Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikify/Drives/2012/February/Log

Random button

Hi Guys, there seems to be a problem with this link Click here to find a random article to wikify at the WikiProject Wikify page for February Drive! Anyone knows how we solve this issue? Thanks. — Rammaum^talk_stalk 08:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just tried it and it works fine for me. Any more specifics you can give on the problem? Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 13:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was having an error that leads to "tools page...." something like that but, now its working fine. Thanks anyway. — Rammaum^talk_stalk 07:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There actually was a problem, although I didn't see it; see here. Thanks for bringing it up. :) Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 16:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alarming lapse in progress.

We're 1.9% of the way towards our goal? What the heck happened? We were making such good progress just a week ago, then suddenly it's as if no one's done anything? Something has got to be amiss. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is this happening? After all the articles that were Wikified in the past month, is this because new articles are getting updated in the list? Wikishagnik (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now -9%...I have no idea. The only thing I can point to is that NPP, where we get a lot of our articles from, is also showing some odd behavior. I don't know if the two are connected, and it doesn't really make sense since NPP was ripped through a few days ago and a massive influx of article tagged with {{wikify}} would have shown up at once. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 22:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions

One of the biggest stumbling blocks to speedy wikify is landing on a wikify page, scratch your head and mumble "what exactly is required here?" As a newcomer to the wikify campaign I would like to see the following changes.

Categorization

It would certainly help if articles could be further categorized based on the type of wikify required. Some suggestions

word count - Not directly required for the wikify campaign but certainly a guide for the newcomers. Large articles require a lot of time. Also, in case of large articles it takes a long time to figure out what's wrong. The tag might have been placed for simple things like language or certain HTML links. In brief, if you don't have the time and patience then simply ignore the large articles. Thankfully, they are few in number.
HTML - Articles that require only an HTML cleanup are the fastest to deal with. I am sure maximum number of articles can be covered here.
References - OK, this requires a bit of learning but with the right tools these articles could also be covered fast
Subject / Category (of the article) - biographies of obscure people are the toughest to handle. You need to understand why they are notable and sometimes need to explore their field of expertise. In many cases a simple Google search might throw up thousands of articles, but for different people (e.g. Boyd). Other subjects like Mathematics, technology, Fashion / Design Might be easy for some people and tough for others.
Info boxes - There are a lot of editors who are experts in this. They might be able to cover ten articles in an hour, I will take one hour to complete one.
Available in other language. Some english Wikipedia might be better covered in a French, German or Russian Wikipedia article. Using Google translator, these articles can be wikified in less than an hour. Imagine the time you are saving here

The point of the above classification is that it should isolate the easier articles from the tough ones, and I am sure there are more smaller articles than large. Considering the lack of progress made in the past month, such a move would definitely help in keeping the new members interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikishagnik (talk • contribs) 14:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Wikishagnik (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that people won't categorize like they should. I agree with you that many {{wikify}} tags are either confusing or even flat out wrong, but even with the addition of a parameter that allows you to give a reason (click show for the bold line, which generally says "the reason has not been specified") we have tons of bad templates. I can sorta help you with the word count though - have you ever used WP:CatScan? For example, here are all the short (or unlinked) articles from the February category. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 22:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the suggestions above mentioned, I believe that it would be better for this project if an editor will simply follow the guideline mentioned in the "how to wikify" page. In my wikify editing experience, I've encountered a page that a "bot" has re-added the "wikify tag" after 'two wikified edits' supposedly by a member in this project. I think the edit was unsuccessful maybe because, it was not done in a proper manner. I am not saying this to discredit anyone nor proving that I am an advanced editor, "no" though I can prove this met. I am bringing this up to avoid repetitive editing unnecessarily, which will contribute to, even a fraction of, the project's goal. Let us have an enjoyable quality edits rather a competitive but poor ones. Cheers! — Rammaum^talk_stalk 15:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rammaum, what page was that? I hope you remember...I'd really like to know. That really shouldn't have happened, but I think I know why. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 17:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Edouard Utudjian bp. — Rammaum^talk_stalk 17:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Longest article wikified?

How is this determined? I had a pretty long one with WNBA records. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We use a word count tool which, unluckily for you, excludes bullet points. Therefore your official wordcount for that article is...*drumroll* 52! However, by the powers invested in me by absolutely no one (and despite my resignation which looks more and more worthless every day), I pronounce you the runner up to James Hawes by User:Encycloshave, which at a stunning 667 words is the winner by...well, not much, but I really can't break too many more rules to get you up there. Of coure, breaking those rules is a lot easier though when there's only four other editors who submitted articles for consideration, and yours easily appears to have taken the most work. Congratz! Your work is appreciated :) Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 17:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! --Fang Aili ^talk 17:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]