Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikify/Drives/2010/December

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Join WikiProject Wikify!

"Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much." ― H.E.

Question[edit]

I wikified an article today. Does it count toward my word total? Access Denied 03:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no, it does not. It was done before the drive started so it would not be considered part of the drive.(If that makes sense) There is a similar question at the GOCE's FAQ page.Sumsum2010·T·C 03:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Chart[edit]

I'll try to update it whenever possible, but I'd like to know when a "day" ends. 0:00 UTC? (8 PM my time). Nolelover It's football season! 16:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is on UTC so I think it would end on 23:59:59. Do you mean the graph or the table?(so I don't accidentally mess-up your updating it) Sumsum2010·T·C 23:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I mean the table. I won't be able to update the graph, as I don't have the know-how. I'll try to update the graph whenever I can, although the time I do so might range from day to day. Feel free to update it if I haven't done so; it's not my job by any means. We are now two hours into the second day (UTC time), so I'm going to update as of now. We're close enough to 23:59, etc. (Also, I just realized that 0:00 UTC is seven PM my time, due to fall-back.) Nolelover It's football season! 02:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, just wanted to make sure which one you meant.Sumsum2010·T·C 02:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't get the instructions[edit]

I'd like to help, but I really don't get what I am supposed to do. There is so much wikijargon that I am not familiar with that the VERY easy directions for adding the page size feature is not VERY easy or even possible for me. I know I'm supposed to paste importScript('User:Dr pda/prosesize.js'); //User:Dr pda/prosesize.js somewhere but I don't know where. I have come across several dead links trying to find out. What the H is a monoskin? What do you mean by rollover? I guess I could just go ahead and wikify, without taking credit. It seems to make more sense then wasting any more of my time trying to figure out the instructions for taking part. --Ishtar456 (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't freak out! :) First off all, go here, and click the edit button. This page is where you put the coding for all the great tools that people have created for Wikipedia. Have you heard of WP:Twinkle? This is the place you would copy and paste the code so you can play around with it. Cut and paste this: {{subst:js|User:Dr pda/prosesize.js}} onto the page, and then reload the cache:
  • If you are using Chrome/Internet Explorer, press Ctrl-F5
  • If you are using Firefox/Safari for Windows, hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R); for Mac, press Command-.
  • If you are using Opera/Konqueror, press F5.
What this does is give you a little button on the left hand side of your screen. See the "Toolbox" menu under the Wikipedia globe? Click that, then click "Page size". This will tell you how many words the article is. "Monoskin" is nothing. As for rollover, you haven't participated in any previous drives, so it would not apply to you anyway. Think of it as credit (or words) that if you don't fully use in one drive, you can save for the next. If you have anymore questions, or even need me to give you credit, just ask. Nolelover It's football season! 02:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thanks for you help. I eventually got it. But it was not easy. I do get frustrated when the very easy directions are not in plain English. I think that the language could be simpler. --Ishtar456 (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll work on that, if you'll tell me what was confusing for you. And it's very easy for me to give you credit if you just tell me what articles you've done - I can get it from there. Hope this anwsers your questions. Nolelover It's football season! 02:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Drop in numbers[edit]

