Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikify/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

No more wikify template

What would people think of deprecating {{Dead end}} and modifying {{Wikify}} to only deal with Wikilinks but making no changes to the current goals of the project. We could pick up {{Infobox requested}}, {{Cleanup-HTML}}, {{Lead missing}}, {{Lead rewrite}}, {{Lead too short}}, {{Inadequate lead}}, {{Sections}}. For the purpose of wikification, we'd need to check for copyvio, add persondata, L, and/or default sort, and add coordinates any time we do any of these tasks. Our backlog would spike for a year or two, but I feel like we'd be able to recruit some extra editors to help us clear it. Ryan Vesey 00:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a great idea! We could also have a backlog that is split into multiple sections based on what needs to be done. Gold Standard 00:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Please let me know if I forgot templates. Ryan Vesey 00:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I totally agree. I can work with Infobox requested and Cleanup-HTML. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
If we agree to this, we'll need to reformat some categories. We might think of moving infobox requested to the article page as well. Right now cleanup-HTML adds an article to All articles that need to be wikified, but we should create Articles needing html cleanup as a subcat instead. Ryan Vesey 00:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree in both. This was my intention from the very beginning. Pages with different issues should be put in different categories. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
{{Cleanup-link rot}} and {{Lead too long}} come to mind. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
So do {{Citation style}} and {{Refimprove}}. GoingBatty (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd say citation style is correct, but not refimprove. The other two are should be part of it. Ryan Vesey 03:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
This will take a lot of work, but if it can be achieved with minimal disruption, and consensus is for it, then sure. Problem: if the {{wikify}} tag is dedicated to wikilinks only, then editors will assume that wikifying only involves adding wikilinks :-( benzband (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
How about reaching out to say the Village Pump or RfC? benzband (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes of course. Can you please advertise the discussion a bit? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The thing is, wikifying does only mean adding wikilinks in wiki-terminology. Yes this project does more than that. But the general meaning of the word wikify is to just add wiki-links. In fact that is what this project used to specifically be about until about 2 years ago when the tag was changed by someone and this project seemed to expand its purpose. -DJSasso (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that since it was way before my time. It was changed in December 2008 [1]. I haven't checked the history of Wikipedia:Wikify, but it appears that the template change was to make the template in line with the glossary definition of Wikify which states "To format using Wiki markup (as opposed to plain text or HTML). It commonly refers to adding internal links to material (Wikilinks) but is not limited to just that. To wikify an article could refer to applying any form of wiki-markup, such as standard headings and layout, including the addition of infoboxes and other templates, or bolding/italicizing of text." Ryan Vesey 15:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I can agree that it can mean other things, I more meant in general usage, more often than not if you were to ask editors what it meant it would be almost exclusively the part that says "To format using Wiki markup" which to most people means adding wiki-links. -DJSasso (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to the idea in principle, but I agree with Benzband that it will definitely cause confusion. We'd either have to rename the project, or phase out {{Wikify}} and create a new template for articles in need of more wikilinks. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like {{Dead end}} is already supposed to be for articles with "few or no internal links". The name implies it's for articles with zero links, so I think that's how it's generally used, but couldn't it be renamed to "underlinked" or some such? DoctorKubla (talk) 10:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that deadlink is confusing. For a long time its trackign category was asking to tag only page with no wikilinks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I actually think that's the best solution. Let's bring {{Wikify}} to TfD to get it deprecated. Wikilinks can be taken care of with {{dead end}} and the rest of the issues can be taken care of with the other templates. We would need to completely clear the backlog before we can actually delete or redirect {{Wikify}}. This would be even better because many editors incorrectly use the wikify template. If it didn't exist, they couldn't use it incorrectly. Does anyone object to me taking this to TfD? Ryan Vesey 14:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
This would also entail overhauling WikiProject Wikify. Anyway, clearing the backlog will take a lot of time, so presumably the TfD won't be for a while? benzband (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The TfD would be now I was thinking. The template should be deprecated now so it isn't used. Otherwise we'll never clear the backlog. See {{Infobox Indian jurisdiction}} for an example. In addition, it isn't as much of an overhaul as it seems. The wikification process doesn't change and we aren't adding or removing responsibilities, just the method of directing us to the responsibilities. The one major change will be how do we count a page. Is each page one or is each template one? Both would make sense as solutions (the latter because an editor who tackles a page with three problems would be punished because another editor could tackle 3 pages with only one problem). Ryan Vesey
A major revision of the wikification drives then. Currently, pages are counted rather than issues (some pages require no work except tag removal, others may have a load of problems to tackle). How would counting each issue work then?
Two additional questions: Would the project be merged with other cleanup projects that overlap? Would it cover pages tagged with {{cleanup}} (which currently requires a reason parameter or else it can be removed without further notice)? benzband (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I would not have it pick up any cleanup tags that aren't currently a part of Wikification. What projects are you thinking of? We could talk to the other projects about merging if there was complete overlap, but I can't think of any. Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes deals with creating the infoboxes. Ryan Vesey 15:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Introductions, WikiProject Persondata WikiProject Citation cleanup deal with the tags mentioned earlier in this thread. benzband (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Which reminds me:

"On the topic of the Wikify tag, there are many things done through Wikification and a lot of pages that have been improved as a result. I would bat an eye if it was deleted."

