Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikify/Backlog cleanup taskforce

Why Do Copyvio Check On All Articles

I thought the point of this exercise was to quickly remove all the articles that are incorrectly tagged with wifify. If that is the goal, I would think that only those articles that a quick glance shows are wikified (has lead paragraph and sections etc.) would be further scrutinized to check for copyright violations and redundancy. The directions at least make it seem like your doing copyvio and redundancy checks on all articles in the categories which would just duplicate effort, since for those articles that remain in the list, that checking will be done by whoever ends up wikifying it. --JeffW 20:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio checks are important because if the article is a copyright violation because copyright violations must be removed as soon as possible. If you can remove some copyvio and salvage the article, do so; otherwise, tag it for speedy deletion. RedRollerskate 16:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I Doing This Right?

Of the articles I signed up to look at four of them 1926 Slavery Convention, 66th Military Intelligence Group - Darmstadt, Germany, 7.7 x 58 Arisaka, and 9 x 21mm Gyurza should have the wikify template removed because they are stubs and not worth wikifying. 4231 menu and 42nd Street Nightclub should be prod'ed. 1990-1999 world oil market chronology is a chronology and I didn't see any guidelines for wikifying lists and chronologies. And finally 1:18 scale and 4 x 400 metres relay do need to be wikified so they should be left alone as part of this sub-project.

Is that how these articles should be handled? --JeffW 20:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the guidance I got on the talk page of the main page on stubs, I've decided that 1926 Slavery Convention, 66th Military Intelligence Group - Darmstadt, Germany, and 9 x 21mm Gyurza do need to be wikified. 7.7 x 58 Arisaka looks wikified to me so I'll check it for copyvio and redundancy and remove the template. --JeffW 07:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Wrong tagger

I posted this on the main discussion board, but this might be a better place for it. I've been coming across a lot of stub articles that have been marked for wikifying by User:Elonka, that already have everything possible done to them. Could someone have a check through that I'm not mistaken here, and then maybe post on Elonka's talk page? I'm too much of a wimp to critique someone quite as established.--MarkyParky 23:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion with Articles that are "Complete"

While reading the project page, it says that some letters are complete, when they are not. For example, I checked the Category:Wikify from July 2006 for the letter D - which Ladybirdintheuk said is complete, when it obviously isn't. Is the "complete" refering to what said user has done? そせい! 10:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of teh task force was to quickly bring down the numbers by picking off low hanging fruit. Complete just means its been scanned for ones that didn't really need to be wikified, and has gone through a check for copvio and article duplication. It doesn't mean that all articles have been cleared. -- Whpq 14:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still Needed?

It does not appear that anybody is zipping through untagging articles that need no work. The original idea was to reduce numbers by picking off low-hanging fruit. That is, things that were obviously a copyvio which could be deleted, redundant which could be redirected, or didn't need wikification which could be untagged.

But given that anybody who is working through the main list of articles would perform these steps anyways, is this effort needed anymore? It was meant as a bit of morale booster see the numbers drop faster, but it doesn't really seem necessary anymore. -- Whpq 17:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An response to an old post, but I agree. I don't think this taskforce really reduces time spent by WWF members at all, since the time it takes to do these steps is so minimal anyway. I think we should just get rid of the taskforce completely. Voyaging (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the page as inactive. Please advise the WikiProject through the project discussion page if you want to revive the taskforce. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 13:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]