Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikify/Archive 5

What to do if the page should be deleted

Since the goal of the project is to reduce the backlog, should you count it towards your articles if you find an article and PROD or AFD it and it gets deleted? Ryan Vesey (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Good question. (This question has been asked so many times that it ought to be on the instructions page. I'll add it when I get a chance.) The short answer here is, "If you put the effort in to wikify the article, yes. Otherwise, no" (as User:Mono put it). Guoguo12 (Talk)  02:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

In short, no it can't be, because it was not wikified, it was disposed of. Sumsum2010·T·C 04:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What happens if I wikify it then submit for AfD/PROD/CSD? WikiCopter 20:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It is rather pointless to do the work of wikifying the article if the intention is to delete it. -- 22:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs)

Well, you can count it, WikiCopter, if you do the work. But if it's deleted, valuable time was wasted, time that could have been used to wikify articles to be kept. The encyclopedia isn't really benefited in that case. But you can count it. Guoguo12 (Talk)  23:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Whpq and Guoguo here. What I normally do is nominate it, whether by SD, PORD, or AfD doesn't matter, but keep it on my watchlist so that I can wikify if, at the end of the week, it is still there. Much easier that way. Nolelover^{Talk·Contribs} 22:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the big-picture-point of Wikifying to clean the dictionary ? If so, deletion is part of that. If not, then why "punish" people by saying their efforts are valueless? —Safety Cap (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

As long as this was revived that brings up another question. What do you do if you find a Wikify tag that doesn't belong (aside from removing the tag)? While I originally thought deleted pages should be counted, I now think that both of these events should not be counted. The drives are based on articles that are "Wikified" not the number of pages removed from the backlog. Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

SC: I don't think its "punishing", as much as encouraging people to use their time wisely - there's not much point in wikifying an obvious WP:A7. Ryan: The easiest thing to say is that if you've done work on the article, count it. If not, and if you just removed the tag, don't count it. That's the "official" stance but remember, our drives do rely on the honor system. Without this rather simple explanation I think that we start getting into subjective territory: "I think it needs wikifying, but you don't", etc. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 04:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Rollover

Depending on whether we keep this system or use a word count again in the future, will there be a system of rollover words or rollover articles? Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The way the award setup is now, I don't think it is possible to end up with rollover articles. If the old system is put back in place at some point in the future, rollover words from the last drive with the old setup will still be honored. Sumsum2010·T·C 22:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

So, lets say I were to end up with 45 articles edited, would I not have 16 rollover articles for the next drive? Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No. The current scoring system does not use rollover. Nolelover ^{It's almost football season!} 22:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Vesey (since that appears to be your real name), I'm sorry if you're confused. The Guild of Copy Editors (WP:GOCE) uses rollover and word counts. WikiProject Wikify, currently, does not use rollover, nor does it use word counts. Again, sorry for the confusion. Guoguo12 (Talk)  23:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

New goal

We are only a week into the drive and already we are 73.6% of the way to our goal. I propose raising the goal (or lowering, depending on the way you look at it) to 18,000 articles. I feel we are fully capable of doing this, and perhaps more. I still remember one drive when we reached the goal, then everybody left and the backlog skyrocketed. I don't want that to happen again. WikiCopter 00:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

How about a new goal in addition to the old one? Like "clear the May 2011 backlog" (1,380 articles)? Guoguo12 (Talk)  02:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be neat to go after May and June 2011. How's that sound for everyone? Nolelover^{Talk·Contribs} 14:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about June. One specific goal seems to be better than two goals. (Of course, this is not counting the original goal.) Guoguo12 (Talk)  19:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Right...mmk, well, that sounds good to me. Nolelover^{Talk·Contribs} 20:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think going after going for May would be a good new goal. Sumsum2010·T·C 22:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps expand the goal to clear to 18,000 and clear half of 2009. At the same time. We should have fun, and get through the backlog like a Tallboy through a German battleship. WikiCopter 04:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to support such a drastic increase. It'll make the participants feel like the work before was all for nothing, if you ask me. Guoguo12 (Talk)  14:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The more I think about it, the more a single month looks pretty good. Notice that the wikifier' are already slowing down. A single month gives everyone something they can focus on, without being too concrete. Ofc, WikiCopter, if you'd like to knock out a couple thousand by yourself... ;) Nolelover^{Talk·Contribs} 14:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

And kill the entire backlog singlehandedly? Nah, you guys need a place on the leaderboard too :). If everybody's against my idea, then we'll go with Guoguo's. After all, the point is to destroy the backlog. Where we destroy it doesn't really matter. WikiCopter 16:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you, WikiCopter, and all of the other users who provided their input. Guoguo12 (Talk)  16:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Goodbye to Guoguo12

I hope I can say for the entire project that we have appreciated Guoguo's work as assistant then executive coordinator. I'd also like to take this time to properly thank Mono for his work both prior to the coordinator system was set up and after he became executive coordinator. I also hope that these two excellent editors who have presumably retired, meriting the badge of coordinator in the highest degree, will be able to return to Wikipedia, and that we will welcome them both warmly back into the project. Hopefully for the entire project, I would like to say "goodbye and hope you come back" to Guoguo.

