Category talk:Articles that need to be wikified/Archive 3

Activity request.

Is it possible to have a bot notify users of the {{wikify}} tag to apply the {{wikify-date}} tag instead? Hopefully, this will cut down on the number of unsorted articles which need to be wikified... --Folajimi 15:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a bot that automatically changes them all once a day? --Tango 15:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I run my bot on it when I see it is getting big, I wouldn't bother doing it manually. Martin 15:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a pesky bot that pesters contributors needlessly about images; is it possible to have a bot send a friendly reminder to users of the older tag? The idea is simply to get the word out about the new template. Another (albeit minor) benefit would be the whittling down of the frequency at which the bot will have to do the sorting. --Folajimi 17:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Speak of the devil... --Folajimi 17:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The category instructions says:

How to add articles to the list

Add the tag {{wikify}} to the top of the article. A bot will automatically change this to something like {{wikify-date}} within 24 hours. Any articles you see listed near the bottom of this page have been tagged and are waiting to be automatically sorted into a monthly subcategory.

As long as it says that, I don't think it's fair to complain to people that follow those instructions. I think a bot running from time to time is easier than everyone having to type a significantly longer template. --Tango 18:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

And so it is. --Folajimi 21:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that "wikify-date" is now obsolete. Rich Farmbrough, 12:29 10 January 2007 (GMT).

Stub sense

For anyone who wants to work on some easy articles, the stub-sense program can find stubs inside the wikify backlog: [1] --Rayc 05:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of that. When I want to work on articles of a certain size, I set my threshold for stub display at the appropriate level, which makes them red links, but this lets you see them by subject. Although, at a quick glance, nothing jumps out at me as a subject I would want to work on. Perhaps there would be more variety if more articles were tagged as stubs. Thanks, Kjkolb 08:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Tag redundancy

Am I the only one who notices that the cleanup tag is often used in place of the wikify tag and vice versa? So often I find articles that are tagged for wikify but are needing much more than that. Military history of Denmark was a total mess until I spent over an hour on it today. I guess my point is that clearing wikify tags isn't the only thing that is going to fix the article in most cases. Perhaps people are too hasty in using the wikify tag --Brad101 22:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, a lot of these articles need more than just wikification. I don't mind doing cleanup though (I'm unemployed so it's not as if I have anything better to do).  :) RedRollerskate 22:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree too although I've noticed that it's more the cleanup tagged articles just need wikifying. a lot of the time when I've finished wikifying an article I end up just slapping another tag like {linkless} or {unreferenced} anyways. Maybe this needs mentioning on {cleanups} talkpage or maybe at WP:CR Ydam 22:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"Thanks for your contribution, but ...." template?

Hi - I've seen a few templates elsewhere, which say (in nicer language!) "Hi new user, thanks for your contribution, but please can you do it properly next time". For example:

Please don't add copyrighted text to Wikipedia Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your creation of the article, PageName, but we cannot accept copyrighted text borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems for more information on this topic, or generally, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Please do not remove the copyright violation notice placed in the article or repost the suspected infringing text. However, if you would like to rewrite the article in your own words, follow the link in the posted notice to create a temporary subpage. If your new article is appropriate, and not a further copyright violation, the reviewing administrator will move that new article into place once the copyright status of the original has been resolved. Happy editing! .

Would someone be willing/able to create a similar template to pop onto the talk pages of users who have added articles we have had to wikify? I am happy to work on the wording, but don't know how to set up a template.-Ladybirdintheuk

Template:Mos0, Template:Mos2, Template:Mos3. I think we should add a Template:Welcomemos - like Template:Welcomenpov. Jon513 16:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

just created it - what do you think? Jon513 16:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

looks good. Will wait for a second opinion before making any changes to the front page though. -Ladybirdintheuk 18:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Something like that should pop up if anyone creates an article with no formatting at all. Wouldn't that be nice? --W.marsh 16:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be great. But so would the moon on a stick ;) -Ladybirdintheuk 18:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey well it's a good idea but: Im not sure about using the word confirmed in those last 2! Remember don't bite the newbies. Also why what about a persoanl message section for those welcomes (so you can put {{subst:Welcomemos|Text=Your Message}}) I don't like the way so many people use a bland and unfriendly generic message with no hints (for example in this case) as to the errors the person has made. See here for an idea of what I mean.

-- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 19:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think you can improve the message by changing it, please do so. Jon513 12:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

6000

We haven't seen below 6000 articles on this page since early April. But we are getting closer and closer. We're 329 away right now. Lately we've had updates of -80, -42, +12, -78, +37, -38, -48, -44, and -33 since the start of July. So we've got down 314 in 9 days, an average of 35 a day. At that rate we'd be at 6000 in about 9-10 days. But I know we can do it sooner if we all do our parts.  :) This moment of inspiration and go team! brought to you by Metros232 04:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ta Metros. It's frustrating on those mornings where I work the numbers out and they've increased again. We'll get there eventually though :) -Ladybirdintheuk 09:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the increase is always in the latest month, so eventually it will all be in July, right?--Rayc 14:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I think you guys are doing a good job. I try to help out a bit, doing about 5 articles every day from the oldest month (though I realize people here do waay more than that on average). Just stick with it... an active project tends to gather more participants as it chugs along. --W.marsh 15:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

5 still makes a difference. Doing as many as I manage during the week just proves that I have a very boring and undemanding job! -Ladybirdintheuk 06:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many I'm wikifying at the moment, but one thing that has struck me is the number of copyvios being tagged as needing to be wikified. Everyone's doing a great job at wikifying, and I'm not sure if anyone's noticed but I've been attempting to clear July from all the copyvios (July actually decreased in the last update! Admittedly only by a 8 articles, but a decrease of 8 is better than an increase of 50+). The number of articles that are in July's category that have been prodded, AfD'd or are copyvios should reduce the number of July articles further. Too early to tell, but at the end of the month July may have considerably less articles carrying over than previous months have. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that too. I'm definitely clearing more copyvios, speedy deletes, prods, and AfDs than in any other month. I have no clue what that means, but I'm sure it might mean something. Metros232 12:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the amount of copyvio's is really huge. I put a comment about that here. No response yet. I myself also have no idea how to stop it though. And I only checked in Category:Wikify from March 2006. I was hoping that it wouldn't be so bad in more recent months. Victory of hope over experience I guess. :) Garion96 (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have found and submitted a lot of copyvios myself as well as speedys and AFD. Blame me I guess, tee hee. --Brad101 02:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Copyvios, we have really poor warnings during article creation which leads to a lot of good-faith people contributing copyvios because they don't know better (there's strong resistance towards any changing of the warning text). Ultimately though we need some automated means of detecting copyvios, such as a bot that reports all suspected ones (based on the google test), so instead of looking for needles in a haystack, we are just presented with a pile of needles with a few pieces of hay in it. We really need to abduct some programmer and make them write this bot... it's probably the most needed bot on the project. --W.marsh 13:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be great, a bot which could do what this site does. www.copyscape.com. Garion96 (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought I'd worked the numbers out wrong when July decreased! I was pleased when I double checked, and I was right :) I'd best work out the numbers for today now - *cross fingers they will have decreased again* -Ladybirdintheuk 09:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In the latest update (July 13th), the July number decreased by 37 articles! I was astonished, and had to go back and do the count several times before I realized that it was actually true. For my part, I am becoming much more active in PRODding articles when necessary. Let's keep at it! Green451 00:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well now we've made it below 6000 and July went down for the second straight day! Awesome work people! Metros232 11:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A good combination

From the above discussions, a good combination in finding copyvios seems to be setting your stub level in your preferences really high, then finding the pages that are still blue, and feeding them into http://www.copyscape.com/, making sure the results don't site us. Anything I missed?--Rayc 02:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well in quasi-related news, User:Where is working on a bot to find suspected copyvios (as they're created) and make a list, so it won't be like looking for needles in a haystack anymore. If this works, the number of creeping copyvios going undetected for months might drop dramatically. --W.marsh 02:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That is great news! I pity the poor admins on Wikipedia:Copyright problems when the bot is working. :) Garion96 (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've found copyscape to be an excellent - excellent tool for finding those vios. In a lot of cases it finds the website under copyright were as the article author used other external links for showing a reference. --Brad101 22:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Over 7000 articles again

