of relying on us. RedRollerskate 23:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Meh, they probably know about it anyway. Will take about the same amount of time to post the message than to wikify the articles.-FlubecaTalk 03:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do I have the right idea?

Do my changes to Acoustic source localization constitute a completed wikification? Best, Iknowyourider (t c) 16:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edits look fine to me. Welcome to the project! -- Whpq 17:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tagging question

i put the open tasks template on my user page so i can easily find pages that need to be wikified. how come they don't have the wikification tag when i get to them? Snail Doom 20:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, the wikification tag? Do you mean the tag that says "this article needs to be wikified" or do you mean the checklist on the talk page? If you're not seeing a tag on the article that says "this article needs to be wikified", it could be that someone else got to it before you did, or that you accidentally clicked a link to an article that needs cleanup or other work. If you're not seeing the talk page checklist, well, that's not unusual. In over a year of wikifying, I've seen that maybe once. RedRollerskate 22:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

i mean 'this article needs to be wikified'. but don't worry about it. now i just go into the category itself and pick an article. no big deal.

thanks anyways. Snail Doom 19:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It means someone wikified them before you got there.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flubeca (talk • contribs).

[edit] How's this for a lead section?

Graph cuts in computer vision was lacking a lede and I gave writing one a shot. How'd I do? Did I provide enough context for non-computer scientists? Cheers, Iknowyourider (t c) 01:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, looks good. A couple of improvements could be made:

  • The word efficiently is linked to a reasonable topic but the link is unexected from the word. Could the sentence be reworded so that the link target is expected?
  • Several links are repeated in the history section from the lead paragraph and as these sections are so close together I don't think there's a need to repeat the link.

Keep up the good work! Rich257 07:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Good job! I personally make leads pretty short (one or two sentences) and put the other information in the first section (for example, under the heading "Basis", "Concept", or "Usage", things like that) - but that's just a habit of mine. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 18:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template Refresh

According to the {{WikiProjectWikifyTasks}} template, Auto Assault has been in need of Wikification since December 2006. As of July 24, 2007, the article is without any WWF-related tags, but is still showing up in the template as being in need of Wikification.

Is there an easy way to keep the template updated? --Aarktica 00:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haleigh Poutre

Hope you don't mind a request here. Your project does great work! Would any project members be interested in wikifying Haleigh Poutre? You also might enjoy helping with the article's content. Somewhat similar to the Terri Schiavo case. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Done. --Aarktica 14:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Aarktica for the immediate turn-around and fine job! HG | Talk 15:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where do I start with this article ?

It's one of the oldest ones on the Wikify list: List of Japanese Army Military Engineer Vehicles (WW2)

Tried to put in some internal links, but it's all gonna be red ! thisisace 18:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Red links are unhelpful; if the article is short on links to other existing articles, it is best left alone as is. --Aarktica 18:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • However, I went ahead and linked the article as appropriate; some copy-editing was done as well. --Aarktica 19:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    That looks much better. Thanks. thisisace 17:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I also modified the lead sentence so the links are not part of the bolded text per WP:LEAD. And I changed the sections to use == as that is the appropriate level for the headings. -- Whpq 17:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 backlog cleared!

We have finally cleared the 2006 backlog! Great work, everyone! – Liveste 04:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tag deletion for European Hit Radio Top 100 (2006)

Hi there. Just joined the team and am going through January 2006 backlog. Found this article but looking at it, it's a simple list and its format matches the relevant articles for previous years. Is there any point working on this, as it implies that all the others need fixing too? Or do we accept the format it's in and just remove the {{wikify}} tag? Should I do this without informing anyone or just be bold? Tks. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 16:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In looking at the formatting of the article, I'd say it does need wikification. There is no lead paragraph, and no wikilinks within the article body. If you do tackle this article, then I suggest you tackle the series as a groups. But at the very least, the other articles should be tagged as needing wikification if they have the same issues. -- Whpq 17:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. That's this evening sorted out, then. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 18:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD/Prod/Copyvio/etc. Task Force?

