Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/es

Strikeouts not needed

I'm really impressed how far this project has come in the last month, a number of topic have been addressed. The only point I have is that the general convention for the overall project is simply to remove items when they are completed. Strikeouts, i.e. <s>Text</s> are not needed to indicate something is done; it's removal is sufficient enough notice. Because this list can be generated again anything incorrectly removed can be covered on the next go 'round. Reflex Reaction 18:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll follow your lead and remove all struck-through items. :) Zafiroblue05 19:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update needed

This page needs to be updated, as the last dump was about two years ago and has just been completed. No doubt there will be many articles that have been added in the past two years. I am contacting some people who have experience creating these lists and hopefully one would be able to do it. Rigadoun (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'd love to help, but unfortunately I can't. I didn't even knew what a dump was before I started editing wikipedia... But after it's updated, you can count on me to help create the missing articles.:) Cattus ^talk 20:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a go, unless someone beats me to it. — BillC ^talk 22:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good: I didn't write the script (for the French Wikipedia) myself; I just copied it from the project page and tinkered with it some. I could still work on dividing it up once the output is produced, if you need help with that. Ardric47 23:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've got the output—there are 10197 items—but I have hit a minor problem: proper representation of Unicode characters. Output currently looks like:

es:ÅšwiÄ™tno - ca:Swietno - de:ÅšwiÄ™tno - pl:ÅšwiÄ™tno - perhaps ÅšwiÄ™tno - es-en translation

(This should be es:Świętno)

Can anyone give me a pointer to get Perl to properly format this? — BillC ^talk 02:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. It was just a matter of writing the output to a file, rather than cut-and-paste from the output screen. — BillC ^talk 03:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted the first section, which contains those with between 51 and 9 interwiki links. I will post the remainder on a series of subpages tomorrow. — BillC ^talk 03:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks folks for your quickness and dedication to the project. After a quick glance at the list, it seems that it has the same problem as the French version, that of many French municipalities that have been bot-created on a number of wikipedias. I'm guessing that's a large fraction of the 10,000 entries. I've been hoping someone would do a bot for them here to solve this issue, as has been done for municipalities in a number of other countries. Rigadoun (talk) 06:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like many of them weren't bot created, but in any case, I have asked someone with an interwiki bot on the Spanish Wikipedia to add all the interwiki's they can for the French communes. Once that's done it looks like we'll need to update this list again. - Taxman ^Talk 18:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages

These were meant to be removed, but some crept through: I think the es-Wiki has more than one type of {{disambig}} tag. They can be simply removed, unless you believe that the en-Wiki also needs a disambiguation page with the same name. — BillC ^talk 12:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't see why they should be removed. In general, disambiguation pages should have interwiki links, and ones needed in several languages are likely to be needed in English as well. For any individual ones where that makes no sense in English (for example, none of the entries could be referred to with the same name in English), they can be removed. Rigadoun (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs

We need to come to a collective decision on how to deal with—i.e. to remove from these lists or not—articles that exist only in a stub form in the en-Wiki, but are fully fledged articles in the Spanish (or elsewhere). The case of Nambroca is typical: a two-sentence stub (yet properly categorised and interwikied) in English, but es:Nambroca is a 500-word article. Your thoughts are welcome. — BillC ^talk 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the French version, I've been putting them in a separate list at the bottom, to make the top easier to comb through, but that doesn't seem to draw much attention as they don't seem to be getting expanded very fast. I can think of two guidelines where they perhaps should be removed: (1) The article should at least be substantial enough that it doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion. For some topics (like settlements, which are basically notable regardless of size), that doesn't mean much, but for people, for instance, you couldn't let it stand as a stub like "Mr. X was a Spanish writer." If we don't check that there is some claim of notability, then the article could be deleted, and therefore missing again. (2) The article is inferior to all (or most) of the other interwiki links. In this case, Nambroca is okay, because only the Spanish link has more information. Ideally, that would also be on the Dutch, Italian, and Portuguese pages, but they seem to have been automatically generated like the English one, and have only the basic information. In most cases like this, having an infobox should be a minimum requirement. So, in other words, I would say Nambroca is "done," but perhaps other stubs wouldn't be. Rigadoun (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fair enough to me; I'm happy that we follow this policy. — BillC ^talk 00:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]