Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikify/Archive 1

Notes for LBITUK

On errant's reccommendation, I've gone and moved everything to this page, created the shortcut (WP:WWF), added headers to talk and project pages etc. I think our next step should be to create an invitation template, or just do everything personally, and find everyone who's ever worked on wikification a lot, invite them to the project and help them wikify more efficiently. I've brought my template (User:Draicone/Wikify) in line with the colour scheme I used here as well, and linked to the project page from my template. --Draicone ^(talk) 00:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Some notes

I'm working on a template that we can add to user talk pages to invite members to the project. Also, we need to justify why this project is different to the wikification drive at WP:WIKIFY. --Draicone ^(talk) 07:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not different, its the extension of it (look at the talk page) and the formalisation of the process as a wikiproject.. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 08:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

PS wheres the template you mentioned? Just out of interest!! :D --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 08:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've invited some people who had commented on the talk page, but don't seem to have wikified anything for a while. Will have to wait and see if it has the desired result. Having a template to use would be really useful if you have time. -Ladybirdintheuk 11:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It has to be different. It already is different, but I really want to make this wikiproject worth something - so that its not just yet another attempt to clear a backlog. We have to find ways to get more people into wikification, wikify articles quicker, wikify articles better so that they don't need future wikification, or a combination of those. And I'm still working on the template, but I'll probably get it done in the next 5 minutes or so. Watch this space :) --Draicone ^(talk) 06:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) Sorry, got distracted, took a whole lot longer than 5 minutes. Template is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/Invite a member, and appears as:

Please do not make it subst only yet, either way the suggestion on the page is to use subst:. --Draicone ^(talk) 07:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

for those interested

Some of you may be interested in doing a new pages patrol. Reviewing new pages avoids many of the wikification problems before they arive here. It is also a lot more fun. Jon513 18:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

so you say ;) but most new page patrollers just tag the new poorly written articles fir wikification and spend most of the time speedying the rest - leaving the bulk for us :D How do I know? - because thats what I do... --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 19:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My experience in patrolling new pages is that there are already enough people doing so and I often run into edit conflicts as there are many adding tags at the same time. It's sort of like the Wild Wild West over there. So I'd rather spend time cleaning out the oldest of the garbage that stills lingers in April at this moment. --Brad101 17:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikify Sort

Thanks for inviting me, I'm going to be really busy in the next few months, but that doesn't mean that I can offer suggestions. What I had been doing is going through and partially wikifying, sort of doing triage, which consists of:

• Checking the page on copyscape.com

• If the top site is a rolex site, answers.com, or a pd source, ignore
• If not, plug the top page back into copyscape and selecting wikipedia's link

• If it a part of the text, I remove it
• If it's all of the text, I blank it, place a {{copyvio}} tag and list it

• Bold the title
• Add birth and death cat
• If no other cats, add {{uncat}}
• If a school add {{cleanup-school}}
• If it has no external links {{references}}

I tried to repeat this for most of june. My point it maybe we should try spliting some of the work with some new templates. I know there is a {{section}}, but is there a {{lead}} or a {{needscopyrightcheck}}? This project could sort out the wikify with more spesific tagging.--Rayc 01:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Toolbox

I created the toolbox suggested on the main project page, mainly to alleviate the issues related to red links and because I was bored. It's at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/Toolbox, and can be seen in its current form below:

Please visit the page and add to it what you can. I suggest that someone with the time visit Help:Editing and copy the most relevant links into the table. Remember to add a new row put a blank line with '|-' on it, then another line with the content after a '|align=center | '. See Help:Table or ask me if you're unsure. --Draicone ^(talk) 07:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

oops sorry I didn't realise you had included it in the page, sorry --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 10:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Added to toolbox

Hi all ... I found myself using Cleanup resources and Stub categories quite often when wikifying, I've added them to the Reference section of the toolbox. JubalHarshaw 02:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Open Tasks Box

I have created an open tasks box for Wikify. It is shamelessly ripped off of the Good Articles project open task box. Here it is:

it can be added to a page with: {{WikiProjectWikifyTasks}}

Feel Free to please change/update it as articles are fixed or to mess around with it completely, I just know I like the one for GA and thought one would be good here too.

