Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikify/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Wikifikation Request Template

Long story short, I put together a quick template (mainly copied from the invitation template) to be used when an article needs to be wikified, but has really only one main contributing editor. (example: Bangladeshi garments) There are a huge number of articles backlogged that only have one person contributing, which is usually the main reason for the lack of cleanup. If we were to notify the authors that their article needs some cleanup, hopefully it can help reduce the number of new articles that need wikification.

{{subst:User:Bvlax2005/wikirequest|John Doe}}

would produce something like this:

Comments? Improvements? Love it? Hate it?

Bvlax2005 (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems useful enough. When providing a link on how to wikify an article, it's probably better to link to the project page (please take a look here) – it'll allow users to find out more about the whole process, and perhaps join the project. I'd also recommend replacing the first part of the last sentence with something a little simpler: e.g., "If you are unsure of what is necessary for wikification please take a look here..." → "If you need any help wikifying the article, please see our guide to wikification..." (or something similar). I just wonder how successful this template will be: there are many articles in the backlog that are written by editors who start an article and then promptly leave, never to be heard of again. But we should be able to get at least some positive responses from it. Every bit helps :) Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 03:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If it really does help in reducing the backlog, then it's worthwhile. I suspect that many of these types of articles aren't being looked after by the primary contributor. A review of the edit history would show if the article has had sustained work over time. Even then, the editor may not log into wikipedia much and not see the message. However, this is all conjecture. Using the invitation, and measuring its effectiveness would give us actual data to gauge eeffectiveness. And a little more conjecture... The invitation might be more useful when the wikification tagging is recent, and the primary editor is still likely on the job so to speak. -- Whpq (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I really liked your wording change so I made an update to the template! Bvlax2005 (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how well it will do with relieving the backlog. If an article was made more than a year ago and hasn't been wikified it is unlikely the editor is terribly motivated to do it now (is is even still active). But I think this might be a great tool for recently tagged articles. A number of the newly tagged articles I have seen come from editors that are new to Wikipedia. So all in all I'm hoping it helps relieve the addition of more articles. At 14,000 articles, every little bit helps! Bvlax2005 (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Inter-Project Collaboration?

I was going through a number of articles and I tend to find a LOT of articles that fall under other WikiProjects. I had the idea of somehow trying to get other WikiProjects involved in wikifying articles. It would help with the backlog and help the other projects improve their own articles.

I put together a message that I could add on other WikiProjects talk pages. Right now its linked as a template, however I'm no expert with templates and with the current model article names would have to be entered (and linked) manually. So in all it would just be easier to copy and past the code, adding article names as necessary. I tried to get across what wikification is and how they could help out. I tried to be as friendly as I could without sounding too overbearing. So far I have this:

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: center; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |- ! style="background-color:#ff9933; text-align: center;" |'''[[WP:WWF|WikiProject Wikify]]''' |- | style="border: solid 1px black;"| {| | colspan="2" valign="middle" style="width: 60%; border: 1px black solid; padding: 1em; background: #ff9933" | <big>'''A message from your friends at [[WP:WWF|WikiProject Wikify]]'''</big> |- {{clear}} {| style="font-size: 95%;" |- | valign="top" | === Why am I getting this message? === This message was generated by the good folks at [[WP:WWF|WikiProject Wikify]]. We noticed that there are a number of articles that need wikification that may fall within the scope of your WikiProject as well! Currently, of the 2,522,403 Wikipedia articles, 4,777 are listed as good articles (about 1 in 528), and 2,196 are listed as featured articles (about 1 in 1,140). Many of the remainder are poorly written, badly linked, and in need of care and attention. WikiProject Wikify aims to improve the layout and presentation of such articles. The wikification process is simple, and we welcome input from any editors who would like to help out. === What is wikification anyways? === 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.'' <br>Noun: Wikification; gerund: wikifying. Sometimes shortened to wfy. Simply put, wikification is the process of adding internal links within an article and adding lead paragraphs, headers, and infoboxes when appropriate. === This doesn't seem too complicated, how can I help? === A general guide to wikification can be found [[User:Bvlax2005/Wikify|here]]. If you have any questions at all feel free to leave me a message or drop in on [[WP:WWF|WikiProject Wikify]] and someone would be glad to help you out. Below is a list of articles that might fall within the scope of your WikiProject. If you have the time, this endeavor could greatly benefit both our projects, and the members at [[WP:WWF|WikiProject Wikify]] would be extremely grateful! === Articles === |} |} |} Comments? Suggestions? Love it? Hate it?

Bvlax2005 (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to see what kind of a response this gets. This template would probably be most useful for WikiProjects with no established cleanup listing, but I pity the poor person who has to populate the Articles section of the message (sounds like a job for a bot). We could give it a trial run with a friendly WikiProject and see what happens.

I like the headings and the friendly tone. I've also made a couple of minor changes to the wording (feel free to revert them). As above, it's probably best to link to the project page rather than a user subpage. I'd also recommend simplifying the "simply put" explanation of wikifying. Would you mind making a separate page for the template, perhaps as a subpage of the project page (you're welcome to do this for the wikirequest template if you like)? Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 03:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually do have the template located at User:Bvlax2005/InterProjectWikify. Feel free to make any changes you think would improve it! My biggest fear is that this message will get posted on dozens of WikiProject pages but barely get looked at. Wikification is simple and helps out other projects also so I think this might be a productive venture. I'm actually trying to work with User:B. Wolterding. He's created a bot that sorts tagged articles and creates a subpage on the appropriate WikiProject pages, which can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject_projectname/Cleanup_listing. It turns out he had a similar endeavor for his own WikiProject Notability. —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot to help with internal links

Consider the following sentence:

This is a page for requesting work to be done by bots per the bot policy. This is an appropriate place to simply put ideas for bots. If you need a piece of software written for a specific article you may get a faster response time at the computer help desk. You might also check Wikipedia:Bots/Status to see if the bot you are looking for already exists, in which case you can contact the operator directly on their talkpage.