What happened? One of the disadvantages of working on this I guess. You can't finish. :) Garion96 (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we haven't crossed 7000 yet. We did pass 6000 again though. But yeah, User:Bluebot's been keeping us busy by tagging articles left and right. Metros232 17:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah good, my mistake. I didn't looked carefully enough. Still it's too bad, I really liked it that we were finally under the 6000. Garion96 (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Very discouraging is it not? It does appear to me that there are so many articles, both new and old that are still hiding out there. I guess the solution is to try and clear more articles than are incoming as new. July is over 2000 articles now and when I began working on March over a month ago the count was over 2000 as well. The past two weeks or so I've noticed the pace has fallen behind so if it is taking us over a month to clear one month of tagged articles it's simple to see that things will forever be backlogged. --Brad101 22:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm back from my weekend away, so I'll be back to 20-30 articles a day, (unless by some miracle anyone gives me any real work to do in this place ;) ) Might be worth putting a few recruitment messages around if anyone posts on message boards elsewhere? (I put a few on my livejournal a month or so ago, and at least one of my friends came and did a few articles. Even if people come do one or two it's better than nothing!)-Ladybirdintheuk 08:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Userbox!

I've made my first user box, and am feeling very proud of myself.

Wikify

This user is part of the wikification drive

(The code is {{User:Ladybirdintheuk/Wikification Userbox}}.)

Feel free to use :) Alternatively, feel free to tell me what I need to do to make it better! - ie. is there a way to make it automatically add a category of "users who are part of the wikification drive"? (Can I even set up a category myself, or am I not important enough for that?). There would be no practical reason for this, besides my own curiosity! -Ladybirdintheuk 20:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added the category, feel free to change the name of the category or whatever. Martin 21:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - I knew there must be some obvious way to do it, but couldn't figure out what it was :) -Ladybirdintheuk 06:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Why????

Why is it suddenly listing all the articles which need to be wikified at the bottom of the page, rather than just the ones which haven't been tagged with a month yet? It nearly gave me a heart attach before I realised what was going on! -Ladybirdintheuk 06:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe those are the articles most recently tagged only {{wikify}} before a bot goes around and changes it to a dated tag like {{wikify-date|July 2006}}. So, last I looked there was 196 such articles. --Brad101 08:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It did have the list of every single article, not just the ones which were waiting to have the tag changed. It's fixed now though, so that's ok :)! -Ladybirdintheuk 08:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It was because someone added this category to the template as well as the sub-category. I have removed it now. Martin 08:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi there. I'm a new Wikipedian, and have decided to lend a hand to this project. Figured I would drop a line and say hello. I'm going to strive to take out at least a couple articles a day, as time permits. -- kaosfere 19:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome! As you can see, we are way behind, so we defintely need your help. Garion96 (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, welcome :) We can always use a fresh set of eyes around here to take a look at articles on here. Metros232 19:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for coming to help :) -Ladybirdintheuk 06:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Project

Hello! I'm looking into starting up a proper project page for this (it seems that it might be a good way to round up a few more willing volunteers.) Any thoughts on this before I start? I don't want to waste my time if there's a good reason this hasn't been done already. Alternatively if anyone wants to help me please shout :) -Ladybirdintheuk 08:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thats sounds like a good idea! I don't see why it wouldn't help especially as some guidelines could be set out so people know exactly what to do to wikify something. Some sort of checklist or the like etc etc. I'll happily give you a hand putting the page together if you need some help :D --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 10:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool - I am going to start a draft project page at User:Ladybirdintheuk/Wikiproject - wikification (draft) (don't look just yet, there won't be anything there for an hour or so!) Feel free to add/change anything, as this will only be a first draft. I expect some will be copied directly the Category:Articles that need to be wikified, as there's no point re-inventing the wheel.

Once we're happy with the wording we can go through the process of moving it to a proper project page. (There is a "proposed projects" page, but there are probably enough of us already that we can skip that bit, unless we want to use it as an attempt to round up a few more willing volunteers?). Once we have the project page set up there will be two last jobs:

• Change the wikify template, so that it points to [[Category:Wikiproject_wikify]] (or whatever the standard wording is. (Will this cause problems with Bluebot etc, and if so, what do we need to do about it???)
• Advertise!!!