--The Talking Sock talk contribs 21:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Job Guys!

I have to say that the wikification project is going wonderfully and just wanted to give you all some encouragement! Have a wonderful day! --74.133.52.253 13:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Article number

Instead of simply saying 1250000+ articles, why not add 6,826,165 (Template:NUMBEROFARTICLES) for an exact number? It would seem to be more precise and wouldn't need to be updated. —$ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ (-C|ε|L|T-) 16:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Updating that now then.. cheers for the pointer! --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 18:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

subst and no subst - invite template

I'm just testing whether my system for signatures has to be substed:

(Above: without subst; Below: with subst)

--Draicone ^(talk) 21:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

table template

I've recoded the table template using #if and arguments, so that we now have our own version of user2 without the count link (this was totally outdated and not really fair anyway; plus slightly irrelevant to us) and the status defaults to Active. I've removed the |Active from entries in the table and its working fine. Please tell me if this is taboo or something (remember, TINC!). --Draicone ^(talk) 22:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

yeah it's fine. Seems like natural progression to me :D --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 11:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong tagging

I created a new template: Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/wikified wrongly for people that regularly tag pages wrongly. Any comments on it. Oh and please improve, its very rough as is! b--Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 12:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks good to me. I've made some very slight changes. (Turned some long sentances into two shorter ones!) also fixed the link to this talk page.

As per our conversation on your talk page, I don't think it's worth our time leaving this for every single person who marks something as wikify incorrectly, but it is probably useful for "serial adders" - I think there are probably a relatively small number of people monitoring the recent changes page and getting it wrong, so if we can identify them it will make a big difference. -Ladybirdintheuk 13:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Its very good, it will certainly be useful. However, shouldn't the look and feel match the current theme we're using for templates? (blue etc.) --Draicone ^(talk) 23:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Change it and welcome. I based it on {{notice}} for convenience and was in a ruch so didnt change it... go for new colours. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 23:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I may be wrong here, but one of those frequent offenders might be a user called Elonka. I've come across a fair few articles tagged for wikify by her which already were, and often were just one or two lines in any case. Could someone have a look at a few of them to check that I'm not thinking they're already wikified wrongly, so to speak?--MarkyParky 22:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikify Barnstar

Ok another idea I had to coerce people into helping reward good participants is to propose a Wikification Barnstar. Just an idea but worht consideration --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 11:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea too. (You are made of good ideas at the moment!) I've given people the workingman's barnstar in the past for wikification, but having a specific one wouldn't hurt. -Ladybirdintheuk 12:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

K. Ill work on that one. Another idea is a toolbox of useful links (see the tools section) that you could have open in another window / tab whilst wikifying articles. Maybe with useful links, code snippets / template snippets and a wikification checklist --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 20:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Idea: Barnstar with the wikilink brackets surrounding it? Or behind it, or something suitably awesome. Luna Santin 08:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice idea! Thanks for reminding evryone about this! I completely forgot!!!! Yeah I might have a go at that idea.. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 09:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

(Moved convo to bottom for ease of conversation): I created this image this evening. Not brilliant but a start. + it is a PNG with all the layers intact so someone with more talent feel free to make it not suck. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 18:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Raising the profile

Ok any ideas for raising the profile? I managed to get the project a mention on the Community Portal today (see notices and feel free to reword if you dont like it) but we could do with other ways. Posting on peoples talk pages is good but can look like spamming - and has limited results. I am really a bit stumped as to where to go next! So anyone else got ideas?

In other news is it time we proposed removing the duplicate content from the category page and redirecting the talk page to here? That way people casually browsing the category cant miss us!