If i need to find out whether there is an article on "bots" i have to:

• 1)select "bots",
• 2)go to the search bar (i use firfox),
• 3)copy into the search bar and
• 4) press "enter".

Is there a way to automate this process? atleast a semi automation will speed up the process.

ajoy (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Another modification of the Wikify template

Another request has been made to change the wording of the {{Wikify}} template, mainly to emphasise that there is more to wikification than just adding internal links (e.g., sections, formatting and wiki markup). I agree with the idea in principle, but I'm a little stuck on the wording. I'd appreciate hearing other editors' thoughts and suggestions there. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 03:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Rapid progress?

Does anyone know how the total backlog was reduced by eight or nine hundred articles in a matter of days? I'd like to think that the project is making progress, but I've never seen this kind of progress before. It's also possible that the articles were wiped from the backlog by someone simply removing {{Wikify}} tags, or by removing a wikification category from a particular cleanup template. Thoughts? - Liveste (talk o edits) 07:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Haven't a clue. But I've always wondered if there was a way to track the wikification efforts. Right now, we can't tell what articles were processed out of the backlog, or who has made a major effort in pushing the backlog down so that they can be recognized for their efforts. I'm going to guess that there was template that got the category removed. -- Whpq (talk) 11:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That was my first guess. I've already checked {{Wikify}}, {{Articleissues}}, {{Sections}} and {{Internallinks}}, as well as two rather curious templates, {{Wiki-uc}} and {{Review Wikification}}, but none of them have had any relevant recent changes. There could be another template that incorporated a wikification category, but I wonder what kind of template could have added eight or nine hundred articles to the backlog in the first place without our knowing about it. There have also been no recent changes to any wikification category. I suppose there could be a problem with the category count on Category:All pages needing to be wikified (no, I am not going to count those pages manually).

Of course, we can't discount the possibility of rapid progress. In regards to identifying who has made a major effort in pushing the backlog down, I remember that the Guild of Copy Editors filed a bot request in September to set up a list of most active contributors (request filed here, subsequently relisted here). Their idea would have been useful in determining if a group of articles simply had their tags removed. Unfortunately, no-one responded to either request. This idea might still be useful, though. The only other option I can think of is for someone to watchlist all 14,600+ articles. Cheers. - Liveste (talk o edits) 02:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Barring the heavy-handed use of CWLI on articles, I doubt rapid progress was made. I agree that a manual page count is not a solution. Thanks for looking into the bot request issue. That answered the question I had about notification. --Aarktica (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Tool to remove redlinks?

Is there a tool to removed red links? Most articles need links added, but in a few cases, the article is heavily sprinkled with red links that shouldn't be there. The Melbourne Knights article needs to have the red links trimmed back in a big way (amongst other problems). Doing it manually would be very time consuming. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The AutoWikiBrowser has a function that will remove red links. All you have to do is download it and set it to "bad link repair". Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 18:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I'll take a look. -- Whpq (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Tagger

Can I join the project as someone who tags articles for wikification, but doesn't actually wikify them? Jonathan321 (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you can but it is very easy to wikify articles. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 21:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This project is a cleanup project. Our goal is to improve the formatting layout and linking in articles. We all tags article that we see that need wikification. But more importantly, we edit the articles to format them and correct the deficiencies. As Gaia Octavia Agrippa has already mentioned, it's easy. I encourage you to give it a try. Pick a few small stub article to start with and you will get the hang of it pretty quickly. Cheers. -- Whpq (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Technically speaking, yes. There is a roster of project members based on their level of contributions in support of the project. As has already been mentioned, this is a cleanup project to improve formatting layout and linking (a.k.a. wikifying) in articles. You may join and add your name to the list, but the rate at which one wikifies articles determines who really is a member of the project. --Aarktica (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Another proposed change to "Wikify" template

Another change has been proposed for the {{Wikify}} template, basically restoring most of the original first sentence and expanding the second one to include improving layout. The format is also proposed to be changed. Comments from editors in the wikification drive would be appreciated. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 01:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The template has been changed according to the abovementioned discussion. But now the word "wikified" in the first sentence links to the glossary definition rather than to the main project page. I'd prefer to have the link to the main project page, because it has more comprehensive instructions and allows people to join the project more readily. Agree or disagree? I've started yet another discussion to change the template, this time to redirect the "wikified" link back to the main project page. Hopefully this will be the last proposed change for some time ;) Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 22:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Where are the articles that need wikifying?