I concurr. To make it clear, i'm ok with deleting it i just want to make sure it's the best thing to do before lunging in head first. benzband (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd say let's contact those projects, tell them that while the wikification process isn't changing, our scope is widening to include some pages in their projects and ask them what they would like to do. It certainly wouldn't be a problem if there was double coverage of those issues. Ryan Vesey 15:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Categorization

The biggest part of this change will be in categorization. I assume we will need to create a new parent category; however, we have some problems with the backlog count. Let's take Category:Articles without infoboxes for example. {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Articles without infoboxes}} gives {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Articles without infoboxes}} when in reality there are probably 100,000 pages in that category (talk about a backlog jump). The template doesn't count pages in subcategories. Does anybody have any idea how we should go about this? Ryan Vesey 14:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

(If possible) creating an "All articles without infoboxes" category would enable more accurate counting. benzband (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The extended problem is, unless we want to track everything completely separately, we'd need an "All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify" category. Ryan Vesey 15:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. This is starting to get complicated ;) benzband (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I just created Category:All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify. The first step will be putting the subcategories into it. The second step will be getting the pages added to it. An obvious first step will be a minor change to {{Wikify}} and {{Dead end}} to add them to this new category as well as the old one. Then we can move on to the lead, sections, infobox, etc. categories. The hardest part will be modifying the various wikiprojects' infobox needed. Ryan Vesey 15:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The subcategories should into Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify or something similar, and only articles should be in Category:All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify (or something similar); see the current equivalents: Category:Articles that need to be wikified and Category:All articles that need to be wikified. benzband (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Good idea, I'll change that. Ryan Vesey 15:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I have currently added pages in {{Infobox requested}} to the category and {{Dead end}}; however, I'm not entirely sure the dead end one worked. Ryan Vesey 16:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