Alonbg the same vein I changed the link that appears in the open tasks pain (on the CP and other places) from linking to the category to linking to the WikiProject page. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 18:55, 29 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 14:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No pastel boxes, please

Most articles already have a confusing number of pastel boxes on the talk page. This one I particularly dislike because it is entirely useless information. It constitutes advertising for a WikiProject unrelated to the subject of the article, which is generally accepted in edit summaries but is generally frowned upon in pastel boxes (for example, {{stub}} doesn't link to WP Stub Sorting anymore). If you want to help clean up articles you can start by not polluting the talk page.

Feel free to continue linking to this project in edit summaries, on your talk pages, etc. Ashibaka tock 03:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well it is an opinion I suppose. The trouble is most people never read the edit summaries, or at least in my experience. I would say that we have got more interest / particapation in wikification since we started using that template. In terms of code it adds just one line (that issue was brought up before and we delt with it) so it is just the spam / space issue that is a problem.

In terms of polluting talk pages I find that very unfair. Our few members (and some other causals) go through several thousand articles a month and do alot of editing (ladybirdinthUK and Brad01 do hundreds each) and some recogniton is nice! How would you (personally) feel about the box becoming alot smaller - just a single line and the star Image.

The template has other important aspects, it places the article in the wikify completed category - so we can keep track of what has been done. Also it reminds people that the aritcle has been wikified and probably needs tagging for cleanup rather than wikification - its suprising how many articles gets retagged as people dont understand the limits of wikification. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 08:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In general I agree with your thoughts about the tag. There are several here that I don't use, as I see them as pointless. However, I believe that you automatically declaring them 'spam' and removing them from the project instructions was a bit over the top. Was there a consensus somewhere about eliminating pastel boxes that we weren't aware of? --Brad101 13:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it was just a common-sense edit. You could use it as a possible advertising template, although I think your reasons for doing so are rather flimsy, but it absolutely shouldn't be included in the project instructions for wikifying. Ashibaka tock 15:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I agree the edit you made was fine :-D (just to clarify my position!!). But I dont know why you feel our position is flimsy. Advertising the cause is important as we have too many people who spend time tagging articles and not working on them at all!! Also good contributors who do do alot of editing and clenaing of articles may not be fully aware of the support services this project provides. I possibly agree witrh your point that the template at the moment takes up too much room, but not that we shouldnt include it on pages (although personally I have suspended using it myself for the time being till we work through this). The way I see it there are 3 possible solutions. Stop using / delete the template, cut it right down to just one or 2 lines and the star image (I would be in favour of this option) or keep it as is. It has been noted before that we did not discuss this fully with the community so perhaps it is time we did - what is the best open forum to ge comments? Vp proposals? I have to say that I dont think we break any current guidelines so for the moment both opinions (yours and mine / ours) are valid - a more open discussion would be IMO useful. Thoughts? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 16:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's how you could do it: Instead of making a pastel box, create a template that just says in plain text with a header, "This article was wikified as part of WPW, please join" etc. This heading could be skipped or archived, since it would be a normal talk message rather than an "announcement" which must stay at the top of the page permanently. Ashibaka tock 16:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well ok but that also defeats the object slightly as the category could well be archived too. ALso, the most useful bit (IMO) is the date it was wikified (and the fact it was wikified). Ive already come across 3 aritcles that were retagged by users who misunderstood wikification, many more are taged as people dont know it has been wikified. The idea was to let people know it had been done. Rather than a pastel box then wold a single line of text the CSS formats to the top right of the talk page be amenable (rather like the FA star on articles). That way it would be non-intrusive and still notify people who were looking :D --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 18:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't feel that our advertisement is "polluting the talk page", especially when I see some of the crap that ends up on talk pages, unarchived, unmoderated. The advertisement serves an excellent purpose; we need more people wikifying articles, we have a huge backlog, what is the harm in a pastel box on a talk page? I suppose a text notice would work, but there is an advantage to having a permanent announcement - there are always articles to wikify and we could always use additional assistance. JubalHarshaw 09:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Though I stick by what I said above, I have moved to a straight-text entry on talk pages, in fact I use the exact same line as we put in edit summaries, I just add the four tildes at the end. I don't want to rock any boats, or potentially offend a sysop :) .... besides, if someone is just going to come along behind me and remove them anyway, why make more work for both of us? JubalHarshaw 17:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiki tag changes