-Ladybirdintheuk 13:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good I'll drop in in a hour or so before I leave work to take a look --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 13:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. The draft (at User:Ladybirdintheuk/Wikiproject - wikification (draft))is pretty much completed, but no-where near perfect. We could do with a few more people having a look and giving their thoughts/adding anything they think should be included. It would probably be easiest to continue to use this page, and just have a redirect from the wiki project page. What do you all think? -Ladybirdintheuk 10:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikify template

It would be possible to modify the wikify template (the generic one not the wikify-date one) to automatically categorise pages into the dated category and to put the this page has been tagged since XXX in the box. THen the bot wouldn't need to keep going round making needless edits! Is there any particualr reason why this hasn't been done that I am missing or can I go ahead and add the edits? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 14:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. Martin 14:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok done it :D seems to work a dream - except that the current articles that have been tagged with wikify have not mived (new ones are categorised correctly). Pearle can stop changing the tags now - I will let them know.

One thing has occured to me - this category is now going to be depreciated! If ladybirdintheuk gets a proper wikiproject going then we dont need it anymore :( ..... :P --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 21:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Poor category, it will feel all left out and rejected ;) -Ladybirdintheuk 21:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about it, we can always continue to use this page, and just have a re-direct on the project page. (Would just need to add a few bits of info to this page.) That would save a lot of effort! -Ladybirdintheuk 10:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Update, Beland pointed out that it errr doesnt actually work at the moment - never fear though as I will keep working on it! :D --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 21:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I mean on my sub pageI wont be messing with the template proper again for now :P --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 21:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Scratches head...it was working before you changed it as far as I could tell. August had something like 80 articles in it about 10 minutes ago, now it's down to 30. What exactly's going on? Metros232 21:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry the way I coded the script was meant to subst the current month and year to the article page BUT instead it modified the template to always say August 2006 rather than just using the current month. The solution to that method is to use includeonly tags around the subst part of the template. But then it doesnt display correctly on the article page (unless you subst the wikify tag itself) - are you getting this?

Basically the outcome would have been that EVERY article that got tagged with wikify would be placed into the August category - even next month and the month after. I am considering all this at the moment and i reckon there is a solution but it may take some work :D --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 22:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Official Wikification project

Further to the comments above, myself and User:Tmorton166 have worked out a draft project page to create a official Wikification project. The reason we're doing this is to try and get the project a bit more exposure and get a few more people involved. The draft can be seen at User:Ladybirdintheuk/Wikiproject - wikification (draft).

Please can you have a look at the draft and leave any comments either here or on the comments page. (Feel free to make any changes or additions you notice). If you think it looks fine as it is please comment below, so we know that you approve!

Once the page is ready, I am not sure if we should move the text to Category:Articles that need to be wikified, and set up a redirect at Wikiproject: Wikification, or if we should put the text there, and work out how to redirect all the templates etc to that page. The former seems far easier (And I know how to do it by myself). The latter may look a bit less messy though, if people are prepared to help out to get it done properly. Please let me know your thoughts on this!

I'm not going to take any action either way until after the weekend, so we have time to discuss first. thanks -Ladybirdintheuk 10:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This looks good! I'll help out and make some changes. And ideally it should be moved to Wikipedia: WikiProject Wikification. We could also merge the Wikify category into this page seeing as it has good stuff like the progress bars etc. - Phorque 10:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the progress box, does anyone mind if we move it to a sub page such as: Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/Progress box and add an edit link so it can be included on both this page and on the Wikiproject page and so will be updated on both.... --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 08:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Being bold :P I created an actual template for it: Template:Wikification progress which could be used if we like the idea...