"Category:Articles that need to be wikified contains all the articles in the wikification backlog." But when I go there, I can't see any articles that need wikifying — just a bunch of zeroes. Can you explain? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hm, the count is wrong and is showing zeroes as you say, but if you click on each month's link you'll still see the actual articles needing wikification (or at least, I do). Not sure what's gone wrong with the count, though. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the number in brackets after the category is the number of immediate sub categories and not the number of pages in that category. Rich257 (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

*facepalm* You're absolutely right. I must have been confusing this with the (depressing) progress chart at Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit. Do we keep information anywhere about how many pages have the tag by month? Gonzonoir (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Wikification progress shows the number of articles in each monthly backlog; the template is shown on the main project page. Otherwise, if you click on a "Wikify from <month>" category, the number of pages is displayed under the "Pages in category" heading. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 10:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so. Very clever. I added some clarification to the instructions (which I hope is correct), although I do not understand the part that says, "The articles in this category need to be sorted by a bot. Once they are sorted, they will be placed in one of the subcategories below." Are these sentences necessary for an editor to do his or her job? Can they be deleted or rewritten for clarity? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to rewrite the sorting information to make it easier to understand. Let me know if it's still confusing. For the moment, I've also removed the information explaining the sub-subcategories: these bracketed numbers are shown in all categories on Wikipedia, to show the number of subcategories within a particular subcategory. This is a (fairly recently added) feature of the MediaWiki software. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 23:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Are stubs worth tagging for wikification?

It strikes me as somewhat uneccesary (at least distracting) to call up stubs tagged for wikification. To me, "stub" says it all - turn it into an article, then worry about wikification. What do others think? If there was agreement, then I would suggest amending section 2 of the project page to include stubs under articles not to be tagged. Perhaps even call on a bot writer to write a bot that detagged stubbs.Heds (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

An unformatted stub is still unformatted. I'd say a wikification tag is still applicable if it needs that sort of cleanup. -- Whpq (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll take the lack of response (but thanks, Whpq) as an indication that the status quo re stubs should remain just that. Heds (talk) 02:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Getting ahead of the game

Follows somewhat from previous section...

Watching the number of articles requiring wikification rise over the last month (I should acknowledge my lack of contribution of late), I'm left of the view that: 1. more people seem to tag than actually wikify; and 2. those writing new articles need help to get formatting right to begin with.

Is it time for the community (possibly again) to look into these issues and seek to deal with them? It strikes me that an aim of the communitity should be to do away with this project through it no longer being needed (ie new articles are well formatted to begin with). Grateful for your thoughts. Heds (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if more articles started life well formatted. I think this doesn't happen for a number of reasons:

1. Some editors don't notice that there's a house style to be followed
2. Some editors would like to format their contributions but don't know where to go for help (there is a blizzard of help pages and guidelines after all)
3. Some editors don't understand the codes and hence are simply confused by the formatting and prefer to leave it to someone else to do (as usually happens)
4. Some editors assume it's someone else's job to do formatting, or indeed that it's done automatically and not by hand

There's the Adopt-a-User program though it may not be well known. How do you ensure well formatted articles without biting (new) editors? I don't have any answers. Rich257 (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I take your point, Heds, that it would be great if newer users created better articles straight off the bat, but I don't feel too bad about the likelihood that this project will never be redundant. That we don't enforce formatting standards for new articles is part of what makes the bar to participation in Wikipedia so low. Having that low bar seems to me like a net good: you can start playing straight away, and learn the rules as you go along. That's what keeps us open to new contributors, what lets us grow so fast, and what helps us fight the systemic bias to which more organized projects can succumb.

Plus, personally, I love to wikify and don't want all my fun taken away from me :)

This is a philosophical position, not a constructive suggestion, so let me know if you were looking for responses more focused on the practical... Gonzonoir (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikification check

I believe a wikify tag was incorrectly placed on Eagle Summit (Alaska), but I'd appreciate independent verification. If someone could take a look at it and remove it or confirm it for me, it'd be appreciated. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The tagging looks erroneous to me, but I'd suggest asking User:Dethlock99, who placed the tag, if there was anything specific s/he was thinking of. (Btw, might also be worth checking whether this edit has preserved the intended meaning: it reads unclearly to me both ways.) Gonzonoir (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The latitude/altitude switch is definitely incorrect; the phenomenon of midnight sun is related to latitude, not altitude. I've reverted it. -Sketchmoose (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In this case, it's related to both. The higher your vantage point, the further away you can be from the Arctic Circle and still have 24-hour daylight. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it because with the word as "altitude" there was no mention at all of latitude, which made it sound as if any high-altitude place in the world would have midnight sun. Perhaps both should be mentioned in the article. -Sketchmoose (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The linking of common terms

Hi, good Wikiproject doing valuable work. However, may I ask whether members, especially new members, are adequately briefed about the "relevance test" for the linking of items? Yesterday I had to unlink words such as "milk" and "bird" from an article about a church building. There has been a movement at WP over some years towards treating wikilinking as a skill, like writing good prose, that involves good decision-making about what to link and what not to. Too few and we don't take sufficient advantage of the functionality; too many and we dilute the high-value links. This may be a helpful resource. Tony (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup, Tony1. We do link to the "Make only links relevant to the context" guideline in our front-page instructions on wikification, but perhaps we need to make this more explicit. Did the person who did the overlinking come from this project? Which article had the overlinking problem? (I tried to figure it out from your contrib history, but you were quite prolific yesterday!) Gonzonoir (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Gonzonoir, luckily, I remember I'd put "milk" in the edit summary, so it was searchable on my contribs list. Here's the diff. Any feedback on my edit? Prolific, yes, because I'm having a gnoming binge about my pet hate, "in order to", which 97% of the time should be "to". Ah, and the subject was a religious order, not a church building, sorry. Tony (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC) PS A few low-value ones added a while ago to the mention of "wikilinks" (including some good edits, I must say); may or may not have been connected with this project. Cheers.

Ah ha. Yes, that delinking was certainly sensible. And with an editing habit like that, this Wikiproject needs you!