After we finish adding various tags under this project, should I send wikify tag to Tfd? -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Ryan Vesey 15:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe I have gotten everything tagged and categorized and I have sent the template to TfD. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 10. (Note that we still need to get all of the WikiProject templates to add the category. Ryan Vesey 14:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll note now that we have 27,750 articles that now need to be Wikified. That doesn't include all of the subcats of Category:Infobox requested. I hope to work with other WikiProjects to change that soon. Ryan Vesey 15:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've also often wondered about the definition of 'Wikify'. In my very early days, I used to think it meant bringing an article's general tone in line with Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards, but more recently it seems to refer simply to adding Wikilinks. The problem there is one of education of the patrollers - it seems as if many who can't find another reason to tag a new page simply add the Wikify tag - even on one-line stubs that have nothing to Wikify, or which if they did, a patroller could have done it in a couple of seconds. I'm now doubly confused. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this discussion is not wide enough for the many changes it proposes in adding categories to manifold templates and category pages. Also, I find this discussion is dominated by one editor, who is too hasty and aggressive. Debresser (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This is all inter-project categorization and maintenance. There has been no objection (outside of yours) and members of the project have been informed. Right now, it seems like you are the one trying to push your will on a project. Ryan Vesey 19:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Should I add the TfD tag to the template to catch more attention?
Debresser, your keep !vote is in fact equivalent of what we are discussion here. We want to keep only one of wikify and dead end which will be only the wikilinks criterion and then find an appropriate name for it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
It might be good, then a wider range of people will see it. Ryan Vesey 19:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
That is fine. My problem is the addition of Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify to a great many templates and category pages. I see no rationale for that here. Debresser (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
That is a hidden category that has no affect outside of this project. It is a necessary category for our drives and to figure out what our backlog is. Ryan Vesey 20:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Which should not be used on such a large number of templates ouside this project without wider discussion. I for one oppose you of a category related to this project on all of those templates.
On a more general note: if you want to delete {{Wikify}}, then perhaps you should close this WikiProject as well. Debresser (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
As I have commented multiple times, please name one template that was tagged that does not fall under this category. This WikiProject will not be closed in conjunction with the template because the project will still be responsible for Wikification, none of the projects goals are explicitly tied to that template. Furthermore, contrary to my initial nomination error, the goal isn't to delete the template. Instead, we will probably be redirecting it to a new template {{Wikilinks}} or something similar that will focus on what many people think the extent of Wikification is. Ryan Vesey 22:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
You seem to have a lot of plans. I wonder where all those plans were discussed and where the consensus for them is. Because so far, I see neither discussion, nor consensus. I am sorry, but you can not have a WikiProject deciding about a large number of templates do not fall directly under its description. As such, I contest the addition of this category to all of them. Debresser (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Since you are continuously going with the "I object just because I do" argument, let me explain how each of them falls under this category. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/Drives/Instructions you should "Add an infobox if it is appropriate for the article" covering {{Infobox requested}}, you should "Replace HTML tags with wiki markup, where available" means that {{Cleanup-HTML}} is covered (in addition, note that prior to my addition, and after your revert, the template adds articles to Category:Articles that need to be wikified so you are clearly mistaken on your revert there), you should "Format the lead" meaning {{Lead missing}}, {{Lead rewrite}}, {{Lead too short}}, {{Inadequate lead}}, and {{Lead too long}} are all covered, you should "Arrange section headings as described at Wikipedia:Guide to layout" meaning that {{Sections}} is covered, and you should "Clean up instances of link rot and format the references or footnotes, using citation templates when appropriate" meaning that {{Cleanup-link rot}} and {{Citation style}} are covered. Do you have any objections to this? Ryan Vesey 23:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
You do not seen to get the point. The point is that you are having an inverted view of this project. These are things that might have to be done if a text, let's say written by a beginner, needs to be wikified. Which does not mean the opposite: that each article which has one of those issues also categorizes as an article that needs to be wikified. It goes one way only. Debresser (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
On the deletion discussion of {{Wikify}} you say yourself "Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify has expanded its scope to all of the templates that cover aspects of Wikification." Well, you can not just "change the scope" of a WikiProject without some serious discussion, and we have not yet have such a discussion. Debresser (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You, my friend, are the one with the inverted view of the project. If an article is tagged with {{Wikify}} and the only issue is that it is lacking sections, sections are added and the article is considered "Wikified". If an article is lacking sections we deal with it. That has always been the case and will always be the case. Sometimes editors who know that {{Wikify}} deals with a broad range of issues decide to tag an article with {{sections}} rather than {{Wikify}}. That article still needs the same improvement. My comment may have been made poorly earlier. The scope of the project has not changed. All of the same issues are covered. The only change is that we are counting articles that have not previously been counted. While anyone is welcome to be a member of the project and outside opinions are appreciated, I fail to see your concern that we will be adding articles to the ones we will be improving. Is that not a good thing? Ryan Vesey 00:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I at first thought also that the proposed change would be too drastic, but upon reading the discussion, I see that it is a good idea with no adverse consequences. Adding links is a good idea when possible, and there is should be a single specific tag for it. Ditto with the other problems. Myself, I've been using the tag only in the sense of needing links, or sometimes other wikipedia-specific features, not as a general tag for improvement needed. The did use to be a good reason for having general tags rather than a multitude of specific ones, which was the difficulty of remembering them all, but Twinkle and related programs have dealt with this very well. (Incidentally, I think we do need some way of indicating general improvement needed when it is one of the very worst done 1% of the articles. ) DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
On the topic of remembering tags, there is a new menu for New Page Patrolling. That should assist even more. I have been asked to weigh in but am waiting to get this resolved. I'll make sure they use {{Multiple issues}} to clear a concern raised earlier by Debresser. Ryan Vesey 04:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
DGG, please clarify your position. You are in favor of deprecating {{Wikify}}, I understand? What about adding Category:All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify to some 10 templates dealing with specific issues?
Ryan, I understand your position. And I think you understand mine. The point is that in order to add some 10 templates to a Wikify category, I believe we need a broader consensus. I for one do not think it is a good idea. So, where do you plan to raise this issue? Debresser (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I have raised it here, others have offered to advertise the issue, I don't know if they have. Sadly, most of the members of the project don't appear here for the discussions often so I am having a note sent out to everyone asking them to take part. Ryan Vesey 14:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I got your note! I am in favour of the improved organisational changes that Ryan is proposing. One of the problems with the current system is the overwhelming number of articles tagged for wikification. Organising the work and breaking it into smaller chunks is a good idea, as it will allow people to locate and work on those articles for which they have the specific skills, such as replacing HTML with wiki mark-up. Also, people will get the wee reward of seeing the backlog of work for their chosen task go down, rather than the current scenario where a drive starts with the backlog at some huge number and ends at some other huge number. And the more specific we get about the types of work an article requires, the more likely it is that those tasks will actually be undertaken, rather than just the addition of internal links. Thanks to Ryan for undertaking this task. -- Dianna (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I've been watching this discussion as a lurker. I think the proposal is a good one. Right now knowing that an article "needs wikified" merely tells us that the article needs "some form of wikification" -- but we don't know what. That's a problem. When it comes to working on drives, I would find it extremely helpful to have more specific tags in place. It would easy to get in the mode of turning a bunch of HTML pages into wiki markup; right now it's difficult to crank through pages when I'm expected to address such a long list of various unspecified improvements to each article. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 19:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