It all looks the same (see below) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 11:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify

All articles

31,135

Cool - that's a good idea, then we only have to update in one place :) -Ladybirdintheuk 11:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats the idea :D saves you some regular work and save the page history of the wikiproject page being cluttered up with --updated xxxxxx comments --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 11:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikify tag

I'm starting to think that we need some sort of educational project or a better description of what "article needs to be wikified" means. I'm running into lots and lots of articles tagged for August 06 that don't need to be wikified. It's running at about a 40% clip. That's high. If an article is fully linked and sectioned, it does NOT need the wikified tag. Cleanup tag? Maybe. But not wikify. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had a few too where I've had to leave a message for the tagger asking what they felt was necessary to wikify it and it was always very minor or nothing at all. Metros232 11:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Both the cleanup and wikify tags are confusing in one way or another. I was sort of hinting at that problem when I posted about Tag redundancy. There are also way too many tags, some of which are hardly ever used and far too many to keep memorized.

I was sort of thinking there should be some sort of flag (or yet another tag) placed on every new article (perhaps automagically} which simply marks it as a new article. If the article survives deletion then a week or two later someone with more experience determining what an article needs can place the correct tags on. I've recently found articles that are over a year old that don't have categories, for example. I've recently been watching the recent changes area where I observe new articles coming in. Some are complete garbage which get speedied right off but I also noticed there were quite a few new articles started by more experienced wikipedians which already have the foundations for a good article.

I'm not exactly sure where I'm going with all this but it seems to me that wikipedia should think about changing or coming up with a process for new articles submitted where those articles are passed through a process that wouldn't leave them in the shape that we're finding as we try to eliminate the wikify back log. --Brad101 12:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep we do have alot of tag abuse. it's like people don't know which one fits so they put them all on. Blech. And an approval process will never happen. Should it? Don't know. But it won't happen given Jimbo's vision of the project. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't saying "Approval Process". More like new articles would first be checked for copyright and wiki guidlines then passed down to be wikified, then cats and links etc. The wikipedia guidelines are already an approval process but in unorganized form. Example would be all the copyright problems I find in articles that are already months old. In some cases people have done a lot of work on an article that I have to blank out for copyright problems. Seems like a waste of effort since the article was a copyvio from the beginning. --Brad101 20:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Over 7000 articles

Someone's been busy finding lots of artilces for us to wikify :( Ah well, we will keep plodding on, and get there eventually. If anyone can think of more people to recruit to help, it wouldn't be a bad time to do so! -Ladybirdintheuk 10:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Project redundancy

Please see User:Brad101/redundancy for things that have been on my mind lately. Use the talk page there for comments about changes etc. Thanks --Brad101 14:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Total now over 8000

I didn't like doing the maths today! It would be a really good time to recruit some bored friends to the cause. Somebody please reassure me that it will be a much smaller number soon. -Ladybirdintheuk 09:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the actual number of articles that need to be wikified (regardless of whether they are tagged as such or not) is decreasing, but what we are seeing is that a greater and greater proportion of them are being tagged. My reasoning is that on scanning the database periodically, the number seems to decrease. Martin 09:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Even so, in the 11-ish hours we have been in September 325 articles have been tagged!!! Probably the numbers are skewed and many articles need other cleanups, will be deleted or are quick fixes but even so.... --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 09:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Simplified template

The template can now be added as {{wikify}} (which puts the article in the main category) or {{wikify|September 2006}} (which puts it in the by-date category). This is more simple than having 2 seperate templates, and otherwise doesn't make any difference. Martin 12:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

World oil market timeline articles

Just to let you all know, the some 30 articles in the May backlog about the "World oil market chronology" are in the process of being wikified Charlie Huggard was doing it, but was unable to continue, so I have taken over from him, working in his sandbox. The articles have been merged into decades, and are about 80 percent finished. So in case you were wondering, don't worry. They'll be off the wikify list soon enough. Green451 16:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've moved this down to the bottom. The sandbox articles are at User:Charlie_Huggard/sandbox/WOMT. I've not looked at these in great detail, but it looks like they're nearly finished. -Ladybirdintheuk 09:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Wikify AFL