One activity that might significantly bring down our backlog (now over 14,000!) is to weed out articles that are clear candidates for actions (such as Articles for Deletion (AfD), proposed deletion (prod), copyright violations, and the like) as early as possible after they get a wikify tag. The reason I suggest this is that I routinely come across a bunch of articles in the backlog's earliest month that easily fall into one of those categories, so there's no reason to have them hang out in our backlog for several months until they're discovered. Additionally, the process of AfD or copyvio takes at least several days and can be well more than a week - and none that do eventually get removed should be on wikipedia anyway - so it's in everyone's best interest to get these articles appropriately tagged as early as possible. Now, we shouldn't be overzealous about tagging articles for prods and AfDs and the like, and AfD discussion can get very contentious - but I just hope to raise awareness of this issue among our participants. I think I'll get started on it myself in the coming days. --SesameballTalk 04:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That is sort of similar to the Backlog Cleanup Taskforce idea which is to pick off the low-hanging fruit so to speak. I already check the recently tagged articles for copyvios and dispatch those. I generally don't send anything to PROD or AFD unless they are blatantly deletable, and instead mark them for referencing or notability which are the two other items that often come up. -- Whpq 11:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that's exactly what I was trying to propose. Obviously I should have read through the other posts on the discussion forum first - I think I just skipped over some of htem. ;) Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. --SesameballTalk 00:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
When I work with the oldest articles in the wikification queue, if they are short and tagged with a notability concern then I very often PROD rather than wikify them. As noted above you can't really do that with the newest ones — it seems fair to let them last for some months to see how they develop, as many do.
I suspect that the backlog could be reduced, perhaps temporarily, by hitting the short articles first — partly because some should be deleted and partly because it takes less time. However I don't know how to generate a list by size of article. Rich257 13:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thats what Ive been doing - trying to get short articles out of the way. If you use Navigation popups, you can skim over the articles in the category, and the popup tells you the article size, amongst other things. Jonathan Oldenbuck 13:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What to do first

Hi, yesterday I made an account on Wikipedia, because I also want to contribute. I found out about this Project, and have already Wikified 2 articles (Participatory design and Part II, I guess that's wikifying right?). If I want to continue contributing, should I just go to the list of January, and pick some articles, or should I go here and pick one of the articles which are on the bottom? -- Blacer (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome along Blacer! I'm not sure it really matters where you start - they all need done. But the Jan 2007 backlog is going down nicely and it would be great if you could help clear it. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Some good work there. I have made a couple of minor changes to Part II — there's not usually much point in making red links i.e. links to articles that don't exist. Also, album names are in italics while song names should be enclosed in speech marks. Rich257 (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to Template:Wikification progress

I've started a discussion at Template_talk:Wikification progress about possibly changing the format of Template:Wikification progress. This is in preparation for bot-automated updating of the template. Please feel free to leave suggesstions there. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liveste (talk • contribs) 06:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of Wikification; guides to appropriate links

I've seen a wide variety of ideas about what wikification is. The glossary entry has a much narrower definition than is implied by this project page. I think that reaching a consensus about this and making it clear to both project members and editors in general would be important to facilitating progress on this project. Comments?

I've also seen two guides on what to link: Build the web and Make only links relevant to the context but am surprised that neither one is linked from the instructions on this page or the instructions on the category page. I would think that those would be essential reading for people embarking on this project. Ccrrccrr (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links to "meta pages with links" should be disallowed? too little "External links" on page and too long "references lists" and article length

External links like "open directory" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga) shouldnt be used on wikipedia By links to meta pages is meant using link to page that contains (only) links. Wikipedia external links section is offten to short, as well because people delete too much content on wikipedia. External links should be written to increase usefullnes of wikipedia. This enciclopedia is not neutral and will never be as articles are writted in time not in some absolut form. Wikipedia is an enciclopedia but it is not a book, so links are an inportant use of electronic meduim. By using references with links Wikipedia users see too much things that are connecting to "article creation" and not "article understanding" that is more of a goal of enciclopeadia. Links in references may have more information on disputes on article theme than general information. In this way refereces should be transformed in increase usfullnes of them, because they are usualy considered some "code left on page" by non expert users. To be resolved in order to prevent useless processing on references.

By "some users are deleting too much" is meant that reliability is not an advantage of Free Encyclopedia therefore long articles are advantage where articles in britannica,encarta are not covered. Articles terms often lose meaning over time. So words are useful to get an idea of article more than neutrality that may change over time, the article lenght is time proof.