For anyone who didn't know, Guoguo recently ran for RfA and retired soon afterward. Just for the record, and in fairness to him, it was much more then just failing the RfA that caused him to leave. However, this is neither the time nor the place to discuss that. I second WC's comments, and will post more about this soon. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 13:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Unable to generate a random article to Wikify

Hi,

I am unable to generate a random article to Wikify, Please help. I think there is a bug with the link. Kindly inform on my talk page if the issue is resolved!

Thanks in advance! Hariya1234 (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

After a little bit of hunting, I think I can safely say that there is a problem with the program, and instead of the link. At present there is, to my knowledge, nothing we can do about it. However, you can the extensive list at CAT:WIKIFY. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Or use CatScan. Sumsum2010·T·C 18:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion (multiple sub-sections)

Well wikifiers, it's been an interesting few months. We've seen the dramatic rise of this project, up to being featured in the Signpost, but now we'll need to make some changes in order to continue our work. As many of you know, executive co-ordinator Guoguo12 recently retired and that comes after the departure of our first executive co-ord, Mono. With the loss of these two editors, Wikiproject Wikify is running short on leaders and ideas and it is for these reasons that we are asking everyone to participate in a community-wide discussion deciding the immediate future of WWF. Please don't be afraid to add your two cents about any issue. Sincerely, Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Note: Background for this discussion can be found here.

Coordination

Obviously, WWF would like to be able to replace Mono and Guoguo with new volunteers; at present, there is no one other then Sumsum2010 and Nolelover. Furthermore, Nolelover is only a temporary help as he was not actually voted in in the last elections. So, there are a few concerns here:

1. Should WWF hold new elections, or just continue the six month term with what we currently have (Sumsum as exec, Nolelover as assistant).
2. Are there any members willing to volunteer and become either coordinators or hold administrative positions.
3. If so, what would you be willing and/or able to do?

---

I suggest the exec coord (Sumsum) select administrative officers (nobody has ever filled this post before). I can help coordinate, plan and keep together the drives and help do the news. WikiCopter 02:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that you two should continue officers/coordinators until the end of the term, if you're willing to do so. It would probably be a good idea to have as many admin officers as volunteers. I would be willing to help out, except that I start school again in August, so I almost certainly wouldn't have time. --Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 05:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems to me a great solution for the next six months, if Sumsum2010 and Nolelover are available for the positions, of course. After that I think we will hold new elections. In the meantime, I am at your disposal for any help, just write me a message on my talk page and I'll see what I can do. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

(reply to all) Well, if nobody wants another election, then Sumsum and I would be happy to finish the term. However, this is where we need help. As Kerowyn said, it would be great to have many more officers. They wouldn't even have to be people with a "job", per se, but just editors who could be around to, say, close drives (had Sumsum and I both been offline yesterday, who knows: maybe W-Will would have overtaken Kerowyn for first place :P). That said, there are some minor "jobs" that could easily be spread out. Most of it can be found here. Even just having more people around in discussion would be a great help. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with staying until the end of the term and adding some administrative officers. Sumsum2010·T·C 18:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The past six months

How have we done? We'd love to know your thoughts about the past.

---

I'm new to the project (having arrived at it via GOCE where come to think of it, I'm a newbie too), but it seems to me there are two main problems:

• The whole wikification thing seems vague and, unlike copyediting which is relatively straightforward, properly wikifying an article (which often entails copyediting, checking for copyvios, and general reformatting) can take a fair amount of time.
• The backlog is mind-boggling; I don't know whether these articles are tagged by bots or what but if they keep arriving on the backlog so much faster than we can clear the old ones, it's an impossible task.

Relative to my second concern, I couldn't understand why the goal for the June drive was to clear the most recent backlog month; although I realize that some of the old articles are real dogs, some of the old backlog can surely be PRODed. If an article has received no attention in several years despite one (or more) tags, maybe it's not encyclopedic.--Miniapolis (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the backlog came from bots, also I notice that AWB tries to add a lot of tags that are not really needed. Many tags are put on by people who can't think of anything else to put on an article, so they put on a Wikify tag and hope someone else will figure it out (a similar issue to the cleanup tag). Sumsum2010·T·C 18:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Answer to Mini's first concern: yup, it is. We've tried to make it less vague by, for example, adding instructions to the {{wikify}} template (click "show" on the right side), but yes it can be difficult. And whle it may seem impossible to totally destroy the backlog, I don't think that's really our job. If we can manage it, and continue to fix up the oldest articles as they come, then I think we've done something worthwhile. Now as to your point about PRODing - roughly, I don't think that is the answer. Templates like {{copyedit}} and {{wikify}} are catagorized as maintenance templates for a reason. There is nothing inherently non-notable about an article that looks bad. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 19:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the backlog size, I think that it's always going to be fairly huge, since many people use the <wikify> template as a sort of catchall tag for articles with problems. I think the biggest asset we need is manpower. I wonder what the etiquette would be on recruiting from other WikiProjects. Like (for example) asking WikiProject Biography to post a link to the CatScan of biography articles that need to be wikified. --Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 01:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