I posted a suggestion on Template talk:Wikify-date for a minor change that would help clarify things for those unfamiliar with the wikify process. If there aren't any major objections I'll make the changes in a week or so. --Brad101 14:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No objections. I think our main goal here should be education. I've been doing the wikify thing for well over a year now and there seems to be an increasing amount of misuse of the tag. Ali MacGraw is a good example. Someone tagged that with the wikify tag. I bet 40% of the articles I try to wikify are already wikified. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

They're either wikified already or don't need wikification, probably the latter. Should we establish a wikify tag removal taskforce for a few days to untag all articles that don't need to be wikified? We could do it very quickly, since it takes about 30 seconds per article, and it would be worth it in the long run, especially if we clear off 1000 or more articles from the pending tasks. --Draicone ^(talk) 02:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Id agree to that, can we do it logically though. Get several people agree to do it, set out the parameters of what is to be done (obvious i know but make sure its clear) and then divide it up by some methode (letters of the alphabet etc.) so nothing gets missed. Agreed? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 02:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

By letter of alphabet in a month makes sense. Make a subpage somewhere and who wants to can take a letter(s)? Like on Category talk:Category needed Garion96 (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ummm that would be nice but the articles should still be checked for copyvios or redundancy to another article. Then retag for any other problems like categories. Seems to me like taking the wikify tags off will bury a lot of problems. I don't really see the point in doing this just to get the article count reduced. I only find one or two articles out of ten that only need the tag removed and nothing else. --Brad101 04:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well..it would be good for morale if the number is reduced significantly. :) But yes, checking for copyvio's is (more) important, you don't want to miss those. And there sure are a lot of those. Garion96 (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It is discouraging to see the number of articles to wikify keep climbing even though there are people working on them constantly. Yet there are over 17,000 articles carrying the cleanup tag. I'd bet that those 17k could be reduced a lot by giving a more specific tag. I was thinking of working on those but then in the meantime less articles get done on wfy. Did you happen to read User:Brad101/redundancy ? I was trying to come up with some ideas on how to smooth things out. --Brad101 11:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) Then we could get all WP:WWF members to focus on checking for copyvios and redundancy and clearing out articles that do not need the wikify tag. I'll start drawing up basic plans at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/Backlog cleanup taskforce. --Draicone ^(talk) 11:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Brad I did read that page and totally agree, I think that the range of cleanup tags are used or understood properly. I am actually interested in taking a good look throught all the cleanup / tagging advice pages and making sure it is all clear (for example one page says something like - tag for copyedit, althoug another tag may be more appropriate - and then does not go into details!!). Also some sort of attack on retagging all the aritcles would be a good idea :D Maybe we could chat on IRC (or the talk page of that redundancy page you wrote) and see what sort of ideas we have and if we can have a go at working on this :D. Anyway Dracione, that page looks good. Nowe we need people to help out. However contacting all out members who dont monitor this page or the wikiproject is going to be tedious. For this I have another idea. See here AMA have an alert template to put on a members user talk page so you can see the latest updates from AMA (see it in action at User_talk:The Thadman). I had the idea to do something similar for WP WIkify. BUt to take it further so that members could post help requests for an article, updates to the project, news, tag count and task forces like this. That way we can get people more involved.. I will have a go at a the template on a subpage and see what you think. We need to get more people involved in this taskforce so it can all be done in say a week :D --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 09:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've drawn up a draft at Template:WWF alerts. Ignore the 'WP:BOLD does not apply' bit and edit as you wish since its still being developed. It seems like a great idea and I can AWB a message about it to everyone's talk page with User:DraiconeBot. --Draicone ^(talk) 09:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah ok, I was working on a similar design on a sub page but that looks fine :D --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 09:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the color. It looks too much like the "You have new messages" template. Could it be something else? Crystallina 15:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You have a point :D would a light red background with red border suit people - ill update it now and you can all see what you reckon :D --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 17:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's much better. It doesn't trigger my "check talk page" instinct. Crystallina 18:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Did we AWB notify the members Dracione?? Anyway I did June A, this was about 60 articles and I de-tagged about 15 for being wikified already. I also de-tagged 1 copyio (tagged for copyvio obviously) and replaced the wikify tag several times with more relevant tags (about 10 times). In total about 25 articles were detagged or retagged. Tags I used were (note that a few articles got multiple tags and some had their wikify tags left on):