After this discussion I understand Debresser's position better. If I get something from this position is that we should not try to include every possible issue under "wikification". To wikify a page mainly means to add wikilinks and do 3 or 4 more stuff. For example de-orphaning a page should never be part of this project. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It may be that I have my own unique understanding of the term "wikify". To me, if a page is lacking 1 or 2 things that make up the wiki-markup and layout, that does not yet mean that the page needs wikifying. But if a page lacks 3-4 things that make up the wiki-markup and layout, that would in my eyes justify saying that the page needs "wikifying". As a corollary, I feel that if a page has been tagged with only 1 or 2 tags, we should not add that page to a wikify category yet. Ergo, the wikify category can not be part and parcel of any specific template other than a "wikify" template. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment While I am leaning towards depreciation, I'll make my comments here as well as the TFD notice. Wikify, the template, is an absolute mess. There are 8 functions which must be checked for each article, most of them have their own tags. Wikify, the template, should either be modified to support direct Wikification notices from taggers like AWB as defacto 'multiple-issues' style concern, or if there are no other tags, leave a single clean up template. While I am terrible at layout for such a matter, if AWB hits upon its detection for HTML tags it could produce the relevant tag, but if it is also a dead-end, then it could probably use a set of 'codes' which fall under the Wikify project banner by specifically citing the problems to be addressed. Multiple issues functions in much the same way. Rather then opt for the removal of the Wikify project with 10 different banners which could kill the page flow and distract the reader, a clean and concise option should be made for viewing it. One which will instruct how to correct via a link with a one or two word notice, or even something as simple as an 'A7' or 'G3'-like code system. Detection of these issues should be made a priority afterwards so Wikipedia can have a concentrated effort to fix these problems. So I wouldn't be opposed to 10 categories of tagged pages all under the Wikify project. It may be the easiest way to fix the most glaring errors quickly and deal with the problems once and for all. Rather than play 'tag' and 'untag'. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea because it will probably be a lot easier to clear backlog. Yes, the backlog will expand temporarily, but that is only because it is finally listing its actual size. But, if things are made more specific, an editor will know exactly what they are getting into on a page.--¿3family6 contribs 12:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Note I'll just note that if {{Wikify}} gets deprecated, and we decide for some reason not to add these templates back to the category this project will be useless in 19,500 pages from now. Ryan Vesey 19:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm all about efficient work, I don't intend to jump around for barnstars or anything in the contests, but cleaning up the pages was a hassle when I missed something simple and had to go back and check them all. If there was a section on places I could just do a mass run on coordinate requirement templates or persondata addition and pend talk pages, but that is not exactly clear with Wikify. I doubt that ANYONE using Wikify takes those steps anyways because its so easy to use a recursive function and hunt or modify those tags anyways. Let alone place the tags. Knowing what editors are getting into is more important then having a general tag, besides it makes me annoyed when someone (or AWB for that matter) tags a problem without pointing out the problem or why they think it is a problem. Anything that makes fixing the mess that much easier is going to get a green-light from me. We need to be efficient and welcoming to all editors, and Wikify is by far the most weird wikiproject I've encountered on its procedures. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I need Help :D

I am beginning to edit Electronic Instrument System it is a monster to do all by myself if you just check the talk secton on the page you will see what I mean Thanks A Dingus 20:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.Hollingsworth486 (talk • contribs)

I replied there, I think we might want to redirect it. Ryan Vesey 20:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No more wikify tab will discourage new editors

I am obviously coming late to this debate, and I am starting a new thread on this narrow subtopic. I really like the wikify template and its overarching catchall qualities. As a relatively new editor, I am starting this afresh. "Wikification" is a wonderful phrase that makes sense to me as a former html-coder webmaster back in the day. Maybe you could have called it "encylopediaficiation". Or "substantive style guidization".

So you say you don't know what it means? It means getting the page to follow the style criteria of wikipedia. But it is more than just making sure articles meet the criteria of a static Style Guide. I think if you get rid of it, you will lose all the new editors.

So you say many people have different ideas of what it means? Well, even I can see that there are numerous camps of what "notability" means. But I don't see anyone deprecating that tag. Or how about even <reasonably well known secondary sources>? Boy, wouldn't everyone like to lock down a definition of just whose publication is good enough to denote immediate 'notability'?

Instead, it is a great general category to say, "shape up" or ship out. It lets good editors move quickly, adding the comment and then maybe coming back to put more detail as to why.

If everything in Wikipedia is super specific, the noobies will run away. K.I.S.S. Gofigure41 02:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gofigure41 (talk • contribs)