The linking of "milk" got in there four years ago. It was added by an IP at a school, who didn't leave an edit summary; no one's edited from that IP for more than two years. So I don't think there's any indication from this episode that this Wikiproject's current guidelines are leading people astray. My hunch is that the people who work through this project are the ones who take an interest in problems like overlinking anyway, but do you think we need to beef up the warning against it? Gonzonoir (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems very similar to questions about what to include in an index, and there is a substantial body of writing on that topic. It would be good to work on making that information available to wikifiers. Ma^t_chups 02:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hand Held Computer

The above article that I created needs to be wikified according to an administrator who says "its still a mess". Ive seen some messes, so I don't agree but I'm willing to learn whatever it is that he wants. Let's start with Wikify. Can I get some assistance. Thank You..--Buster7 (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Useful links: Wikify

There is a web-tool with the same name "Wikify" which is a web-service allowing everybody to enrich their arbitrary text with links to Wikipedia.org. In other words, it make hypertext from your plain text. I'm not sure if it may help you with what you're doing but at least it's worth knowing about. 79.220.234.91 (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't help because it is meant for links in HTML pages external to wikipedia and it links indescriminately. -- Whpq (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

And please, let's not lead editors down the path of indiscriminate linking! Tony (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

New tutorial on building your linking skills

Editors who wikify regularly may be interested in visiting this page. Tony (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we wikify templates?

I came across this template tagged for wikificaiotn, among other things. Do we wikify templates? Heds (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That's an odd template as it's a template just for the help. Since the page is hard to read in its current format I would say it needs formatting, but then someone able to create complex templates should also be able to format the documentation tidily so I would tend to ask the author to improve the layout. Rich257 (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I now see this has separately been raised with the author. Will leave it there. Thanks. Heds (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What the?

About 15000 articles appear to have lost their wikify tag since yesterday. Anyone got any idea why? Sounds like a bot getting excited, but I don't know how to trace what happened. Heds (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you're referring to the much smaller numbers in the {{Wikification progress}} template. It displays article counts from the various "Wikify from <month>" categories. User:Rich Farmbrough has begun migrating the wikification categories from "Wikify from <month>" to "Articles that need to be wikified from <month>", in an effort to standardise cleanup category names (the original notification is at Template talk:Wikify#Cats).

Articles tagged with either {{Wikify}} or {{Articleissues}} now display the new hidden categories, but for some reason the articles tagged with {{Articleissues}} are still being placed in the old "Wikify from <month>" categories. I've changed the progress template to indicate the new categories, but even so the article counts are still incorrect.

For the moment, the correct article counts can be found at Category:Articles that need to be wikified, by adding together the numbers in the left and right tables (RF seems to be creating new progress templates as well, so I doubt that my edit to the original template will make much of a difference). However, given that such a large change has happened in the space of about 24 hours, I'd expect the categories and templates to fix themselves within a week or so – similar problems have occurred before. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 08:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Heds (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem has now been rectified. {{Wikification progress}} is showing the correct article counts on the project page, and Category:Articles that need to be wikified has a single table that shows the correct numbers too. – Liveste (talk • edits) 04:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Dead Link

I was browsing the Wikify page and found a dead link

Under Wikification, the "Can We Link It?" link is dead. I don't know what to do, I hope that someone else does. Thanks Riverpa (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The author of the tool stated he would have to take it offline as he was no longer able to host it. I've removed the link. -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikify vs deadend

I've seen several pages marked with a {{deadend}} tag in addition to a {{wikify}} tag. Isn't that a little redundant since fixing the wikification issue would solve the deadend issue? Thanks, PDCook (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well yes and no. Whereas {{Dead end}} tells editors the article needs more internal links {{Wikify}} as you may or may not know could mean the article in question requires attention from an editor willing to either: Format the page, add section headers where appropriate, include an Infobox in the article, or add relevant internal links or all of the above. This is mainly the reason why I think there should be an optional "Rationale" parameter which allows the person placing the tag on the article to be more specific in what work actually needs to be done to the article. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 22:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Drive

I've noticed there is a drive mentioned in the lead, but I can't find it in the subpages. I was wondering if we could start one like the one we have over at GOCE here. AirplanePro^Radio_Checklist 01:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I've begun to create one scheduled for September, but I don't know how to score points for awards. Any ideas? AirplanePro^Radio_Checklist 15:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that it could be article length-based, like WP:GOCE but with higher thresholds. An article tagged for wikification typically requires significant linking; while not as extensive or meticulous as a copy edit, wikification requires a thorough review of an article, especially if we are also looking for notability, sound sourcing, and categorization. Perhaps we start the bidding at 5,000 words for a month of work during the drive? Then 10K, 20K, 30K, 50K? I know not how you wish to name the barnstars... Also, Noraft started a rollover policy for subsequent WP:GOCE drives... this is kind of courteous to acknowledge the as-yet un-awarded work of our contributors. I understand the next (first?) wikification drive is scheduled for October 2010? -Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 19:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"Wikifying in progress" tag?

Is there any tag we can add to an article that we're working on, an equivalent to the copy edit {{GOCEinuse}} tag, to stop clashes between two editors trying to wikify the same article? I think such a thing would be especially useful now that WikiProject Wikify is running drives similar to the GOCE drives. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I stole the stuffing (syntax) of GOCEinuse and placed it in {{WWFinuse}}, thus:

Ideas for improvement/coloring/etc? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 23:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Due to a series of questions raised in various wp cleanup projects regarding bot activity on articles tagged as "in use", which causes annoying edit conflicts, we basically determined that bots are far more respectful of the general {{In use}} tag than the project-specific ones (reasonable people notice all of them). I have a personally-customized snippet of code for my work saved into my Opera browser, so I just drag it into the edit box and save it:

{{In use|[[WP:WWF|wikification]] by [[User talk:Paulmnguyen|Paul M. Nguyen]]|time=~~~~~}}

{{In use|[[WP:WWF|wikification]] by [[User talk:Paulmnguyen|Paul M. Nguyen]]|time=12:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)|cat=no}} I hope that helps others... –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 12:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Very quick progress??