1. {{advert}} 1
2. {{copyedit}} 6
3. {{confusing}} 1
4. {{tone}} 4
5. {{cleanup-date}} 2
6. {{copyvio}} 1
7. {{importance}} 2

Based on this about 3000 of the currently tagged articles could be removed - now doesnt that sound nice! So this initiative is a good idea - but we need more people to help. Currently there are only 3 users taking part (kudos tothe other 2 guys) and 2 of us have gone nearly insane doing just a small section.... --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 13:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've got the day off work tomorrow, so I will tackle a section then if I have time (I can always finish off over the weekend!) Ominous changes are afoot at work from Monday, so I may have less chance to come wikify things (or at least have to be more subtle about it!). We shall see! -Ladybirdintheuk 14:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

*ahem* Not all of us are "guys".  :) -- Merope 17:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm off on holiday at the weekend, so I'm not going to start another section now, just go back to wikifying a few entries over the next few days as I have time. Will carry on when I get back! -Ladybirdintheuk 15:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that a number of articles that have been tagged for wikification may not even meet criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. In the 50-some articles I've looked at, 4 were better served by redirects and about 10 were non-notable subjects (e.g., two bios: one of a fanfic writer and one of an actress with no work outside a college theatre; an article about a work of fanfiction; a game someone made up one day, etc.) that I've {{prod}}'ed. So while wikification doesn't require a knowledge of the subject at hand, it helps to skim and maybe run a quick Google to see if the subject is even worth including. -- Merope 17:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

umm yes sorry for that :( Thats the systematic bias kicking in again. I have to say I have only really been scanning the articles for the content - and generally tagging thins for cleanup rather than deletion - but then again the 80 or so I have got through so far havnt been intrinsically bad. I did tag a few as not asserting notabiliy or inmportance. Were having an impact though the number of articles has been declining sloooooowly --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 17:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's okay, I'm just teasing. I'm well aware that the majority of editors here are male, and my username isn't overtly feminine (unless you know ancient Greek mythology astonishingly well). Anyway, I don't think people need to spend too much time researching the articles, but just to be aware of something fishy. Sometimes it's obvious -- one of my articles had the word "fanfiction" in the title! -- but if we can delete some of the crap we don't have to format it. (Maybe this isn't the right attitude, though.)

More importantly (to me, anyway), we should get to work on that Barnstar! Maybe that would help make up for the stress of going through 200 articles. -- Merope 18:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A lot of what I do is double - categorizing and wikifying at the same time. My goal's basically to get the ugly pastel tags off articles. Crystallina 19:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Same here! It's one of the reasons I needed a break yesterday--I committed myself to wikifying (or copyvio-ing or prodding or whatever) every article in the May 2006 T section. I was a little confused as to how Whpq was going so quickly, but we're approaching it differently. Every bit helps, I guess. -- Merope 19:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Errant, we didn't AWB the members but I'll do it by hand if nobody else has yet. --Draicone ^(talk) 11:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Scope and goals

"Of the 1,375,932 articles on Wikipedia only around 1,000+ are of Featured Article standard; of those remaining, most are poorly written, badly linked and in need of general care and attention." -- A tad to a lot hyperbolic, don't you think? Crystallina 00:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

you think? maybe a slight overstatement but look at the 12000 plus articles that are tagged in total for cleanup!! :D --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 20:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