Can you be a bit more clear as to how having the WikiProject take on the extra templates or deprecating {{Wikify}} will discourage new editors? {{Cleanup}} is already the "shape up" or ship out catch all template you may be looking for. Wikification does refer to a very specific subset of problems labeled above and if it is incorrectly added to a page due to a misunderstanding it causes the editors performing the Wikification to take more time wading through articles. This is all about improving the encyclopedia and making it easier to improve the encyclopedia. Ryan Vesey 05:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, there you have it I guess. I am already confused! I'll see if I can examine the differences between {{cleanup}} and {{wikify}} myself. Maybe "deprecate" is the wrong word -- maybe what you are trying to do is to "narrow", "clarify" or "redefine" what it means to make a page more in line with the principles of "wikipedia"? Perhaps this is a dispute over the mission of Wikipedia underneath the surface? I am afraid I have asked more questions rather than answered yours. Gofigure41 13:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I came here from WP:AFC, where I'd just tagged {{wikify}} onto a page with no wiki markup at all. The article looked valid, but was a first attempt from someone who had not used Wikipedia and therefore wasn't familiar with [[ or other wiki format codes. "No wiki markup" should be one issue, not a laundry list of templates all dumped on some unsuspecting n00b who probably won't know why their first creation just got plastered with a half-dozen maintenance templates. K7L (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
{{Dead end}} would apply here. Ryan Vesey 04:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Deathlaser

I'm not sure if this is the right place but banned user Deathlaser still receives newsletter from this wikiproject through Edwardsbot.I couldn't understand how to unsubscribe him so I would appreciate help. Cheers TheStrikeΣagle 14:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed him from the members list, he was already removed from Benzband's list, so he shouldn't receive any more. Thanks! Ryan Vesey 14:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Great..he received one yesterday which was reverted by Benz.Thanks..I expected any other list that the members one ;) Cheers TheStrikeΣagle 14:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Wikify is deprecated

TfD finally closed. How do we move from here? -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle has been notified. I think we should add a note on the template discouraging its use, so that we can clear the backlog. Also set up the project's categories (maybe create a {{wikilinks}} template?) and update the drive system. Then turn it into a dab or redirect page. benzband (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I am restoring the categorization as a result of discussion here and at the TfD. Magioladitis, how quickly can AWB be modified? Ryan Vesey 12:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I made the formal request to modify AWB so it won't add {{wikify}} anymore here. GoingBatty (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Magioladitis, can you wrap {{Deprecated template}} in noinclude tags and place it on the template page? Isn't there also a deprecated template banner that could appear in a small manner on the transclusions to encourage replacement? Ryan Vesey 13:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I was rather hoping that the result would be one template less for the taggers to apply to new articles rather than see it replaced with something else. Wikilinking is so easy, and new articles are generally so short, that a New Page patroller who is patrolling in the spirit of the intended process could quickly Wikilink anything that needs doing. All a Wikilinks template would achieve is more laziness from the patrollers. I think that any proposals for a new template should take this into consideration and not be done hastily without significant discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Kudpung, I'm chalking this up as a big victory; however, the other templates already exist. I wouldn't necessarily want to get rid of them though. I think you are correct that fewer people will make the improvement themselves when a template exists; however, if the template doesn't exist and the improvement isn't made, the people at this project will never know to improve the page. Ryan Vesey 12:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
You strike a chord, Ryan, and I agree whole heartedly, but I firmly believe the answer is to educate the patrollers into doing the job properly, which means not replacing a template we've gotten deprecated with something else. One of the very issues with the Wikify template was that along with 'Orphan' it was the one patrollers use when they couldn't think of a more important reasons to tag an article. The number of times every day that I see {{Wikify}} on one-line stubs beggars belief. NPP has been a shoot-'em-up for too long and I'm hoping to get some ideas how to do this without campaigning for a user right. For one thing, past experience tells me that where the Foundation has clearly spoken out against something, they won't do the required engineering even if there is a community consensus. One thing which the various user talk message and uw projects generally fail to take into consideration when making/improving templates, is the point of view of the patroller. The last major campaign and its A/B testing to take the bite out of template text has not only changed some wording from the pompous to sublimely smarmy, but rendered some of them so totally inappropriate for Twinkle use that they often have to be manually recast when they are used. Indeed, the conundrum with page patrolling is to strike the delicate balance between getting the patrollers to do the job properly while at the same time neither making it too difficult nor giving them reasons to be lazy and/or tag too fast. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I added the deprecated template. Recall that we should not start mass removing wikify. We should also mofify wording/documentation for {{Dead end}}. We should also consider to modify {{Wikify section}}. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikify deprecated?

I just found out that the {{wikify}} template is deprecated. Why? Sometimes an article has more issues than just no wikilinks, or references need to be improved. I see no one template that encompasses several issues an article may have. I think one template at the top instead of a plot-too-long template, a refimprove template, a section-too-detailed template, a needs-inline-citations template, a lede-too-long template... see what I'm getting at? I think it feels a need. I find it quite useful. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

