User talk:Vami IV/Completionism

Completionist idea: eradicate all {{cn}}

I'm thinking that one way to fulfill Vami's vision is to find a way to cite all claims with {{cn}} and thus eradicate it from Wikipedia. This would ensure that no stones are left unturned and the quality of the encyclopedia would undeniable improve as a result. It would also be a great stepping stone to make a lot of articles satisfy the featured articles criteria. Here are a few reasons why I think this is barely possible now:

We have streamlined a lot of processes over 2 decades of quarreling. Nowadays, we have made a somewhat clear distinction of what kind of source is reliable, how to format articles and what kind of content is acceptable on Wikipedia.
We have very powerful tools like AWB, TWL and that editors two decades ago can only dream of.
Most sources have already been digitized, making it accessible to the internet.

I think that this project would be a multi-decadal effort, but it has to be done eventually. The grand project would be realized in several steps:

Give all BLPs at least one citation (used to be completed with Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue, but now the backlog is in progress)
Give all articles at least one citation (we are here, with Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles)
Cite all articles with {{One source}} with more sources
Cite all articles in Category:Articles lacking reliable references with more reliable references
Nuke all citation needed tags (ultimate goal by Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability)

I really wish that I've taken this essay more seriously in the past... If this initiative was launched back then we would be well on our way to clear out Category:Articles lacking sources and finish step 2 in the timeline. - CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all fellow Completionists: User:Dracophyllum, User:EpicPupper, User:Sm8900, User:JackFromWisconsin, User:Aza24, User:The Night Watch, User:HadesTTW, User:Harvici, User:AirshipJungleman29, User:Queen of Hearts, User:Generalissima, User:That Coptic Guy, User:Utopes, User:Spinixster, User:Unexpectedlydian, User:ZombiUwU, User:TheLonelyPather, User:Cellina_Starfire, User:Sm8900, user:3.14159265459AAAs, User:SweaTheSerg CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frostly and Tesseractic: Fix pings for renamed users. Queen of ♡ | speak 17:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like this suggestion, though it will definitely be a long-time project. If we ever finish the citation needed tag backlog, there's going to be more tagged articles later on. Plus, there are also untagged articles. Spinixster (trout me!) 01:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support. 3.14 (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

simple rules every adjusting user must be verified post a verified link to sources before said wiki page can be modified.

Would erase the quick vandalism and obvious dubious adjustments users make in a simple check of above requirements before they can post it . Bunions Nonsenseses (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support this proposed project. Because of the sheer quantity this would definitely take many year unless we expand our numbers pretty substantially. ZombiUwU ♥ ^{(🌸~♥~ 📝)} 17:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my own invention and ode to completionism

herewith i would like to offer my own small contribution to the ideals of completionism. enjoy!

2020s in history

I believe this serves our cause, admirably!!! Sm8900 (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wikiproject for completionism?

I would like to ~~volunteer to~~ suggest that we set up a wikiproject for completionism, as a group. would anyone here be willing to help and to participate? Sm8900 (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing! It would be funny to also establish a guild of completionist editors like the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. I would definitely be down to help out with setting it up. ZombiUwU ♥ ^{(🌸~♥~ 📝)} 17:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZombiUwU and @Sm8900, I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Completionism. Currently the proposals section is down, so many recent WikiProjects like WP:SZA have been created (SZA was nominated for deletion and was kept) so I am safely assuming it is OK to create a new wikiproject. Was wondering if you could help. 48JCL TALK 19:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@48JCL if we have more than you and me on board then I'm totally ok with moving ahead with this. In the spirit of Vami's ideals it seems unnecessary to worry about naysayers. Sm8900 (talk) 05:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think this is really necessary, as the scope of the Completionist essay is the entire encyclopedia, and we already have groups like WP:QAI and WP:GOCE alongside content review processes. what would this WikiProject actually do? ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sawyer777, I could G7 it, however, there would be a WP Completionism banner that would be added to articles that have been “completed” for the completion process or something like that. If you disagree, I am happy to G7 it. 48JCL TALK 19:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i think the featured article, good article, and GOCE banners serve the purpose well enough. you're welcome to G7 it, but it's no skin off my back if you don't. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sawyer, it could be something like “this article was significantly improved or ‘completed’ during the process of completing the encyclopedia.” If you oppose this as well, I will g7 it. 48JCL TALK 19:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oppose seems like a strong word; i just don't think it's necessary, and generally less is more when it comes to talk page banners. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "completionist" banner would be redundant and self-congratulatory. How about we honor Vami by spending our time writing content instead? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos how on earth does it honor Vami for us to simply write content? I've never heard anything more ridiculous. Are you suggesting we honor Vami.... doing absolutely nothing at all and simply pat ourselves on the back for doing nothing actually to honor this individual? Sorry but I don't see the logic of that. Sm8900 (talk) 05:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was unnecessary to ping me to this discussion twice; I am watching the page. With all due respect, Vami was a good friend to me, not just "this individual". I think I have a pretty good idea what he would have wanted us to do to honor his memory, and it isn't creating bureaucratic make-work in the form of erecting a WikiProject whose goal is redundant to the goal of Wikipedia as an endeavor. Vami was proud of every single article that anyone he knew created or improved. He would have wanted us to sit down and complete the damn project.