As long as it isn't WP:Canvas =) Sumsum2010·T·C 02:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't be canvasing at all. I can't figure out who the coordinators are, otherwise I'd contact them myself. Ryan Vesey (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Some people might consider it canvasing under the spam part. The coordinators of which project? Sumsum2010·T·C 05:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography, it doesn't hurt to ask them to focus on Wikifying some of their biographical articles. Maybe WikiProject Wikify and WikiProject Biography could hold a little one or two week competition in the middle of this month. We would both work at clearing the backlog of biographical articles that need to be wikified. Whichever project Wikifies the most articles wins. I'm not sure if there is any technical way of finding the size of the backlog, but it could be manually updated by checking catscan I assume. I don't know if there has ever been a lot of cooperation between projects, but this is a good time to start. Ryan Vesey (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That could work, we would just have to make sure we're all using the exact same catscan search. Wikify and GOCE have worked together a lot, Wikify was fairly dormant until some people from GOCE started it up again. Sumsum2010·T·C 17:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you know who the coordinators are for WikiProject Biography? Or should someone just leave a comment on the talk page? Would you like to leave the message or should I? Ryan Vesey (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't seem to find them either, there might not be any. Probably best to just leave a message on a the talk page. You can do it, if you would like. Sumsum2010·T·C 20:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Left a message, relevant discussion here. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a good way to approach the issue at hand. Sumsum2010·T·C 04:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

---

The next six months

Should we continue our current drive format? Are there any ideas for increasing participation? What do you think WWF should do next?

---

• I like the current drive format. It's straightforward and easy to get involved with. Looking through the archives and in various places, I saw that the drive used to be scored by word count. I think it might be helpful to have an optional section for editors to keep track of the words edited (like GoCE does), and give an award to the top editor, so people have some motivation to work on the big, unwieldy articles. Of course, that's a lot of work for the drive coordinators, so maybe not. --Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 05:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Kerowyn, the discussion that led to that change is here, and the only issue with the "big" articles thing is that we really don't have many! Honestly, most of the articles that need wikification are small (<1000 words), unlike the GOCE, where much of their backlog is composed of larger, more developed articles. As I said somewhere else, I would support a change to word-count scoring...once we are at a place where bigger articles actually are holding up the backlog. At present, I don't think we have that problem. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I disagree that much of the articles needing Wikifying are <1000 words. I wikified a couple pages that were in the 1500-2000 range. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
      • A larger portion seem to be in the <2500 range, Catscan gives a fairly accurate representation of this. Sumsum2010·T·C 20:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Two things: Firstly, I think WWF should learn from GoCE and make continuously updated charts on the progress of the drives, not just a simple line. Do not underestimate the effect of these visual aids.

Secondly, more on the macro level, I think that one of WWF's main goals should be to address the root of the wikification problem, rather than deal with the situation as a given. Currently as far as I can tell, even if we'd hold a drive every month and participation would always be fairly high, we'd still never be able to clean up the backlog because so many new articles are added each month. The root of the problem is that many low-quality articles are being created all the time, many of them based verbatim on PD sources. I believe we should engage the editors who mass-create such articles, and take any other necessary steps to stem the crazy increase in unwikified articles. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well Yn, I don't recognize your name from previous drives, so I don't know if you know this, but we previously used that system. However, unlike the GOCE, we simply didn't have (and certainly don't have now) the active members to keep it updated. (Look at these four examples from previous drives, and note that a) the graphs were rarely updated on time (I'd sometimes do it the next morning) b) we have lost two of the members who usually updated those graphs c) sometimes the graphs really didn't look that good (i.e. they were full of red). Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe for the next drive we should go for the oldest articles first. If we wikified at the same rate we did in the June drive, we could clear the backlog from January to July 2009. We could either do the entire group of months as one goal, or we could take it one month at a time. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
  • This was actually the only drive we did not do this. I think the plan was to go back to mostly this method. Sumsum2010·T·C 20:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Side note to Sumsum: That could eaily be where we use WC's multiple goals idea - one month at a time. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 20:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
      • That probably would seem less daunting and then disappointing than trying to remove a whole year at once. Unless there are better ideas for it, that sounds like it would be good. Sumsum2010·T·C 21:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
      • So, does the next drive start in August? Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
        • At this point, yes. We've been holding them every other month. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
          • Maybe consider doing them every month? That will make it easier for people to join. —Safety Cap (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
            • I don't like the idea of doing them each month. It makes it much more likely that users will burnout. Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
              • Yes, as Ryan says, I think that every month would just be too much for our members. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 04:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
                • And many of our members are also members of GOCE, having a drive every month would conflict with there drive, resulting in a hindrance of accomplishment at both projects. Sumsum2010·T·C 19:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree - the month-by-month approach makes it much easier to 'eat the elephant'. —Safety Cap (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
• I just realized this while looking at the results of the drive; only 11 people will get any barnstars with the current format. I was thinking the threshold for the first barnstar should be lowered to, say, 10 or 15 articles. The people who can only wikify a few articles at a time, deserve to be given as much appreciation and recognition as those who can wikify large amounts of articles. I'm going to give out the 11 barnstars and wait to see if this sounds like a good idea to everyone. Sumsum2010·T·C 21:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Personally I think it is a great idea. 31 seemed like way too high of a bar for the first barnstar. I think 15 is a good number. In addition, maybe we could create some sort of a participation ribbon for anyone who wikifies at least one page. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Just need to find a person who knows what the are doing enough to make the ribbon. Sumsum2010·T·C 21:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
      • User:Adwiii loves making Userboxes. I would assume the same editing skills would mean he could create the ribbon for us. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
        • From what I've seen, making the ribbons requires a somewhat decent picture editor and a bit of skill/knowledge/luck. I suppose we could use something like Sumsum2010·T·C 02:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
          • I'd be much more supportive of using the ribbon as a lesser award (say, 10 articles), and keeping the barnstars as they are. I do think that they should really be earned, and it isn't extremely hard to wikify 31 articles. Time-consuming, maybe, but not hard. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
            • I think I'll start the ribbons on the next drive. Sumsum2010·T·C 23:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry for joining late, barnstars is the best idea at the moment. Ankur Bakliwal 16:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abakliwa (talk • contribs)