I've been working on the May and June 2008 categories. I noticed yesterday and today a couple times that the number of remaining pages went down very quickly. This last time, a couple minutes ago, the number dropped from 248 to 234. I hope that this means a number of people just happen to be working at the same time...but...it seems a bit odd. Just wanted to bring it to everyone's attention, in case something else is going on. Nihola (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that was copyeditors... we have a drive going and we frequently wikify as we copyedit and remove both tags. Our goal this time around is to clean out all of 2008 from our backlog, and I am pretty sure that, at the beginning of the month, a lot of May and June 2008 were edited out of our backlog. Cheers! -Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 19:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, whenever I'm copy editing I Wikify at the same time (and I expect when I start Wikifying in October I'll copy edit at the same time :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Next drive

I'm considering a new drive, based on the old drive. Comments and ideas are welcome concerning structure, coordination and anything you can think up. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 00:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Coordination

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Mono, Nolelover, Sumsum2010 and Fridae'sDoom are coordinators for next drive.

---

I'm not going to coordinate next year sorry, next TIME, if you would like to coordinate, please sign below. Coordination involves many tasks, such as handing out barnstars at the end of the drive, updating the scoreboard and progress sheet, as well as invite new users and respond to questions on the talkpage. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 00:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yup I can help co-ordinate --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• I'll help in any way I can. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 14:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Sure, I'll help coordinate! Sumsum2010·T·C 22:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• I'm free, I saw the work that was done and would definitely be willing to help. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:49pm • 10:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you all would like to help, but I'm thinking about having two to three coords. Are any of you willing to wait until Feburary to be coord? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 19:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad there are so many :) I will wait till Feb, moving house in the next few weeks so December might nbe internetless :D --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that leaves Errant, Nolelover and Sumsum2010. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 20:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot. Are there any more comments/signups? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 20:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Err... I think you meant that Nolelover, Sumsum2010, and Fridae'sDoom are left. Guoguo12--Talk--  20:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I'll help any way I can, whenever I can. :) Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 20:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Startup

Mono's retired now, and I want to see who would be the lead coord. Sorry to be putting it in so late, I hope you got the message. Also, would it be alright if I stepped in in Mono's place? I'm currently WikiBonked, and I think a good dose of coordination would boost my edit rate. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 23:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Between WikiCopter, Nolelover, Sumsum2010, Fridae'sDoom (now Ancient Apparation), and Mono who would you like to be lead coordinator? The lead coord would be responsible for handing out barnstars at the end and welcoming and helping new editors when they have questions. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 23:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Not me. I have finals and term papers over the next two weeks. I'll still be active, but I support Copter for lead. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 00:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• I also support WikiCopter for lead. Guoguo12--Talk--  00:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• I'd support WikiCopter, he has more experience with this sort of thing. Sumsum2010·T·C 00:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Looks like WikiCopter, but I'm willing to help (I suppose I could do it if WC doesn't want to.) ǝɥʇM0N0^farewell 01:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • So are you back? Hard to stay away :) Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 01:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Sounds good, Mono. Guoguo12--Talk--  02:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Timing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Drive scheduled for December.

---

The drive is staggered with the WP:GOCE drive, thus the next drive will be in December. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 00:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Idea 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

 Done by ǝɥʇM0N0 04:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Mono, I see you have created the first ad. Now can you edit to display DECEMBER instead of NOVEMBERI don't know what I am doing. I'm running on adrenaline. Instead of OCTOBER, I mean. ? Sorry, I'm no good with graphics. I only know how to click the shutter on my camera. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 00:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking good, however, it would be appreciated if you could make the speed a second slower, some may not be able to read it until the next two runs. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 20:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to comment on that also. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 20:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that - the next setting below was too slow, so I was trying to balance it. I wasn't willing to buy professional software for $30, so I used some freeware, but it's not great. ǝɥʇM0N0 03:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General comments

• I thought it all went pretty well, and I enjoyed taking part - big thanks to those who took part in organizing it. Unfortunately I'm going to be pretty busy in real life over the next couple of months, but I'll make sure I find time to make a contribution to the next drive at least in a small way. I might be able to help with organization for future drives - it depends on how busy I am. One thing I did notice was a lot of articles that were not much more than stubs marked as needing Wikifying, and that really wouldn't be possible before they are expanded by someone with appropriate knowledge - and that leads me to suspect that our realistic backlog is quite a bit smaller than the raw numbers suggest. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It was actually half in my mind to get AWB to run through the stub & wikify tagged articles to get a whole lot of them done quickly. But haven't had the time --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think work was done and all, but while the 2008 backlog was reduced by almost 500 articles, new tags were added at a greater rate, such that the total backlog grew by 120 articles from 21778 to 21898, meaning that while we (and presumably others) wikified 500 articles, 620 were tagged for it. There has been mention in previous discussions of engaging other cleanup projects so that they wikify along with what they are doing. Wikification seen as a comprehensive meta-facelift (interwiki links and wikipedia-standard structure) is a fairly involved process, and takes a close reading of the article to appropriately link terms and verify the heading structure of the article; copyediting requires an even closer read, and usually several passes. For this reason, some of the simpler cleanup projects (like the one dedicated to creating sections out of a (nearly) sectionless article) may be less inclined to inflate their project to the level of wikification, but it is going to take more than we have been putting in to get anything done here. Even wikifying at the rate of tagging will only maintain the enormous backlog size that is presently the case.