12000 is a lot, yes, but not even 0.01% of the total. Crystallina 02:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, does changing most -> many sit ok with you? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 09:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that'd be fine. I just don't want it to inadvertently scare anyone off. Crystallina 13:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

4288

Please support bug 4288 which is an enhancement that allows general tagging of revisions. This will allow user and group defined tags which can then be used for things like this project and possibly other stuff in the future. Thanks. --Gbleem 23:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

How to handle duplicate

I found that Bamana tribe duplicates Bambara so I added mergeto and mergefrom tags to the articles. Am I done? Should I remove the wikify tag. Perhaps I should add a wikify tag to the mergeto article? --JeffW 18:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I never use the wikify tag. (Also, I thought it was supposed to go on talk pages, but I could be wrong.) That Bamana tribe article really sounds like a copyvio--it's text added as one big chunk and completely unwikified. Does anyone know a procedure for nominating suspected copyvios? I only know the procedure if text is found elsewhere on the web. At any rate, it looks good! If you wanted to be really adventurous, you could merge the text yourself, but that's outside the scope of the project. However, I wouldn't spend too much time wikifying something that may get scrapped in the merge. It's up to you. Keep up the good work! -- Merope ^Talk 18:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't use the wikify tag then are you saying that you only work on articles that have been tagged by others, or that you just put the category on the page without using the template? --JeffW 20:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Should stub articles be wikified?

A large percentage of the articles I'm looking at in the backlog cleanup taskforce are stubs. But a stub isn't long enough to have sections and it often is only one paragraph so making sure the lead paragraph is a summary doesn't make sense. I suppose you could add links but is it worth it given that someone will likely rewrite the whole thing in the future?

I suggest that when wikifying if you find a stub article you should just make sure it has a stub template and remove the wikify template. You could include this in the section called Articles that can't be wikified. --JeffW 20:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you can do a lot to wikify a lot of stubs. Make sure it starts with a bold version of the name defined, check for terms that can reasonably be linked (author of book, for instance), move inline URLs to an "external links" section, and - of course - check that there isn't another article on the subject. A lot of stubs are very much not in wiki format, even when they are short. And no, I don't believe all stubs will be rewritten in the future - I've been watching some stubs since I started using Wikipedia, and they're still stubs. --Alvestrand 06:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I also have to agree that much can be done to wikify stubs. I find myself wikifying articles that are likely to be merged too. In fact, putting a wikify tag on an article makes it pretty likely I'll take a look at it (if someone doesn't beat me to it first) and do what I can to improve it, copyedit, wikification or otherwise. JubalHarshaw 05:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Handy tool

Already on project page, but just to draw extra attention to this handy tool.

Can We Link It? - tool for suggesting and adding possible wiki links to articles. Progressively learns what's a good and a bad link. See here for more info. Also checks for unbalanced wiki syntax, which is sometimes a problem when articles are added by new users.

Garion96 (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Template updates

After over two weeks of the progress template being updated being updated every 2 hours with each month being updated in a seperate edit...I'm wondering what people think of it being updated in this manner. I'm feeling it's not very useful. I like being able to track our total progress and get a better view of how much we go up or down in a day. Any one have thoughts? Metros232 23:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

May 2006 backlog

I'm fairly new to this, but have been tackling the May backlog, counting down, and am pleased to see it finished before the end of September. Have I missed the celebration messages? If there aren't any - here is one to get started: Well done to everyone who worked on the May backlog - good job! Can we get June finished before the end of October? - Windymilla 23:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It is great to see May gone. Well done everyone! I'm sure we can clear June by the end of the month - easy peasy :) -Ladybirdintheuk 12:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

One Life to Live storylines (1968–79) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for One Life to Live storylines (1968–79) to be moved to One Life to Live storylines (1968–1979). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)