---

On behalf of WWF, Sumsum, and all of our prior coordinators, I'd like to offer a big thank you to anyone who participates here. Remember, we can't do anything without our members. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Overuse of tag?

Many of the articles i'm seeing tagged with wikify look fine to me- i'm probably taking more of a negativity view, making sure the article doesn't break rules rather than positivist, making sure the article meets some base standard. Many of the articles have a ways to go to become good articles, but wikification isn't the issue. some of the problems i've seen are usually of writing style, or the articles are really stub status. Have been tagging with other templates where appropriate. Just want to make sure i'm doing the write thing here.Cander0000 (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I think people just don't understand the concept of the Wikify tag. A lot of users see the wikify tag to mean it isn't written in the style of Wikipedia articles. Continue tagging with new templates. Ryan Vesey (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, most people don't really know what wikifying means, so they just throw on a tag and figure that we'll sort through the mess. Sumsum2010·T·C 20:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a member of this project, but I've noticed the Wikify tag on a host of articles where Wikification was certainly not the most pressing concern. I agree that the Wikify tags seems to be used as a catch-all for problem articles, but look on the bright side: You're not dealing with the generic cleanup tag, a true catch-all tag which has built up a backlog of nearly 63,000 articles with no WikiProject dedicated to cutting through them all. Besides, there's nothing wrong with WikiProject Wikify's backlog continuing to replenish itself... if you really knocked it all out there'd be no reason to host Backlog Elimination Drives and the activity on this project would probably wane. Like politics and plumbing, this project relies on new problems constantly popping up or else there'd be no reason for the project's continued existence. Just a thought... -Mabeenot (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for that Mabeenot. Interesting way of looking at things. :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 04:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a more optimistic way of thinking about the world =) Sumsum2010·T·C 04:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/wikified wrongly? Can we either modify this to make it shorter and more concise, or create a new page with similar yet with less information and move it to the template space? It could be used on the talk page of people who incorrectly apply the Wikify tag. I do think there should be a note on the tag that it should not be used on editors who automatically tagged with AWB. I am creating my suggestion of a new template on the talk page of the template page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I had actually never seen that; thanks for pointing it out. Your new version looks great, BTW. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 13:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I did a reword and I think it is ready for the template mainspace. I will copy it over to the project page instead of the talk page and maybe Sumsum can give some input before we move it to Template:Not Wikifiable? That is probably a terrible title for a template. Maybe Template:Nowikify? Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Geez, this page is getting totally lost on my watchlist. :) Two and a half comments: first, I think simple is better - {{nowikify}}/{{badwikify}}. Second, I know nothing about templates, so will the first parameter be the article name? Sort of like {{nowikify|article=Example page}} or {{nowikify|Example page}}? Lastly, I responded at my talk. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess it was more lost on your watchlist than my watchlist. I am going to move the template to {{nowikify}}. Don't worry about documentation problems, I will add them to a documentation subpage. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Help

Comment moved from here for views. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The random article to wikify feature has not been working for the past 10 days. Consequently, this bit of the reduce the backlog project is not working.

Will someone with sufficient knowledge and powers get ti working again. Otherwise the backlog will not decline, and will only grow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.181.158 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 3 July 2011

Unfortunately we can't do anything about that, but the developer does know about it, as seen here. However, the full list can be found at Category:Articles that need to be wikified. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

He was also informed of it here. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem has now been fixed. Ryan Vesey (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Mini drive for members

I recently thought of holding a drive to improve membership. The drive would take place over a period of one or two weeks, either now or in September. Members would receive 1 point for every user they add an invitation template to, and 2 additional points for every user they invite who actually joins the project. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that that would be such a good idea, it could turn into a mass of spamming people and cheating. Kind of like the people on YouTube who get so determined to get more subscibers that they start getting fake accounts and spamming a bunch of real accounts. Sumsum2010·T·C 20:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. What are the things to look for when deciding who to invite? Guild of Copy Editor members would probably be good candidates. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

