User talk:Bluemoose/Uncategorised good articles

Progress

So far it looks like we have cleaned appx 100 of them in 27 hours. [1] So lets see... 66sections * 15 articles each = 990 articles. Divided 90 per day = appx 11 days to finish at this rate. Nice. -Ravedave 21:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's much nicer doing this than Category:Category needed. At least here one can see some progress. Plus so far I only have seen real articles. Again unlike Category:Category needed. Garion96 ^(talk) 21:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! These are much easier to work on (because there are links to follow and gather categories from).Also alot of times I can help clean up the article too. And its more interesting, I have already leanred what Cultural_relativism and Stratemeyer_Syndicate are. After this list is done we might need bluemoose to make a new list with slightly shorter articles, say in 10 days or so ;) -Ravedave 22:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently it looks like there are appx 1129 articles left. Probably 10-15 days left (assuming BlueMoose doesn't dump more on us :) -Ravedave 04:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, without lowering the standards for a "good" article there are none left. Martin 11:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appx 900 left. -Ravedave 02:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

802 as of my count now. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

703 as of right now. --Danaman5 03:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

583! JesseW 00:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

298 - Ravedave 04:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

222. User:JesseW/not logged in 04:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

102! --Danaman5 21:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We finished this list at 13:02, 4 March 2006. Bluemoose uploaded more...

A new list of 1100 was uploaded at 21:19, 4 March 2006.

We have 985 left as of 06:27, 8 March 2006.

Sorting

Bluemoose, Is there any rhyme or reason to how the articles are sorted? I have a feeling alphabetization could speed things up by putting similar articles together. Example: U.S. presidential election, 2004, in Colorado was in 38 and U.S. presidential election, 2000, in Florida was in 52.- Ravedave 23:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, when you scan the datadump it comes out pretty random, I forgot to alphabetise it, I have done it now. I'll remember to do it to start with in the future, that way it will keep the section headers as well. thanks Martin 00:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Could this list be expanded to include about good articles that are only in the cleanup category (or other maintenance categories) and no other category? Qutezuce 06:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does, because those categories are added through a template as far as my program is concerned they are in no category. thanks Martin 09:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats strange, because the reason it came to mind was because only 3 of the pages linked from List of places in Pennsylvania were listed here, and they seemed to be the ones without the cleanup tag, and none of the ones with the cleanup tag were listed here. Qutezuce 09:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably because I havent uploaded the whole uncategorised list yet, because it would have been too big, when the page is a bit smaller I'll add them all. thanks Martin 10:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary of chemical formulas

What to do with those? Garion96 ^(talk)

There are more listed at Dictionary of chemical formulas, maybe we should create a new category for them? Martin 09:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ravedave also mentioned it here Talk:Dictionary_of_chemical_formulas#page to delete. I guess a category would more be an administrative category since some of those articles still need to be merged. Garion96 ^(talk) 18:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Y articles

I have proposed deletion for both of the articles under Y (the strange draft ones) because the article already exists at Dr. Cain. We should be able to take them off of the list once they are deleted. Danaman5 00:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Run?

When might this list be able to be re-generated? About 1/3 to 1/2 of the articles I am visiting already have categories. -Ravedave 05:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will when the next database dump arrives, probably a week or so. Martin 09:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing Categories

There seems to be a bunch of boxing categories that aren't linked into the people category tree. I've found the categories Heavyweight and Puerto Rican boxers. Should a Professional boxer category be added to People by occupation? It seems to me that it might be better to add a Professional sports category at this level. There's already a category called Sports occupations but everything in there are occupations related to Sports, such as coaches and refs.--JeffW 20:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I found it although I think the way is linked through People known in connection with sports and hobbies and then Sportspeople and Sportspeople by sport is rather inobvious. --JeffW 00:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insider

I'd just put it in Category:People.--JeffW 19:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and done. -Ravedave 20:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smuts Hall

This one got an inconclusive AfD vote so we need to handle it, but I couldn't find any categories this could be placed in. The obvious one is Universities and colleges in South Africa but it doesn't really fit there, not being a college itself. I could create a new catagory for University of Cape Town and put Smuts Hall and the article for University of Cape Town in it, but is it a good idea to create a category for two items? I'm not sure how much it would ever be expanded. --JeffW 07:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After some searching, I discovered Category:University and college dormitories. I have added it to that category and will make the category easier to find in the future. --Danaman5 17:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists

I noticed this text was added a few days ago: "In addition to whatever other categories apply, each list should be added to Category:Lists or one of its sub-categories". I think some of my earlier edits didn't include stuff under that category. Did anyone else make the same mistake? I am going to use AWB in the next week or so to re-check all of the list pages. Anyone agree/disagree this is a good idea? -Ravedave 15:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That does sound like a good idea. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Finished

Wow, I am away for a week or so and already it's finished. Good job all. Garion96 ^(talk) 15:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks very much to everyone who helped! The database dump is going to finish soon, so I will be able to update the list, I'll lower the standard of a "good" article enough so there are another 1000 or so. Martin 15:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updated

I have lowered the standard for a "good" article, so now we have another 1100 to work through. I also added a note to watch out for articles where the categories have just been removed by a vandal. Martin 21:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well...the empty page was nice while it lasted. :) Garion96 ^(talk) 22:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date Articles

The date articles (August 1, 2005) should probably be excluded from the list. They're already in category Days in 2005 and categorizing each day by what events occur on that day would result in very large category lists, and be very time consuming. --JeffW 06:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the date ones. You are correct. They should all be categorized already though I'll make sure. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there are a bunch of days missing the category in 2004 and 2005, and the stuff after the pipe in the category is mangled too. [2] [3] -Ravedave 03:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Key strengthening

Hi everyone. Nice thing you got going here. I just checked "What links here" for "my" new article Key strengthening and found this place. Oops, I had forgotten to categorise my article, and thus you reminded me! (I kind of felt unprofessional there for a second... :) Oh, and I like the name you use "Uncategorised good articles", made me feel nice about being listed here instead of just listed due to "I made a mistake". --David Göthberg 12:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note Dave, I think I might start signing my edits with a link back to this page for ppl like you. -Ravedave 22:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idea

The page talks about pages that have lost their category due to vandalism. Is it possible, or worthwhile, to compile a list of articles which had a category at one point in time but no longer have one? Qutezuce 05:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very difficult, as the database dump I use does not have any history data. Martin 12:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of environment topics:xx

All of these pages are linked to by Lists of environment topics which has the correct categories. If each page had a category then you'd end up with a bunch of nearly duplicate pages in the Category page. Do these index pages really need categories, or alternatively is there another way to handle a long list? --JeffW 08:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of FieldTurf installations

Does anyone else think this is just an ad for FieldTurf? --JeffW 17:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next bunch

Will there be a next bunch or was this it? Btw, congratulations to all for finishing it. Garion96 ^(talk) 14:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There will be more, waiting for next datadump though, to avoid picking up ones that have been categorised already. What I'll do is lower the standards of a "good" article each time to get about 500 - 600 new ones, until the standard becomes less than "good". Thanks to everyone who has helped. Martin 14:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, so we won't be bored. :) Thanks to you too for all the work. How many (total) uncategorised articles are there? Just curious how much of the million plus articles is uncategorised. Garion96 ^(talk) 20:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hhhmmm, interesting question, on first scan it looks like only just over 51,000 articles have no category, though that sounds too low, I suspect I might have made a mistake somehow, I was expecting it to be 100s of thousands. Martin 21:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would indeed almost be too good to be true. Would work though. :) Garion96 ^(talk) 21:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the detailed Wikipedia statistics tables the percent of uncategorized articles has been 78% from May 2005 to December 2005 (the lastest data available). Applying that percentage to the current number of articles we get around 233,200 uncategorized articles. Qutezuce 22:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if that includes articles which have stubs or other templates on them and therefore do have (sort of) a category. Garion96 ^(talk) 22:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that includes all the namespaces, I was only looking at the main namespace. It also says there are 1.7 million articles in the mainspace, which means it must include redirects or something. It also says "Categories that are inserted via a template are not detected." which is an innacurate method, as articles with no category and a template are generally categorised by that template (disambig pages being the obvious example). If I use their criteria I get a similar number to them, though I'm still not convinced the way I did it was accurate. Martin 22:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did a mini survey by clicking Random article 158 times: 151 pages were categorized, 7 were not. I considered stubs to be categorized, but not pages whose only categories were maintenance (eg cleanup, lacking sources, etc). Using the percentage 151/158 = 95.6%, that gives ~44,000 uncategorized articles. Qutezuce 23:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages

If you run across any pages with a slash in them, like Typical page/temp you should find the creator or someone else who has worked on the page and ask them to move it to their user page or delete it. Subpages are not supposed to be allowed in the main article space. --JeffW 18:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Java script tool

For those who like extra tools, see User:Bluemoose/monobook.js/catkey.js, for a JavaScript tool that adds this button, that when clicked (on Bill Gates for example) adds the following;

[[Category: births|Gates, Bill]]
[[Category: deaths|Gates, Bill]]
[[Category: |Gates, Bill]]

Which is pretty helpful as it saves copying and pasting and making the category key. Pasting the contents of User:Bluemoose/monobook.js/catkey.js into your monobook (e.g. User:YOURUSERNAME/monobook.js then clearing your internet cache should make it work). Martin 11:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What to do after categorizing

Are we to remove the article name once we categorize the article? or is there a bot that maintains/updates this list? Zebov 17:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no bot for that. You have to remove the article from the list yourself. Garion96 ^(talk) 17:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for Sub-Lists

I am considering updating Wikipedia:Categorization where it says "Every page in the article namespace should belong to at least one category" to carve out an exception for sub-lists. These are lists such as List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1) where a larger list was broken up into multiple pages with the original list page having links to each of the sub-list pages. I don't believe that in many cases it makes sense for these sub-lists to belong to the same categories as their parent list page.

Take a look at Category:M*A*S*H the parent page of List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 1). That page already has List of M*A*S*H episodes on it, why does it need each of the sub-list pages on it too?

The question I have for this group is what effect would it have to the effort to categorize un-categorized pages to have some pages that are purposely un-categorized? Is there some way to mark the pages so they don't show up in Bluemoose's list? Does it make sense to create Category:Pages that aren't supposed to have a category? What category would that page belong to (and don't say itself)? --JeffW 16:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be too problematical, as long as a record was kept of articles that shouldn't have categories. That said, I think the current guideline is good, we should always try to add at least one category to every page, in the example you give the mash episodes could have their own sub-category or something. Martin 16:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude subpages

Would it be difficult to exclude subpages from the next list? We don't need to be the subpage monitors as well. --JeffW 18:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who else would be monitors for those? The only way they usually stand out is because they don't have categories. So it makes sense to have them listed here. Garion96 ^(talk) 13:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be simple to create a list of just subpages in the main namespace? After all, they might have categories in which case this list wouldn't catch them. --JeffW 14:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might not be a bad idea. I assume the majority of those subpages are old and can be deleted anyway. (the /temp /proposed etc) If Bluemoose reads this, after all this is his user page :), maybe he could make something like that. Garion96 ^(talk) 01:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that in theory we do not have subpages, and there are plenty of articles that have a "/" in the title but are not subpages, in fact there are a total of 4183 articles that have a "/" in the title, most of which are not subpages, I could post that list if you want, but it is possible too long to be useful. I do have a list of temp pages which I have gradually been deleting and moving, which is here. Martin 08:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, didn't thought of that. That list is handy though, will work on it some time. I already removed some red links, made it a bit more clearer. Garion96 ^(talk) 11:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progress Bar

I updated the progress bar to reflect the current status. I took the number of original articles from the comment that said "442 left out of 442 originally." If the 442 figure is inaccurate, then somebody can remove the bar, but I find it demoralizing to always see "0% Completed" when I go to this page. :-) SoberEmu 22:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revival

I just found this. I spend a fair amount of time at the uncategorized project, and sometimes find it frustrating working on small articles with questionable notability, but it's a boost to work on an interesting article I just know that others will find useful. I would like to participate in this project if it's revivied. Scarykitty 14:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bluemoose unfortunately has left the project. You might ask Alai if he could make something like this. Garion96 (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]