How can we change our method in order to more effectively address these needs? Should the project be forked? It would take just as extensive an effort to further classify articles according to the various aspects of wikification individually... I like the idea of hitting the stubs in need of wikification to drag the numbers down... maybe the next drive can focus on these rather than the time-of-tagging idea that we used for the last one? Someone mentioned before that stubs could be wikified, and that new page creators or stub expanders should be knowledgeable of proper article layout in order to avoid the need for an extensive wikification... maybe when we clean them out of our backlog, we can put instructions on our template page not to tag stubs for wikification.

Finally, the WP:GOCE had great participation at the last drive, clearing about 6 months of the oldest backlogged articles. While the GOCE backlog is 4 times smaller than the WWF one, that is a great success, and the GOCE is working during drives faster than the tags are coming in. I think this sort of thing should be a goal for WWF drives. GOCE drives also likely help at least with wikilinking because copyeditors read so closely. Those are the ideas I had. I also think we should make the intro on the WWF main page more explicit as to what wikification entails, but that's another story. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 16:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I confess that after a spurt in the first week I did "lose interest" (other RL factors were at play). Which was a shame; perhaps we could think up[ ways to help with our engagement (I don't think I was the only one to have that issue) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that in order to increase participation it is necessary to run this drive in conjunction with the GOCE backlog elimination drive, that way we can work in conjunction with the GOCE and help reduce the amount of articles needing Wikification. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:57pm • 10:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Errant, thanks for not taking that the wrong way. Cleanup projects like this one need lots of "little guys" working, not just a couple mega-editors, because if you lose a little guy due to RL, it's not a huge hit if there are a ton of them, but if you lose a big guy, the project could come to a stand-still. Hence the need for popularity and involvement.

Fridae, great suggestion. I think it's worth a shout out to the GOCE to see who's interested in grabbing copyedit and wikify tagged articles (catscan for wikification within copyedit January 2009)... those familiar with the process may do it right now, since another backlog elim drive just began this week. Anyone else support this recommendation to the GOCE? –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 12:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Just as a note, I am currently building an AWB list of articles marked to be Wikified and as some form of stub. At the moment we are looking at about 25% of tagged articles... --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

GOCE suggestion sounds good to me. I haven't started on the latest GOCE drive yet myself, but in the last one I did remove some Wikify tags too - this time I'll actively search for them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I had wondered why we were trying to stay away from months the GOCE had "claimed". I know whenever I attack an article, I don't just copyedit or wikify it, as a general rule. I think it would be a great idea to partner the two projects, as many of the article tagged for wikication need copyediting, and visa versa. I think we would get much more participation, and better results. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 00:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'll go with the consensus either way this falls, but, without bursting any bubbles, copyediting and wikification require different skills that every editor may not have; separate projects gets everyone who is interested in either; the combination would leave out those only willing to contribute in one of the two. I think our emphasis should be to encourage those who are willing to step up and do both - maybe ignore the pressure of the drive to edit certain dates and just fix the oldest tagged articles that fall in both projects during their respective drives, which can be staggered (which, by the way, is because there was a lot of common participation, which kind of weakens my point). Anyway, this had not yet been said, so now it's here. My reading of everyone's comments so far is that cross-promotion (between GOCE and WWF) is probably the best way to address this one, along with direct invites. Maybe editors who specialize in only one area can team up and wikify on the first pass, then copy edit after that... just another thought... –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 02:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should tell all editors to do both when they clean up an article. I understand that they are separate tasks, and some editors will have a problem with one or the other.. Also, it is hard to actively participate in one drive one month, then another the next, ad infinitum. I can't be as active in this month's GOCE drive because this is the third straight month there has been a drive, and RL and other WP projects need attention. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 22:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I know, Errant, I have the same problem, doing GANs for a drive from MILHIST. However, the amount of words that need to be reduced for even the smallest barnstar requires active participation, while only Sumsum2010 managed to get the Special (80,000+). I think that is enough, however, I like copyediting more than wikifying. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 20:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Recruiting from a week before the start of the drive would massively improve participation. Get a bot (MessageDeliveryBot) to send messages to all the people listed on the project membership. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 20:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Before I start inviting people I am wondering;Is there a standardized invitation like the October drive?, and Shall the main format of the drive remain the same?.Sumsum2010·T·C 22:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That's what we're going to discuss right now. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 02:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/Drives/Invite. Comments? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 03:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, add something about the barnstar that can be received to help encourage participation. Sumsum2010·T·C 03:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty good. I've added "Thanks!" to the end. Nothing wrong with being polite. :) Guoguo12--Talk--  23:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Idea 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Rollover to be implemented.

---

Add rollover for words that were not awarded last month. See the GOCE's drive for information on what this is. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 01:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Support -- Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 02:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally oppose rollover words because the system is slightly less welcoming and possibly more confusing for editors new to the drive. Guoguo12--Talk--  03:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Support, it might work and if it doesn't we could always remove the rollover words from the subsequent drives. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:44pm • 10:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Support. Rollover words will encourage people to carry on near the end of the drive, after they've reach one barnstar level but are not going to make the next one. It works well, and without any apparent difficulties, at GOCE -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, more confusing for editors than total words. Sumsum2010·T·C 18:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really confusing, just copy the data from the GOCE drive, and questions can be taken care of at the talkpage. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 21:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Now that I have looked into this more, and understand it, I Support the idea. This will make it much easier for previous participants to get to the next barnstar level. Sumsum2010·T·C 23:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Great Backlog Drive

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Newsletter?