Someone has amde Template:Wikify AFL, I don't see the point of it, as it justs adds articles to this category. Martin 21:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, it just makes things even more confusing. You want ot TfD it or shall I? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 22:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've simply redirected it to the main template, if anyone disagrees with that, then they can make their own specialist wikify category and maintain it themselves. thanks Martin 09:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If you really want to get ill take a look at Template:Wikilink-date and [2]. But this wikilink tag looks interesting and unused. --Brad101 09:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ouch! Maybe that Wikilink template can be redirected to Wikify too. As it is essentially the same thing and not worth putting things in different categories / classifications. I think maybe I will tak a look through that cat and see what I can rout out! :D --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 09:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would just redirect it. Martin 09:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just doen it, only 2 pages lnked there anyway! --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 10:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok I took a look at that category and compiled a list of all the templates there. There is a huge number and a quick look shows some are pretty useless :( I really am going to do something about this. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 13:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Good! :) I say good because I've removed about 25 Wikify AFL tags over the last few days. None of them have been legit. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Vio

I decided to contribute to this project, and the first article I tackled turned out to have copyright problems. I tagged it as a possible copyright violation. Should I also have removed the wikify tag? CAN 01:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. Yes, the whole text of of the article including tags (except the copyvio tag of course) can be removed when you put the copyvio tag on. Garion96 (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Amateur Radio Service

This has been re-directed to Amateur Radio (thank you to Skywolf) Roaming27 06:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Roaming27

Hmmm, why is my talk page on the list of items to be wikified? Did I press the wrong key or something? Roaming27 07:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to bluemoose for fixing the above  :-) Roaming27 23:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

spelling problem

Hi, I'm not sure I should post that here but I don't know where to go. I'm trying to translate articles from french to english. I'm sure I'm making spelling and style mistakes. Is there a category to put into the article in order to make sure some people will have a look at it and correct the mistakes? I looked for some kind of Category:Spelling_to_check or Category:Grammar_to _be_checked but I didn't find out. Thanks for your help. Ajor 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Put {{cleanup}} on an article and that will add it to the category of articles needing cleanup and somebody will come along and fix the spelling and grammar mistakes. RedRollerskate 18:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Ajor 18:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You can also drop a note about the article at Wikipedia:Translation into English/French#Recently completed translations which is aimed at the situation you describe. Regards, MartinRe 18:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleting cleared categories?

Category:Wikify from August 2006 is currently empty. I could speedily delete it under C1, but I don't want to break anything (there's a difference between being bold and being reckless). Is there any reason to keep old, empty cats? EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any way that another article could be added to the category now, so it might as well go. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 22:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna double-check the five remaining un-dated articles sitting in this cat. If none are from August, I'll kill it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting you should mention that actually - today I found out that there's articles in non-existant categories since May 2006. However, the good thing is that there's only about 1-2 articles in each category. This brings up the point that these old categories can't be deleted because, for example, if there is an article that someone tagged with {{wikify}} in (say) January 2006, and no one has dated that {{wikify}} tag until (say) today, then articles will be placed in a non-existant category.  H4cksaw  (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Crazy; there actually is an article in the August '06 category. Restoring... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Accidentally wikifying vandalism

I wonder if the numbered steps at the top of the article need to have one more step added: Make sure the page has not been vandalised.

I looked at this version of David Drew and could see it was probably a recent copyvio. But when I looked at the history I could see the article had been around for ages and had been extensively edited. Made no sense until I realised a vandal had recently over-written an article about a politician with a copy-violating article about another notable person who had the same name. Which was then tagged for wikification. In a case like this it's all too easy to wikify the changes to the article, validating the vandalism.

andy 11:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Shameless plug: Tags script

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.

Further information and installation instructions are here. The script should be pretty self-explanatory and straightforward to use. If you encounter any problems or have any questions or suggestions though, please don't hesitate to either contact me directly or leave a reply. Thanks & cheers, -- Seed 2.0 22:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikification and disambiguation

Hi, I'm here visiting from Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. I just wanted to mention that Wikipedia articles are not supposed to link to disambiguation (dab) pages. The dab pages are there so that users who type a term into the search box can be directed to the relevant article. An example of a link that shouldn't be created is Britain (See, I just created one myself. Bad editor.) It has about 2800 links already in the main namespace and we're trying to get that down to zero. The "dab pages with links" project seems to get bigger with each bot dump. I'd hate to think that part of that is being caused by the success of the wikification project. Maybe someone could put a note in the relevant WP pages. I'm a little hesitant to mess around with that myself. Thanks for your attention. Steven J. Anderson 03:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm don't see any real problem with people wikifying quickly so they can get through a lot of articles in a short time and then someone else coming along and disambiging the links. Finding the correct article to link to while wikifying is quite time consuming. Doing so while disambiging all links to a particular disambig page is quite quick since you can quickly memorise the appropriate titles. The best think about a wiki is that you don't need one person to do everything. Articles don't have to be fixed in one go, it can be done one bit at a time. --Tango 11:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for verification

Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for verification

A proposal designed as a process similar to {{prod}} to delete articles without sources if no sources are provided in 30 days.