ExpertJohn

I do not understand why you are discussing this issue here. If you want to discuss the guidelines for what is appropriate for an external link, a more appropriate venue would be at Wikipedia talk:External links. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 11:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changing progress template: update

According to Template:Wikification progress, we seem to be making some slow-but-steady progress in reducing the total backlog. However, going on current trends, it looks as though the graph on the template will continue to grow in size, while the bars on it will grow smaller and more difficult to compare. The graph also contains an ever-increasing amount of empty space. I was thinking of replacing the graph with a table, which would be much easier to update – although wouldn't be as appealing, perhaps. An example code is as below, following Category:Cleanup by month.

As of 05:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC), 14,316 articles were tagged for wikification.
Month # of Articles
March 2007 457
April 2007 928
May 2007 1,307
June 2007 1,185
July 2007 930
August 2007 966
September 2007 1,011
October 2007 1,200
November 2007 1,673
December 2007 1,537
January 2008 1,270
February 2008 1,704
March 2008 148
Total 14,316

This discussion was cross-posted from Template talk:Wikification progress. Please feel free to leave comments on either page. If no-one seriously objects, I'd like to change the format of the template on my next update on Tuesday (UTC). Otherwise, please discuss. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 00:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Support. I think the current template is very messy, yours looks much better. Voyaging (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Y Done, although the new format leaves a lot of empty space on the right-hand side. Any thoughts on how to better incorporate the new table format into the project page? In any case, if there are no serious objections to the new template at the end of one week, I'll talk to Dvandersluis to see if he's still interested in having CbmBOT (or else StatisticianBot) update this template. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 10:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the content is a figure can we have it right aligned? Rich257 (talk) 11:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've floated the table to the right and incorporated the timestamp into the table itself (I would have preferred it not to have been on the bottom, but I didn't know where else to put it). I hope the other changes look okay, too. Maybe the table can now be placed somewhere else on the project page (where, I don't know). Thoughts? – Liveste (talk • edits) 13:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, the number of articles should be right aligned:
Month # of Articles
March 2007 457
April 2007 928
May 2007 1,307
June 2007 1,185
Since this makes it easier to compare the magnitude of the numbers. Rich257 (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikification Guidance

I just found an interesting article (interesting to me at least) with a tag that it needs to be wikified.

I'm wondering if some more or less experienced Wikifier will:

  • recommend some stuff I should study about this occult art, and then
  • assist with the Wikification of this article by checking my work, whatever it is, and providing tips, but without taking over the process themselves (which would probably be a lot quicker for them).

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikification is very easy, you really don't need any experience with the topic of the article, and some general experience with Wikipedia. Just read the steps on the WikiProject Wikify main page and take a look at the linked words. Just try your best and link the article when you're done and I'll check it out. Good luck! Voyaging (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio checking and project scope

Currently, copyvio checking is listed as part of the wikification process, but articles with copyright violations are also mentioned under "[articles that] should not be tagged for Wikification". This seems to be a contradiction in terms of our project's scope, although copyvio checking has proved useful in reducing the backlog more quickly.

However, rather than removing copyvio checking from the wikification process completely, we could expand this step to something like "Check if the article meets speedy deletion criteria". This way we can still reduce the backlog more quickly without extending our scope beyond article "layout and presentation". Thoughts? – Liveste (talk • edits) 12:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a high number of articles that are marked for wikification that turn out to be copyright violations. That is probably due to the cut and paste with no formatting that happens a lot with copyright violations. So as a screening measure to ensure we don't waste time wikifiying an article that needs deletion, emphasizing the need for a copyright violation check as a step makes sense. Generalising it to a step of checking for things that might be speedy delete candidates de-emphasises what in my experience is a very necessary check. As for the apparent conflict with the admonishment that copyright violations aren`t to be tagged for wikification, it's a case where the copyright violation is detected after the addition of the wikify tag so there's no real contradiction. I'm not familiar with the activities of new page patrollers. Do they do a copyright violation check on new pages? I see wikification tags slapped on new pages quite frequently that are very obvious copyright violations. -- Whpq (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categorisation Step

I'm not convinced that adding categories is necessarily a good idea as it can be a bit tricky to get them all right. Overly broad categorisation isn't good. And there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories looking after categories. For articles having no categories, I normally add {{uncat}}. -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless I can find a similar article with suitable categories that I can copy then I tend to mark it {{uncat}}. Rich257 (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For example, is this in need of wikification?