The Project seems like it is now large enough to warrant having a newsletter similar to WP:Nascar's or WP:MILHIST's. It could have a similar formating but with information relevant to the project. Sumsum2010·T·C 04:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There isn't much going on, though. We could potentially borrow the formatting from the Signpost, except we use The Daily Wikifier as the title. (I know, the name isn't that brilliant. Comments?) WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 23:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That is true. Maybe after the December Drive. Sumsum2010·T·C 02:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll start working on a skeleton, borrowed from MILHIST. I say we have the newsletter every two months, right after the drive. Thoughts? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • simplicity • lost • defense • attack) 22:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Try this. The pen was my last choice for a image, but only because it was the one used on all the notices. Thoughts? Edits? Coordinators for the newsroom? Anything? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • simplicity • lost • defense • attack) 22:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

For the picture maybe [[wiki]] with a blue background, only a lot bigger. I'd, of course, be willing to help in the newsroom. Sumsum2010·T·C 00:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Whaddya think now? I can't change the background, I don't have and can't get any image-editing software. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • simplicity • lost • defense • attack) 00:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That looks good:) Sumsum2010·T·C 04:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Coords for the News

Now that we've got a skeleton set up, I'd like people wishing to coordinate the news department to step up. I'll be one. :) WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • simplicity • lost • defense • attack) 16:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

1. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • simplicity • lost • defense • attack)
2. Sumsum2010·T·C 22:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
3. mono 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

For now, in the interests of saving time, WC (me) and Sumsum will become the coords for the news. If you would like to participate in this endeavour, please keep adding to the list. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • simplicity • lost • defense • attack) 01:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Mono, I can hardly tell that's you. It looks more like this: _. You can be coord with sumsum, I don't mind. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • simplicity • lost • defense • attack) 00:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Roll call

Since nobody's been updating the participant list recently, I suggest a roll call similar to this. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 23:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Support very long list of people with not many edits happening.Sumsum2010·T·C 02:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support as well. Should just be regular maintenance. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 02:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, there are many people listed there that haven't edited a lot, if ever. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:25am • 23:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Alright, doing. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 20:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

How's this?

• Looks good. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 21:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we should do it at the end of the year, when there are a lot of holidays (both national and school). WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • simplicity • lost • defense • attack) 22:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• How about this? MonoALT (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Better. I think now that the Ambox wikify image is standard on everything. It used to be the pen. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • simplicity • lost • defense • attack) 00:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed your roll call notice on an editor's talk page and thought it would be prudent to come here and point out that the deadline date is 10 months past. From the discussion it would seem that you mean January 1, 2011. I am certain that it was a simple error and does not reflect on the quality of the work that is done by the members of the project. JimCubb (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

We do style. Not copy editing. And you have to admit; subtle and amusing, uh, jokes like that are damn stylish :) --Errant ^(chat!) 18:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for Elimination Drive graph

Hey! Great job with the backlog elimination drive thus far! If I could make a suggestion, I think the y-axis of the graph used to show progress should cross the x-axis at 20,000 articles since this is the drive goal. Right now, with the axis crossing at 21,000, it deceptively looks like the goal has been reached and there isn't much work left to do....which I know isn't true! ...off to wikify more articles! Ciao! --Tea with toast (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Sumsum is changing the axis numbers as he updates the graph. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 12:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The program I use automatically shows the range this way. Unfortunately, it does not have a way to change this. At least it's a bit better than nothing:)Sumsum2010·T·C 02:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind on that second sentence. I found the box to enter 20000! Sumsum2010·T·C 02:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

AWB changes

Proposed request to send to the AWB devs:

After a discussion at one of the Wikification drives it was noted that the Tagger was using a fairly simplistic algorithm to decide whether to remove the Wikify tag (i.e. whether it has a certain percentage of links). Wikification is a slightly more complex process that involves article formatting, infoboxes, heading corrections and so forth. So could this algorithm be changed so that the wikify tag is only removed if the following criteria is met (or perhaps if three of five them are met.. I don't know):

• Wikilink counts as usual
• The article has no headings
• Article has an infobox
• Article has no HTML tags

This way it should stop tags being removed by AWB where some wikification work is still needed.

This is based on a discussion at the current wikification drive. I think the proposal to update AWB's algorithm has merit. And, so, I have drafted the above feature request, please comment on it, propose changes etc. so we can agree on something to put to the AWB developers. This is just rough to get things rolling :) so go ahead and teak whatever. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...what do you mean by "The article has no headings"? Section headers? That doesn't seem right. Maybe if the article doesn't open with a level two? Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 16:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

And I wouldn't make meeting all of these a requirement. Some articles shouldn't have an infobox, and others might not have enough terms that can be linked. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 16:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

My logic in the headings bit is that an article with no headings is unlikely to have heading issues to deal with. And, yes, I agree that meeting a certain number of the factors would be enough. Ideally AWB would show a prompt for, say, 2 or 3 out of 5 and simply remove it automatically for 4 or 5. But I am uncertain if that is possible :D --Errant ^(chat!) 23:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, I see what you mean. Well, that's my two cents. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 03:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It is eminently possible. Rich Farmbrough, 07:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC).