PS: And before you say anything, I think of the {{cleanup}} template as more of a grammar and style template. I.e., cleanup covers content and {{wikify}} covers wikification of that content. See what I mean? TuckerResearch (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You've got a good point, but the misuse of {{Wikify}} far outweighed its uses and this change will make improving those pages easier, leading to an improvement of Wikipedia overall. It forces slightly more thought on the taggers, but it is better for taggers to make that thought than for those who are fixing the tag to try to figure out what the problems are. If you are worried about the large number of templates that would appear, {{Multiple issues}} should solve your problem. Ryan Vesey 19:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I understand that you worry about tag/template overload, but I think the {{wikify}} can be used by someone who doesn't have the time or inclination to do the hard thinking of figuring out what the specific problems of an article are but know that an article is fishy and needs wikification, alerting more diligent editors. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that is the exact problem. If an editor can't take the time to figure out what is problem, they probably shouldn't be doing the tagging. I'm hoping that Twinkle and the curation toolbar will create a section for wikification that will list all of the relevant templates. Ryan Vesey 19:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Ouch. I think that's a tad wiki-elitist, i.e. only full-time, experienced editors need edit. But, I hope your solution works. I think {{wikify}} is useful as a general tag and then hopefully more dedicated editors pick up the ball after that, I just wanted to get my two cents in after the fact. Good luck. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Problem is, page patrollers may use the wikify tag to save some time, but on the other end there's the editors cleaning it up who have to go through a backlog thousands of pages strong fixing it. Other factors such as AWB-auto tagging of one-liner stubs just makes it even worse. We hope that this change will make wikification more effective, and so improve Wikipedia.
If you are using Twinkle, it's super easy to find the right tag(s) for the article, because they all come with a description and so on, and they are grouped into {{multiple issues}} by default. :) benzband (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I just want to second what Ben said. I understand your concern that less experienced users may have trouble with the many seemingly new templates, but unfortunately we have to help them along. {{Wikify}} means nothing if it is used that way, and any effort skipped at the beginning of the process is only doubled at the end. Twinkle is a great tool though, and I highly encourage it for learning all those many specific templates. Thank you for bring this here though, and I hope we answered some of your questions :) Nolelover Talk·Contribs 15:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

New drive

For the next (October?) drive should we make replacing the Wikify tag with more specific tag(s) a secondary goal, and

  • count removed tags towards each participant's total?
  • have a separate log for removed tags?

~ benzband (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Presumably replacing it with a more specific tag or tags, if possible? DoctorKubla (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes sorry that's what i meant. Amended :) benzband (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea, as long as there's a seperate log (and a seperate award?). Tagging a page doesn't take nearly as long as wikifying it, and I'd hate to see diligent wikifiers overtaken in the rankings by speed-taggers. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd use a separate list. In addition, I imagine counting every removed tag from here on out (otherwise a page with 4 tags requires more work for 1 being counted than a page with 1 tag). In that case, an editor could modify the wikify template into 3 more specific templates and count all 3. That's just my idea. I'm also planning on creating a new project page with a goal list for each category of wikification with the goal being zero. That way, even if something isn't a drive goal, editors can see it go down. Ryan Vesey 20:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that tag substitution is a good goal. We have a bunch of articles tagged with {{wikify}} that need some form of fixing. With wikify being deprecated, the number of such articles should gradually drop to zero as we go through fixing them. I think as a drive activity, we should driving towards the elimination of the problems and not simply retagging for later work. -- Whpq (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
That's a good comment, and I thought of that. As my mom always said (and I always ignored) don't deal with something twice if you can deal with it once. I still think a Wikified page should count as 1 for every tag that should have been there, otherwise, why would I remove {{Wikify}} when I could add infoboxes (my favorite thing to do I believe). We'll also need to remind people that copyvio checks, persondata, and forms of default sort ({{L}} for bios) should be done no matter what the tag says since we don't have tags for those. Ryan Vesey 20:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
General comment: whatever you decide to do about tag substitution, it would be good to avoid creating incentives for speed-tagging and tag bombing. --Stfg (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Be sure to explain the elimination of the wikify template and the project's new goals/drive at the WikiProject desk so I can include it in the next Signpost article. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
It looks like it may be too late to organize a drive for next month. (Or is it?) Guoguo12 (Talk)  15:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not too late, but we really need to decide what we're doing. Is replacing {{Wikify}} going to be part of the drive? What templates should we deal with specifically, or should we work at the overall Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify and let people choose what they want to reduce. I'd like to start on the infobox ones because we have another 100,000 infobox templates that should be part of this project but we haven't added. Ryan Vesey 16:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Replacing {{Wikify}} tags is too hard to track. The drives should be simple and pleasing to the eye. Speaking of which, what is wrong with the drive log pages (like this one)? Why are they centered now? Or is that a result of the "do not modify" tag? Guoguo12 (Talk)  16:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I just copied the code from previous drive(s). benzband (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Coordinates and infobox subtemplates

I've added notes about finding coordinates and infobox subtemplates to the project page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Ryan Vesey 12:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Category up for deletion

It has been proposed that Category:All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify be deleted. Feel free to take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 9#Category:All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify. Ryan Vesey 23:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Articles that need to be wikified renaming proposal

See here. Thanks, Guoguo12 (Talk)  20:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC).