It reads:

Some editors see this as necessary to improve Wikipedia as a whole and assert that this idea is supported by policy, and others see this as a negative thing for the project with the potential of loss of articles that could be easily sourced.

I would encourage your comments in that page's talk or Mailing list thread on this proposal WikiEN-l: Proposed "prod" for articles with no sources

Signed Jeepday (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Criteria

Is there clear criteria that have to be met in order for a page to be wikified? I keep checking pages under the articles that need to be wikified, and, without judging the quality of the content, most of the time the format looks pretty good to me. Even if I do clean up some obvious formatting, how can one tell when the 'wikify' tag be removed?Cander0000 22:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding top text eclipse

06-Dec-2007: I have added several forced breaks ("<br/>") to avoid the nav-box from eclipsing, or overlaying, the nearby text at the top of the page Category:Articles that need to be wikified. This formatting is a bit of a balancing act, to handle typical screen widths between 1024x768 to 800x600 pixels (or less), to not eclipse the nearby text. Three (3) areas of the Category-page were formatted:

• a line-break was inserted before the first line of text;
• 2 line-breaks ("<br/><br/>") were added before the list of 7 steps; and,
• the shortcut-box was made taller by adding 2 lines of '&nbsp'.

That format balancing act is needed due to a wiki-format bug (in MediaWiki 1.6) which can eclipse text when a wider box/image follows a narrow box or table. (Eclipsing does not occur when narrow boxes follow wider boxes, or when boxes have similar widths within 10px). Typically nav-boxes can be simply lowered within a list to separate them; however, lists with auto-numbering (by "#") will reset the numbering count when a template generates a line-break in the middle of the list, causing the appearance of 2 steps numbered "1." or such. Another fix would be to invoke a middle "filler" template which could separate the 2 boxes while expanding the width between 2 consecutive boxes; however, I don't know of any such filler templates: perhaps displaying an intervening short, wide transparent image (unframed) would also work to separate a wider box following a narrow box, providing a transparent area for text to overlap.

Please note that these are the "backward years" of Wikipedia, when such simple wiki-format bugs are persisting. I doubt these problems will fester in Wikipedia for too many more years: they will be fixed like the "hide" for Table of Contents. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

About this acutal page- Content forks

On this page, 'content fork' is a red link which leads to a blank page ready for editing which redirects to the actual page. While this is somewhat clever to someone who understands what a content fork is, it seems less than helpful as a link. Should we change it to simply being a link to the page describing what a content fork is?

Pilom (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes.Ccrrccrr (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles not appearing in category.

I've run across several articles that are tagged for wikifying but aren't appearing in this category. The dated tag is in place; some examples:

• USS Boston (CA-69)

And if you look at: [3], it is not on the list. This is just one example and when I find others like this I will list them here. --Brad (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Check here [4]. This is a result of the default sort option which lists it by "Boston (CA-69)" in all categories. Similar things happen with biographies where the default sort might be set to someone's last name instead of their first. Metros (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks, makes sense now although as one who likes to work on US Navy ships it no doubt leaves a lot of them off my radar. Looking under U was the best way for me to see them all. --Brad (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this process user friendly?

The intent seems legit, the process seems as obscure as the riddle of the sphinx!.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajacksoniv (talk • contribs) 02:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Aquatic Volleyball

Ok... newish to the process, so this could be a newbieish question. Aquatic Volleyball is on the list Wikify from February 2008. The page itself was turned into a redirect to Volleyball variations on 17 Feb. I can't see a wikify tag on either the redirector or redirectee pages - (although Volleyball Variations does need clean-up.) Is this simply a case of the list being none up-to-date? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.171.130 (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)