People who do cleanup type editing, or who are trying to salvage badly formatted articles would be good people to invite. The GOCE people mostly know about our drives, as most of our participants came from GOCE. Sumsum2010·T·C 21:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't create extra work

This should be removed from the instructions section. The drives are about improving the encyclopedia so users should be able to improve pages they find that need to be Wikified. It usually shouldn't be much of an issue, unless we do a drive similar to last month. Users should not be able to count pages they wikified that they created though. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

We could, if we asked participants to somehow mark each one that hadn't had a {{wikify}} tag to begin with and then check those. Otherwise, I think there's a lot of room to evade the rules. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

We could have participants mark the pages they Wikify but didn't have the tag with an asterisk. Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly the direction I was thinking. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, but we may want to check the ones that have a * next to them just to make sure it really did need to be wikified. Sumsum2010·T·C 23:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Drive Planning

Well, its that time of the month again. I think the one month at a time approach would work best, starting with February 2009 (also with the overall goal of, say 18,000). Also using the graph in conjunction with the line would help with the visual appeal. I would be willing to do the graph maintenance; as I now am using Excel and can make them look much better than the previous ones I made with Works, and make them look more like Guoguo's did. Also while I'm thinking about it, the newsletter department needs some major help, we're over 2 months behind! Sumsum2010·T·C 02:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll do my best to get the drive pages set up in the next few days, but if anyone else wants to help, please don't wait for me. :) Also, I'm happy to say that we are getting to the point that we can sort of rip through the pre-drive planning. Co-ords and helpers? Check. Goals? (Month by month/18,000?) Check. Other thoughts? The graphs sound good too. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 01:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Drive pages have been created. If someone wants to go through them and make sure it looks alright, that would be appreciated. Also, AWB notices/MessDelivBot need to be sent out soon (like, tomorrow), and...

• Add info to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/Frame  Done by Ryan. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Add info to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/News/Main Page  Done (still needs to be updated on the day of) by me. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Add info to reward board  Done Feel free to modify. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Add info to Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board  Done Again, feel free to modify Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Mark completed with {{done}}. Here we go...! Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs}

I'll AWB the notices out tomorrow. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done, although it wasn't until after I had finished that I realized I could have just transcluded the template instead of copy-and-pasting the whole thing....next time, we use Message Delivery Bot. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 18:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter

moved from above to keep the discussion on topic

I wasn't even aware of the Newsletter. Is it ok if I move it to August and we can release it then? Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I could also work on something for the newsletter, what do you want done? I am doing the members section now. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Moving it is fine, that's what I was planing on doing anyway. In the members section you can compile a list of all new members to WP:WWF(including yourself!), since March. Thanks for the help! Sumsum2010·T·C 03:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a way to make it easier to update the members section. The alphabetical order thing makes it hard, I'm done though. Maybe in the future we can update it as members enter. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wooops, I moved things to August and you moved them to July at the same time. It is a little screwed up now. We might want an admin to help us fix it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I CSD'd the August page so I can move the July one to August. It should be better after that. Sumsum2010·T·C 03:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I had to step away. I'm glad you caught on to what I was doing with the July to August switch thing. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the bar on the transcluded from somewhere? If it isn't I will create a page, it might take a while before I can figure out how to make it work with the correct months but it will save some time in the future. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You mean the progress bar?Sumsum2010·T·C 04:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by progress bar, but I created a Sidebar that can be included at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/News/Sidebar. Hopefully my instructions are not too confusing. You can see an example of how I used it for the March edition at User:Ryan Vesey/sandbox 2. I also used it in the members section Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/News/August 2011/Members. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh! Let me take a look at the code and see if I can get it to look how it has without the second line. Sumsum2010·T·C 04:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I think I'm just going insane...Sumsum2010·T·C 04:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)X2 I hope you don't fix the second line, I already did. In addition

{| | valign="top" align="center" style="border: 1px gray solid; padding: 1em; width: 25%;" | {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/News/Sidebar |August 2011|April/June |volume=I |Issue=III}} | valign="top" align="left" style="border: 1px gray solid; padding: 1em; width: 75%;" |

all of that information is still required it for the pages to look correct, I hope to see if there is a way around that when I get a chance. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You think you're going insane... I created each of the pages with the sidebar and replaced the information on the cover with the sidebar. I noticed I made an error in that I had the "Volume" parameter in lowercase and had it written to use uppercase. Instead of changing each of the articles, I modified it so either parameter will work. I will probably do that to the issue parameter as well. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and sorry if I disappear tomorrow. I am headed on a (long) vacation and have no idea when I will have access to a computer. Ryan Vesey Review me!