This proposal has kind of evolved into a discussion about what to do with all the articles tagged with {{wikify}} – is it worth the effort to manually replace all the tags? Any input would be appreciated. DoctorKubla (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion has concluded. Per consensus, the {{Underlinked}} tag was created to mark articles with too few wikilinks; tagged articles can be found at Category:Articles with too few wikilinks. Additional comments or opinions should be made at Template talk:Underlinked. Thanks, Guoguo12 (Talk)  15:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC).

Recent changes to the main project page

I have made some changes to the layout of the main project page. I have also updated the content to reflect the recent decisions to deprecate {{Wikify}} and create {{Underlinked}}. Any comments/suggestions regarding the layout or content would be appreciated. Guoguo12 (Talk)  15:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

So, {{wikify}} is gone

Is there any place where I could get a list of the new templates being used instead? --Nathan2055talk - contribs 16:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

{{Infobox requested}}, {{Cleanup-HTML}}, {{Lead missing}}, {{Lead rewrite}}, {{Lead too short}}, {{Inadequate lead}}, {{Sections}}, {{Citation style}}, {{Cleanup-link rot}}, and {{Lead too long}}. We should probably make a page somewhere. Ryan Vesey 16:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think you missed a few. Nathan2055, Template:Wikify#See_also is probably the most complete list available right now. Guoguo12 (Talk)  18:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
We've never dealt with {{Cleanup}}. Ryan Vesey 18:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
It's a catch-all tag. Guoguo12 (Talk)  19:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I realize that; however, it catches things far beyond wikification and we don't include it in our backlog or deal with it in drives. Ryan Vesey 19:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
True, but I think the question was regarding templates that replace, in some way, {{Wikify}}. {{Cleanup}} is certainly not covered by this WikiProject. Guoguo12 (Talk)  21:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

OMG. Take a look at this: a bot is adding the tag… benzband (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Much thanks to PamD for catching that error. (Other users/bots that are still using {{Wikify}} can be found by looking at Category:Articles that need to be wikified from October 2012.) Guoguo12 (Talk)  18:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I've contacted GoingBatty. Ryan Vesey 18:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, perhaps I should clarify. PamD (talk · contribs) already contacted the bot owner at User_talk:BattyBot#Wikify_is_deprecated. Guoguo12 (Talk)  19:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Missing October 2012 drive.