The fact that you dare you call that ridiculous shows you didn't know Vami at all. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos, well your persuasive comments are doing a good job of (a) convincing me I didn't know vami at all (b) convicing me that since i wasn't his friend, I will have no way to know what he wanted (c) changing the focus here, from dicussing this eloquent essay, to yielding to the many friends and associates who are flooding this page asking us to please not take any actions at all except simply editing as normal and not doing anything out of the ordinary,. as mjust one examp0le, you yourself have just stated above: think I have a pretty good idea what he would have wanted us to do to honor his memory, and it isn't creating bureaucratic make-work in the form of erecting a WikiProject whose goal is redundant to the goal of Wikipedia as an endeavor. Vami was proud of every single article that anyone he knew created or improved. He would have wanted us to sit down and complete the damn project.The fact that you dare you call that ridiculous shows you didn't know Vami at all.

so I just wanted to note that, in all fairness. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

>simply write content
>doing absolutely nothing at all
So which one is it? AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 06:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AstonishingTunesAdmirer,

Simply writing content" is what we are all doing already, anyway, every day. so "simply writing content" is identical, equal and the same as "doing nothing," i.e. doing nothing special to honor this valued editor, which is what we are discussing here. Sm8900 (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sawyer777 he's asking if you support it or you don't. It's yes or it's no. Thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the answer is no, i don't. thanks. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 05:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I heavily oppose this and would suggest G7ing. Beyond being (IMO) somewhat disrespectful, I concur with Sawyer that it's completely unnecessary. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OMG I FUCKING FUCKING GOD I UNDERSTAND OK??!?! 48JCL TALK 22:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, speaking very gently here, I'm not sure there's any need to reply like that. Nobody's angry with you or yelling at you, and everyone understands that you're trying to embody Vami's ideals here. We just disagree on how to approach it. I think everyone's reactions can be a little heightened when we're thinking about a friend who's passed and considering the best way to honor him, mine included. For my part, I apologize for the tone of reply. I could have worded that better. I hope we can all move forward with Vami's spirit and goals in mind. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think @48JCL already agreed to G7 so in fairness to them it's simply somewhat annoying to see people calling on them to do something that they have already agreed to do. Sm8900 (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos yes an apology seems appropriate. Thank you for offering one. That's helpful. Sm8900 (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima how the heck is it disrespectful? Nothing here is disrespectful. I truly don't understand and I don't agree, with all respect. Sm8900 (talk) 04:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the essay itself. I suggest that folks here actually read it again, especially the part where there is a list of people who say they are also Completionists. Sm8900 (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

we are on the talk page of the essay, so you don't need to link it. i must have forgotten to put myself on the roster itself (now done), but i've got a little Completionist topicon & userbox on my userpage. in any case, Vami and i were friends; we even rewrote an article and promoted it to GA together. i'd definitely consider myself a Completionist, and i agree with PMC that the most important part of Vami's philosophy was actually building the encyclopedia by improving articles, not creating unnecessary projectspace bureaucracy. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 06:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect no one who seeks to build a movement would label their own movement as "bureaucracy" Sm8900 (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I was not friends with Vami unfortunately. All I have to go on is the essay that they wrote, which was meant to reach community members like me who didn't know them personally. Its wonderful that you had a valued friendship with them. I would suggest you might want to encourage community members like me to follow their thinking more as found in this essay. Sm8900 (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link: User:Vami IV/Completionism