Thanks for doing all that, probably is easiest to have a template instead. Have fun on vacation! Sumsum2010·T·C 14:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Running low on time here

We have until Monday to have the newsletter ready. Can someone check the General news section and see what, if anything, can be added there? In addition we have 3 unfinished sections

• From the editor  Done, but feel free to tweak it. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• The front cover Done note written Sumsum2010·T·C 18:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• Drive results Half done Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Lets get these finished and marked with {{done}} Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have the prose pretty well finished on the drive results article, can somebody make some images to replace File:example.png? Otherwise we'll have to send it out without the images. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Guoguo was the one who did that stuff - maybe Sumsum can? I simply don't have the programs. That said, it wouldn't look terrible with just those two drive results and the one image. I'll work on the front cover. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I can do it I just have to go digging to find the numbers(maybe a little help being pointed in the right direction?). Sumsum2010·T·C 18:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I vaguely remember Guoguo, or was it Sumsum, being told that the overall newsletter was just too big. Please don't publish until I can find and fix that. There's just so much white space. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Found it. Can we use this? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it was already done accidentally, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/News/August 2011/Cover Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

For visuals

The Wikifier Your Wikification Newsletter – Volume I, Issue IV, October 2011 Front Cover • From the editor • General news Membership • August drive results To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Ahh, excellent. That will look so much better on a talkpage then the other format. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/News/Cover. We need to substitute it when using it on pages and make any changes to the template for each newsletter rather than creating a new page each time. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter sent out. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 15:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Machine translated pages

Hi

Does the project presently, or plan in the future, to cover articles that have been machine-translated from other wiki projects? Chaosdruid (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason why we wouldn't, although I assume you are talking about covering articles after they have been translated and english-a-fied. Also, are you speaking in an official capacity as GOCE co-ord? I'm curious as to what exactly brought this to your attention. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup, it was brought up on one of our talk pages here. I suggested that it might be put forwards as one of our GOCE projects, but wondered if there was an overlap with the Wikify project. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think I agree with your's and Stfg's comments with one note thrown in.

1. To be extremely blunt, I don't think WWF (note the emphasis) can help. A) As you said, the problems aren't really a lack of wikification and B) most of our members (at least the ones who aren't also members of the GOCE) simply wouldn't be able to do that stuff. Most of WWF's non-GOCE members are fairly new editors for whom wikifying is an easy(er) way to get involved. There is an overlap in the sense that many editors are members of both projects, but I don't think there's much in terms of mission.
2. As Stfg says, {{copyedit}} doesn't quite seem (in my mind) to be the best possible clean-up tag.

Do note that my comments aren't official :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 20:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ribbons

So, I think that the ribbon we have is good given the time we have. Do we have consensus as to what the threshold should be? I think ten would be a reasonable number. Then we can modify the awards page to include it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that it will be our lowest award (almost a participation thing), I think 10 is good. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 18:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It's up for 15 now, but ten may be better. Sumsum2010·T·C 04:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Boldly changed to 10. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

One more change: I think the ribbon should be able to be combined with other awards. That way, people could have a list of ribbons for every drive they actively participated in. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

But if we do that, then it becomes purely a participation award, and we'd need to drop the minimum to just one and leave the original awards. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 15:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That's why I said actively participated in and a participation style award was sort of the idea I had in mind when I proposed the idea. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Extending The August Drive to September Proposal

Please, see this. Thanks. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

end of the year awards

This is a somewhat unrelated note, but I had the thought that we could give out awards at the end of the year for (for example) participating in all the drives, wikifying the most articles all year, wikifying the most in a single drive, etc. No more than 3-5 awards at any rate, since we don't want to hand out barnstars left and right. But it could be a way to reward people who participate, but don't necessarily top the leaderboard, or can't participate regularly. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 21:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. What do you mean by "all" the drives? Because all the drives ever is down to just 2 or 3 of us, but all the drives this year may be good. Sumsum2010·T·C 17:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

All the drives in a single year. Just a little something to encourage continuous involvement. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 00:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good. Also I'm not going to be around much until Wednesday or Thursday, going on a vacation. Sumsum2010·T·C 04:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems like the 3 of us coordinated our vacations fairly well. Is Kerowyn going on vacation on the 5th? He better or we'll wreck the streak. :) Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, no. What I'm doing in August is more like the anti-vacation. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 19:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, you start school a little bit earlier than me. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I like it. Plus we've got a few months to iron out the specifics, so we should be able to pull this off in time if we agree to do it. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 20:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Word count award

So, I know word count awards don't seem to be too popular around here, but I would like to propose one award for the person who wikifies the article with the highest word count in each drive. I think there has to be some incentive to Wikify the longer articles. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that I like. I'm definitely not big on basing the whole system off wordcount, but a single award would do well. Two (obvious) questions though: Is it too late for this drive, and what award? I really need to get off WP -.- Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is too soon for this drive at all. I don't have a reward in mind but will look later today through the existing barstars. If I can't find one, I might make one using Wikilove. Here's the idea I had in mind to make it easy. Word count must be the count before it was wikified. Each editor, if they have the desire, will post which article they had with the highest wordcount and the count of the article. Coordinators only need to check whichever article claims to be the longest. If an editor does not know how to use the tool to check for word count they can post what they think is their largest article and a coordinator will check for them. To make things fair we will use this tool. I also propose that if Nolelover responds to this question before he has done whatever his real life duties are, we should immediately find an administrator to block him :) Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan, I needed that. I absolutely forced myself not to respond last night. :) Anyway, back to the award. I think I misunderstood when I first read, but it would be for the single article with the highest wordcount, not just overall wordcount, correct? I didn't realize that's what you meant until your second message, and that would be pretty easier to implement. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, we could do both. I prefer to do fewer longer articles rather than a bunch of really short articles. Maybe we should implement the award for the longest single word count, but also have an optional award for the longest total word count. Participants would not have to record the word count for each article, but if they did they would be in line for the award. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that's its a bit too late to do the total word count thing this drive, but not to late for the single article award. Just my $.02. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 18:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so are we calling this thing implemented? How are we going to go about notifying people? I could leave a message template at the top of the log page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking we should use the tireless contributor barnstar. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Drive awards