Why does the October 2012 backlog drive not appear to have been started? Is this because of the elimination of the {{wikify}} tag? Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Basically, there was virtually no participation on what the drive should be in the section above. Perhaps we should keep it simple and focus on reducing Category:All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify by 500 with no secondary goal. That way people can focus on what they want. Create one backlog list, and point to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/Track for the others. Ryan Vesey 18:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
So is this going to be a no-drive month or will the drive be later in the month? Personally, I think the entire drive format should be revamped. This is the two-year anniversary of WikiProject Wikify's drives, and the old drive page system is far too tedious to use. I actually prefer the GOCE's drive format now, except that their drive scoring is pretty complicated. Guoguo12 (Talk)  18:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
So the drive would wait until December? If that's what everyone wanted to do, I wouldn't have a huge problem; however, our backlog will almost certainly fill up. I'm also leaning to the idea that we should incorporate the rest of the 100,000 infobox requested pages, otherwise we're just looking at another jump in the backlog in the future. I also think we need to create a real "wiki-advertising" campaign to get new drive members. What specifically are you thinking about in a revamp of the drive? The only difference that I'm aware of is the heavy emphasis on tracking (which we used to do) and the word count system (which we used to do). If someone really wants to deal with tracking, or there is a bot operator who can do it, that would be great. I think we should remain with the per page system rather than word count, especially to the nature of the change. (Word count doesn't matter when you add an infobox or reformat references). Are there other changes you're looking at? Ryan Vesey 18:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I meant the actual format of the drive page(s). They should be easy to use. The log page tends to become hard to view and edit. Also, was it really center-aligned throughout the past several drives? Guoguo12 (Talk)  18:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I think there should be a drive this month (if the people who normally organise the drives are up for it). Revamping the system can wait 'til December. For now, let's keep it simple, as Ryan suggests, and concentrate purely on reducing the backlog at Category:All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I am in favour of a simple drive using the existing pages, just to help keep a lid on things. I agree that the drive pages (and all the wikiproject pages) should be easier to navigate, but that doesn't mean we can't launch a simple drive right now. -- Dianna (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's do it. Here's the drive page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/Drives/2012/October. Perhaps the layout could be like the March Mini layout (single page)? Guoguo12 (Talk)  01:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Given the lack of replies, I've gone ahead and created the drive pages based on the 2011 March Mini format. Note the changes I've made to the instructions, awards, log page formatting (I mean, really, centered text?), and so on. I've also set the start date for October 17, so that the drive is exactly two weeks long. Feel free to discuss below if there are any objections or issues. In the mean time, these things need to happen:
Please assist in completing the above tasks if you have time. (Mark the completed ones with {{done}} and sign.) Thanks, Guoguo12 (Talk)  19:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC).
Good work. I've further amended the instructions to reflect the Project's shift in focus. General question: if an article is tagged with, say, {{sections}}, but also has other problems like unformatted footnotes etc., can a drive competitor log the article after just adding sections, or is a full wikification still required? (My personal feeling is that full wikification should be recommended in such cases, but not compulsory). DoctorKubla (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Is the focus going to be on Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify instead of Category:Articles that need to be wikified? Shouldn't we clear the latter first? Guoguo12 (Talk)  10:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Category:Articles that need to be wikified is a sub-category of Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify. The quickest way of clearing Category:Articles that need to be wikified is replacing the tags, and since (I don't think) tag-replacement is going to be part of this drive, we should guide editors towards the new category and carry on as normal. I think that's the gist of the above discussion, but I may be wrong. DoctorKubla (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
In that case, the instructions should be rather different, and will depend on the specific article tag. It would certainly be a lot simpler if the drive only covered {{Wikify}} tags. Besides, replacing tags is just shifting nuclear waste from one location to another. It doesn't solve problems. Guoguo12 (Talk)  19:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with you. For example, if every article AWB or Twinkle tagged with {{wikify}} because it has too few links was changed to {{underlinked}}, that would make it much easier for editors to add wikilinks and remove the tags. GoingBatty (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
What about this: We focus on clearing both categories in this drive, and if we want to, we can give participants part-credit for tags which they reassess without editing the content of the article (with the idea being that they mark these articles in their lists with some notifying icon, e.g. apostrophe's, &'s, ^'s or maybe even $'s). Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Having spent some time replacing tags, I'm no longer in favour of it being a drive activity, especially not in conjunction with ordinary wikifying. For one thing, we'd have to give very partial credit – I reckon I could replace at least 30 tags in the time it takes to wikify one article. But it's very menial work, and if each tag is only worth 1/30th of a point, I don't think many people will bother. And if they do, it's hard to avoid incentivising careless and haphazard tag replacement or flat-out tag removal; if someone gets through, say, a thousand articles over the course of the drive, it would be difficult and time-consuming to check a representative sample of those edits, and even more so to check and fix them all if it turns out the editor wasn't doing it properly. But of course, articles tagged with {{wikify}} can still be wikified as part of the drive, just like all the other articles in Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify. And in response to Guoguo, while it might be simpler if this drive focused solely on {{wikify}}, that would just be kicking the can further down the road – we'll have to adapt the drive instructions to the new process at some point. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand his point though. If we focus just on {{Wikify}} we can clear that backlog since now, or sometime close to now, editors will stop adding to it. We've also had discussions about problems counting if editors remove a wikify tag. An article tagged with wikifying might need links added, sections added, and an infobox. Does that count as 3 then? I would say we'd have to if we were doing it all at the same time because the alternative would have been to remove 3 separate templates which would each be counted. While I would love to start working on the new categories, it might be better in the long run to focus on the articles in the current Category:Articles that need to be wikified. Ryan Vesey 12:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Her point. Why do so many people get this wrong? Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I know you're a girl, my ambiguous pronoun was meant to refer to Guoguo12. Ryan Vesey 16:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Hmmmm... my bad. :{ I suppose my psychologist is going to have a busy day... later this month. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
DoctorKubla, we'll be kicking a can down the road either way. Is replacing tags and setting up new drive rules more essential than simply clearing Category:All articles that need to be wikified? This drive (as of right now, at least) is supposed to begin on the 17th. We can create and discuss the instructions, formats, and procedures for future drives later (in November, perhaps); let's just stay on the beaten path for now. Guoguo12 (Talk)  21:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree that clearing Category:Articles that need to be wikified is the priority, but doing so by wikifying all 17,000 articles will take months, whereas replacing all the tags will take a couple of weeks. I don't think the drive instructions will need such a massive overhaul; we just need to replace any mention of Category:Articles that need to be wikified with Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify (which I've already done), and determine whether the "ten simple steps to wikify an article" are still relevant. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Alright, let's just go with that then. But, in that case, for which actions will credit be given? Removing one tag? Removing all tags covered by the project? Replacing a {{Wikify}} tag? All of the above? Guoguo12 (Talk)  19:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's up to the people organising the drive. I don't think tag replacement should be part of it; other than that, I've got no strong feelings either way. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Once Wikify is removed from all articles

At the current rate of {{wikify}} removal, it will soon have been removed from all articles. What is the consensus for what to do with the template once this has been achieved? I see three options right now.

  1. Delete the template entirely
  2. Redirect the template to {{underlinked}} (the most common reason for a wikify tag being added to an article)
  3. Change the template to say something like "This template is deprecated, please replace with more specific templates. A list can be found here."

Or there may be another option that I haven't thought of. Del♉sion23 (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The closer of the TfD recommended turning it into a dab page, like Template:Expand. That makes the most sense to me. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Sure, that looks like a good way of achieving the same things as #3. Del♉sion23 (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikify/Archive_7&oldid=1145843477"