Sorry, but per your edit here, are you saying it's possible to have AWB remove the tag if, say, four or five of your criteria are met? or are you saying it's just possible to get AWB to change their definition of what is "wikified" for us? Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 14:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this approach. I think when an editor adds a maintenance template to an article (either manually or via a tool such as AWB), it should be crystal clear to everyone how the article needs to be improved. For example:

• If the article needs additional wikilinks, use {{Wikify}}
• If the article needs section headings, using {{Wikify}} doesn't make that clear. Instead, use {{Sections}}.
• If the article needs an infobox, using {{Wikify}} doesn't make that clear. Instead, use {{Infobox requested}}

GoingBatty (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, fine. But Wikification is not just about Wikilinking, it never has been. But it is a common misconception. I agree; if there are only header problems {{Sections}} is definitely the best option. But usually this is about multiple wiki-styling issues. And this is the purpose of the Wikify tag. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I could buy an argument to add to the Wikify template to support things like {{wikify|sections=Yes|links=Yes}} which would still cover the multiple style problems in one tag, but highlight exactly what needs improving. Regardless; whenever you wikify the page you should always look at all of the Wikification bullet points and give it a good clean. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

New cleanup template

Following the discussion above, it's clear that we need more specific instructions of how to wikify a page. In order to do that I created {{Cleanup-Html}}. Please help improving it (or send to Tfd if you don't like it!). This new template is supposed to cover a part of the things {{wikify}} seems to cover from the above discussion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I support the effort, but I have a couple concerns:

1. We need smarter templates, ones that tell users exactly how they can fix the article, rather than linking to a page
2. Also, it would be smarted to use the {{wikify}} tag, except by narrowing it down with {{Wikify|type=HTML}}

Mono (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Most the html code that can be cleaned is reported by WP:CHECKWIKI and can be done with WP:AWB. The use of talk page can help in giving more specific instructions if needed. For example "Convert table to wikicode" -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

We could use your approach but then I guess {{dead end}} could also be merged and probably more making a small {{multiple issues}}. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This is what I am thinking of...

MonoALT (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's very nice. I suggest the Cleanup-HTML to be separated because it's more technical and doesn't change the visual result. As I said, what you are describing is a specialised version of {{Multiple issues}}. It's certainly much better than the current situation where no specific instructions are given. Let's see what the others think. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I would much prefer a {{multiple issues}}-type template like that to many separate ones. For one thing, it would force taggers to actually think about what's wrong with the article, and what it needs to be fixed, instead of just using Twinkle to tag {{wikify}} and moving on. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 15:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

We can always create a "Multiple issues-like" rule: If template has no parameters (i.e. no reasoning) then remove. If we move on the "separate tags" direction we have to think and which will be. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about the people tagging the article - say, new page patrollers. Instead of just saying "This article needs to be wikified", and slapping on a {{wikify}} that doesn't say anything else, they will have to think about what exactly is wrong with the article, and tag accordingly. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 19:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I like it. I totally agree with all of you. Mulitiple issue boxes on the template that mono suggested. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • simplicity • lost • defense • attack) 00:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

But then we will have to update TW's tagging process. Anybody up for it? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • simplicity • lost • defense • attack) 00:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

That was one of the things I was wondering about. Theoretically, the {{wikify}} tag could remain on TW, until the majority of editors learn of the new template. We'd just have to do our best to convince everyone to use the new system. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 18:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's some examples that Cleanup-Html can be used:

• Edmund Dick Taylor. It has an infobox but in HTML format.
• Clasper (mathematics). Numbered bullets can be done with wikicode. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Then there would be the common wikify, and the not so common wikifymenu. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • simplicity • lost • defense • attack) 01:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

No. I would be the new tag. :) Because, it describes better what is to be done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I will start a sandbox in AirplanePro's sandbox. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • simplicity • lost • defense • attack) 02:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at {{Cleanup-HTML}}. I'm working on another version in the sandbox similar to Mono's {{wikify}} for Cleanup-HTML. Sorry, I haven't ever gotten to working on he sandbox . By the way, can we start putting Mono's wikify into the real thing? I don't want to be too bold and have my edits reverted. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • simplicity • lost • defense • attack) 23:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought we are gonna separate the HTML issues ({{Cleanup-HTML}}) from the other wikification problems ({{Wikify}}).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Magioladitis (talk • contribs)

We were, this is only a stop-gap until we can get the new version of Wikify geared up. In the future, can you sign your posts on talkpages with ~~~~? Thank you! WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • simplicity • lost • defense • attack) 00:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

OK for both. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Refresh

This discussion seems to have died. In the interests of starting it up again, I will comment here:

Mono, I believe that we are going to get a {{multiple issues}}-type template in place for {{Wikify}}, correct? If so, can you start working on it (or somebody else. I never was really good with parser functions of that sort). WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • simplicity • lost • defense • attack) 19:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Finished. Currently at User:AirplanePro/Sandbox/Wikify, pending completion of Mono's edit request.

WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • simplicity • lost • defense • attack) 00:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

So the new template will be more specific as to what type of wikification is needed? Sumsum2010·T·C 05:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. BTW, Mono, did your editrequest come through? WikiCopter (t • c • g • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 03:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I disagree with this approach. I'd prefer that we use (and expand if needed) the existing {{Multiple issues}} template and not convert {{wikify}} to do the same thing. GoingBatty (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea is to give more specific instructions of how to wikify. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That's correct. I don't think we're trying to create a template with multiple parameters, a la {{multiple issues}}, as much as a hidden section explaining what "wikifying" is, on the current template. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 17:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Then I fully agree. Let's do it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Submitted editrequest at Template talk:Wikify. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 23:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Dead end

Template:Dead end has been nominated for merging with Template:Wikify. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • simplicity • lost • defense • attack) 19:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10