Every barnstar has a specific purpose. They're all equally valuable (or valueless). The real worth of a barnstar comes from a fellow editor recognizing your work and personally rewarding you for it. It doesn't really make sense that barnstars are put in some kind of order and rewarded for a specific amount of Wikification work. I think the awards should be drive specific, or at least wikification specific. An example would be a "Wikification barnstar" that comes in different variations. Bronze, silver, gold, platinum, etc for varying amounts of work. Like an editor who "collects" GAs or DYKs, drive regulars could collect drive specific barnstars, instead of accumulating a seemingly random collection of other barnstars for that purpose. Thoughts? Swarm ^{u | t} 02:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you any good at creating barnstars? I'm sure if you could create some barnstars specifically for WikiProject Wikify we would be able to implement it in the October drive. I could take a crack at it if you can't, but I am not creative at all so the awards wouldn't be any good. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've never created a barnstar before. If necessary, I could probably put something together, but like you, I'm not that creative. I'm sure someone would be willing and able to make a nice barnstar. One very simple method would be to use the existing 'wikilink barnstar' and modify its colors to create silver, gold, etc. versions. Swarm ^{u | t} 04:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the current barstar system isn't eh best possible, but we just haven't had the ability to change it. Should someone create project specific barnstars, I'd love to use them. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 12:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I just threw the following together (they're modified Wikilink barnstars). Bronze, silver, gold for different levels, obviously; more levels can be created (which I'll upload if there's support). I'd also be happy to take suggestions for a new design, if anyone has any ideas, but I think this is reasonable.

-- -- Swarm ^{u | t} 21:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Now the question is, do we implement these this drive. I definitely think we should wait until the next one - I don't think anything good can come of totally changing the "rules" mid-drive. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely agree. Swarm ^{u | t} 22:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, best to wait until everyone has had a fair warning. Sumsum2010·T·C 22:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

And to tie it in with Ryan's suggestion one section up, should we end up adopting his plan we will have more choices to pick from. This will basically be a total revamping of the award system next drive, so are there any other ideas while we're here? :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I would imagine that the award for wikifying the longest article should be similar to the above awards with a gold version of File:Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You know, I had totally forgotten about sending the newsletter out, but its just as well. Sumsum or Ryan, can one of you throw together something for the news section just saying that there will be new awards come October? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Y Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(←) Alright, so I now have five awards User:Swarm/Wikify. I like Ryan's idea of the rotating star for the largest word count, but I wouldn't know how to create that, unforunately. We have plenty of time, though, so let's stick with that idea. Are five levels enough, or should I make another? Also, for the "ultimate" star, should I change the name or the color (that gold color might be confusing)? I kind of ran out of ideas for a fifth level so I just made it a "shiny" gold star. Swarm ^{u | t} 03:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

One question on order, shouldn't iron be above bronze? I'm not necessarily sure that we need five anyways. My opinion is that silver should be reserved for 31 to 61 articles, Gold for 62-92, and platinum for over 93. A non-first place appearance on the leaderboard could continue to use the wikify badge. I have asked User:Antonu to modify the ultimate barnstar to make it spin. The only thing left is the barnstar for coming in first place. We could possibly keep this one the same or else use an image from Wikimedia commons at category:Trophies. I like File:Tim Hortons Brier.JPG Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right, we probably don't need the iron one at all. I've updated the page using the current scale, though I made it so the next award becomes available at an even number (i.e. 30, 60, 90). I'll leave it up to you guys if you want to change it ultimately. Swarm ^{u | t} 19:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Update

With the completion of the August drive, I've moved the new awards system into the project space (and linked to it on the "drives" page). The scale for the awards is essentially based entirely on the preceding system, as well as advice received here. Here's how it's set up:

• Number of articles awards are on a 'iron' to 'platinum' scale (similar to veteran service awards)
• Leaderboard awards are separate from the multilevel 'scale'

• 6th-10th place on leaderboard gets a "Working Wikifier's" barnstar
• 2nd-5th place gets a "Greater Working Wikifier's" barnstar

• The person who wikifies the largest article gets the "Greater" barnstar as well
• The runner-up for "largest article" receives the regular "Working" barnstar (this was essentially the only liberty I took, feel free to remove :P)
• The first place winner gets a special trophy

The details are spelled out on the actual page. You coordinators are completely free to remove or change anything; there will be no objections from myself (that should be obvious, but just saying). I'll also be happy to modify them further upon request, but right now I would say the new system is tentatively finished. Regards, Swarm ^{u | t} 20:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks great Swarm; thanks for your work. We'll be sure to mention this in the October(?) newsletter. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Missing from "How to Wikify"?