This is the (current) lead of the article Methuselah. I'm presenting this here as an example, not to pick on the editors of that article.

This article is about the Biblical character. See Methuselah (disambiguation) for other uses.
Methuselah or Metushélach (Hebrew: מְתוּשֶׁלַח / מְתוּשָׁלַח, Standard Mətušélaḥ / Mətušálaḥ Tiberian Məṯûšélaḥ / Məṯûšālaḥ ; "Man of the dart", or alternatively "when he dies/died, it will be sent/has been sent") is the oldest person whose age is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. The name Methuselah has become a general synonym for any living creature of great age.

Note that about half the paragraph is the "derivation" of the name Methuselah, given in parentheses. I personally find this makes the paragrapgh difficult to read.

  • Anyone else agree with me, or is this just a quirk of mine?
  • Any ideas on how to avoid the situation of a sentence with a large embedded word derivation?
  • Do Wikifiers consider this dealing with issues like this "part of Wikifying"?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's more of a copyeditting issue, but I'll usually do copyeditting when fixing up an article. As for the parantheticals, I'd remove it from the lead sentence and place the material without parenthesis in an appropriate spot in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What does wikify REALLY mean?

I think we really need to adjust what members need to do when they "wikify" a page. According to the glossary on Wikipedia, this is the definition of wikify: "To format using Wiki markup (as opposed to plain text or HTML) and add internal links to material, incorporating it into the whole of Wikipedia. Noun: Wikification; gerund: wikifying."

So, I think we need to change the wikification process unless someone else has a link to a place including all the steps we currently do. I think the steps should be streamlined more to something like:

  1. Convert any HTML or other language to Wiki markup.
  2. Add internal links.

And maybe a step for making an infobox? Not sure if that should be in there. Anyway, please give your input! Voyaging(talk) 15:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The steps are there to provide some guidance and shape to task of wikifying the article. I'm not sure what goal is being accomplished by removing the guidance. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the steps that are currently listed are usually dealt with from other WikiProjects or backlogs. Voyaging(talk) 17:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It's true that the glossary definition and our scope don't completely match. Looking at our current "Scope and goals" and the steps in the "Wikification process", I've always understood the purpose of this project as dealing with article formatting and layout, in addition to wiki markup and linking; this is opposed to article content, which is dealt with by Wikipedia:Cleanup and its offshoots. I think this is where our project can be most useful, and I'd hate to see this aspect of the project lost. Perhaps we could simply amend the glossary definition. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 00:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, okay, on a broader ranged wikifying is just formatting the article + adding wiki markup. In that case, I think a deletion of steps 2, 3, 5, and 7 would be in order. Voyaging(talk) 04:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Step 2 (copyright violation check) and step 3 (duplicate article check) are necessary screening steps to weed out articles for which we shouldn't spend time wikifying. I fail to see why they should be dropped. As for formatting the lead, that can be debated. One could slap up a {{intromissing}} as part of the tagging, and I often do that. And I can agree with the remocal of the infobox step as that is often done by other wikiprojects that cover the specific subject area and they have specific guidelines for the content. -- Whpq (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Progress

Two monthly backlogs gone in as many weeks. And the total backlog has been reduced by 115 over the last eight days. Nice work everyone! – Liveste (talk • edits) 02:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redesigned

Hello. As part of the project, I have reesigned the mainpage. You may not be able to see it as fast, but you will. Just look at the white border and the font. I'll do this talkpage is well. I may also add something else to the design. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 03:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't redesign it. It's fine as it is. -- Whpq (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I second Whpq. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As an FYI to others reading this note, I've reverted the changes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify. Although, editors are encouraged to be bold, it should be tempered with common sense. Redesigning the main page of an established wikiproject without discussion is a little too bold.

As for the reasons for my specific objection, the redesign makes the page actually harder to read. And it seems to be quite contrary in spirit to the goals of this wikiproject. Standardising markup and formatting in accordance with the manual of style is what we want to be doing. It looks very strange then for the project page to deviate from a standard presenation and layout. -- Whpq (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, taking a second look at the reversion, I do see how it's harder to read. I'm sorry. It would have been a better idea to discuss it first. Cheers.--Ryan Cross (talk ♠ Review) 20:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)