Hallo, I'm not a project member but I do a lot of informal wikification while stub-sorting, at least to the extent of sorting out lead sentence, making a few links, generally tidying up.

A couple of points about "How to wikify":

• I'm surprised to see that the section on links just says "Where appropriate, make links to other articles by putting "[[" and "]]" on either side of relevant words (see WP:LINK for more information). " I suggest that even without going to WP:LINK editors should be asked to check where their proposed link is going, and make sure that it's a sensible destination: not a dab page, not a different use of the words (eg wrong person, album name, small town in wrong continent, etc). Please change your instruction set so that people are told to get the links right! This might involve piping, disambiguating, making a redlink, creating a redirect, making a link where the plural "s" of a word is outside the link, etc.

• You tell people to add an infobox if appropriate. I suggest that it's as important, or more important, to add:

• A sort key using DEFAULTSORT
• Category:Living people where true
• Birth and death date categories where these dates are given

(The {{L}} template makes it quick and easy to do all the above in one line of typing)

• {{coord missing}} where appropriate, for places or buildings

It also seems odd that "Be sure there are two blank lines between a stub template and category links." appears in the section on adding headings: perhaps the section should be called "Layout"? And it might be better worded as "Be sure there are two blank lines between category links and any stub template.", as the stub template comes after the category links. Perhaps even change to "If there is a stub template, be sure that it appears after all other content except inter-language links, separated by two blank lines." Plenty of people drop stub tags into wrong parts of the article.

What about it? PamD (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, your links comment is so obvious I can't see how we forgot that. It's the kind of thing that more experienced editors do without any thought and so wouldn't stop to think that others might need somone to tell them to do it. I've been bold and added that to the WP:WWF homepage - should we think about adding this to the template as well?

Your other points also sound good, and I would definitely support adding brief comments to the homepage, but not necessarily to the template. It would get too long, and we're already catering to what is often a "newbie" participant crowd. I think that any more then the absolute basics there, and we're just asking for trouble.

Now, as to your last paragraph. I changed the section title to "Arrange layout" like you suggested, but I'd like more info on the other point. You're probably right, but does the stub template always come after everything else? If so, I'm one of those people you've mentioned in your last sentence. :/ Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Nolelover, thanks for responding! WP:FOOTERS sets out the order of appendices and footers, and shows where stub tags go. (It makes life a lot easier for stub-sorters if the stub tag is in a predictable place!) And sure, the template doesn't need such a lot of detail: it's aimed at people coming across a stray article, while the project home page is setting out what "Wikifying" an article is, for those who want to do it regularly and (some of them at least) want to score points for doing so. It might be contentious to add new tasks, which might slow down people's wikification rate and their race to get awards, but I think the encyclopedia would benefit! PamD 23:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the link; I've always placed the stub above the cats (I think because they appear above them on the saved page?). Anyway, I see no reason not to add those instructions, but I'll wait at least til Ryan or Sumsum can find there way here. Thoughts guys? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I went to make the changes back when they were first posted by PamD got busy and forgot. I'm totally fine with everything there. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added them. Feel free to modify if you think I didn't do a good job explaining. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Awards

Hello, WikiProject Wikify. You have new messages at Antonu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

There is a discussion on awards occuring here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Before we follow through with Anton at all, let's work out the details. There's currently two options for the new awards system that are summed up here. The six award system allows for leaderboard appearance award. It isn't exactly hard to make the top ten spot (in June, two users took the #10 spot with a fairly low count), thus, I don't think a leaderboard appearance in itself is really needing of an additional award. If we don't want to do away with the concept entirely, I would propose that we give the platinum award to either second and third place, or those who made the top five spots (minus the leader). Anyway, what do you guys think? Addendum: The leaderboard question should be sorted out; one final award is pending. Swarm ^{u | t} 18:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of top five, and 6-10 gets the slightly lesser one. Sumsum2010·T·C 19:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea; I've factored it in. The finalized set will be available shortly. Swarm ^{u | t} 19:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I can't be more involved. Just wanted to say that the awards are looking good. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 20:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikify tag is being incorrectly removed by AWB

AWB is incorrectly removing Wikify tags solely because articles have enough wikilinks. Wikifying is a much more complex process and this can't continue to happen. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Wikify tag. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please check Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikify/Archive_3#AWB_changes and provide an example of incorrect removal. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

My proposal is that AWB can no longer remove {{wikify}}. Please make any comments at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Wikify tag in order to keep the discussion in one place. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I can't find the link/section. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 01:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Woops, I had the wrong link. Sorry Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 01:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Replacing html with wiki markup language

Should things where html language is extremely common be replaced with wiki markup language. I am specifically thinking of {{strikethrough}} {{big}} {{small}} {{ndash}} {{mdash}} {{comment}} and {{break}}. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, per this, not all HTML needs to be removed. In particular, the HTML dashes and break (lots of use by IP's) are used much more commonly then their WP counterparts. However, if you did make a push, gl trying to implement that. You'd have to overhaul thousands of articles, and somehow tell every editor about these (especially the three mentioned above, which I don't recommend trying to change). Any specific reason why you ask? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 15:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)