Hi, Just wanted to leave a note here regarding the drop in numbers. In case you are wondering why there is a fairly significant drop in numbers, it is because I am running AWB and removing the wikify tag from articles when it is no longer appropriate. It will slow me down a lot if I have to record the word count for each article, so I am not going to do that (I have to run through over 20,000+ articles!). I don't mind not getting any credit for it for the drive. I'm just posting this here in case anyone is wondering where the missing numbers are coming from. This run will probably take a few days to complete. – SMasters (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That's one way... :) Nolelover It's football season! 04:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the numbers today, we started with 22,000 tags, the drive participants have worked on 328 articles, and the current backlog now stands at 21,277. Ignoring the new December tags at 570 (as of now), I estimate that the AWB run has reduced the backlog by some 965 articles (22,000-21,277-328+570). I am somewhere halfway through the AWB run, but now I have run into some problems with some editors who disagree with other edits that AWB is making, so I have to stop, or slow down tremendously. (I was so close to 1,000). Anyway, I hope this has helped, and I will try to join the drive proper and do some manual wikification work. But I hope this helped clean-up the articles a bit for all those who are currently participating, and hopefully helped to prune the list down to a more realistic figure. Cheers. – SMasters (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
And thanks very much SMasters. Nolelover It's football season! 14:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
But as I stated at SMaster's talk page, isn't the rationale for removing wikify tags based strictly on the number of internal links going to produce a lot of false negatives? The wikify template specifically states that "although this template is commonly used when a page has no wikilinks, it is not limited to just that. It could also refer to any form of wiki-markup, such as bolding/italicizing of text or formatting standard headings and layout, including the addition of infoboxes and other templates, ie 'wikipedification'." (bold added) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I haven't seen all the articles he was removing the tags from, in fact I've only seen one, but I would assume that SM knows when an article doesn't need a wikify tag. Nolelover It's football season! 17:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not here to impugn to SM. But he stated the rationale he is/must follow as "AWB treats the wikify tag like this: 'Appends {{wikify}} if article has < 3 wikilinks or the number of wikilinks is smaller than 0.25% of article's size. Removes tag otherwise.'" If that is indeed the policy or practice AWB users are told to follow, then it does seem like internal link counting is taking precedence over the other aspects of what a wikify tag means, and articles may be de-wikified that should not have been. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
For the record, that definition is not from me, but from the manual of AWB. While other forms of markup can be done while wikifying a page, it also comes under the purview of the {{copyedit}} tag, which does look at WP:MOS issues. As a member of WP:GOCE, I'm not trying to make more work for members there, nor am I trying to increase the copyedit backlog, which the GOCE has been trying hard to reduce. AWB's definition is purely looking at internal links (their definition). If this is wrong, then please put a note on their page. Again, I am only trying to help. Cheers. – SMasters (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I want to thank SM for inviting me to this page. Its not Shawn's job to report issues to AWB. SM is is the one using AWB and its his responsibility to insure that AWB works correctly and discuss bad configuration with AWB. The Wikify template and project page clearly state that wikifying involves several improvements such as wikilinks, layout and markup. Switching wikify tags for cleaning tags might be legal, but are pointless edits. We're all trying to help here. Slightsmile (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Huh? Am I missing something? It seemed Shawn was suggesting that the removal of 'Wikify' tags is based on the number of Wikilinks, and not on any other aspects that wikification includes. Neither of the above two responses seem to answer that. Swarm X 03:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
See the above post of 15:52, 6 December 2010 : it is not limited to just that. It could also refer to any form of wiki-markup, such as bolding/italicizing of text or formatting standard headings and layout, including the addition of infoboxes and other templates ... Slightsmile (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, see the post below, "How to wikify". Slightsmile (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Oops, you have a post there so you did see it. Slightsmile (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm a little confused; but I would be a little careful in removing Wikify tags based purely on wikilink count. Wikifying is, actually, just as often about formatting tweaks. Even more; it can often be about removing crazy numbers of bad links. I'd say... an AWB run is a good start point - but consider each article individually for removal --Errant (chat!) 21:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Err...like Errant, I got lost in this conversation pretty quickly. I've looked over a few of the articles SM removed the wikify tag from, and they were all justified. From what I've seen, the AWB run did work, although each article should have been taken on a case by case basis. Nolelover It's football season! 14:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to attack any particular editor, but as Nolelover saw valid removal of wikify tags, I have seen several editors remove wikify tags from articles that still had layout problems. Just a blob of text that nobody is going to bother reading. A lot of editors wrongly think an article is wikified when a few wikilinks are made. When I was wikifying during the summer, it was always with an eye to make it nice for the readers. What am I missing? Slightsmile (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
...but after further review, I must admit that some of the articles should not have had the wikify tag taken off without a couple minor fixes. While most of the articles in question had no problem when it comes to wikilinks, a few had odd section headers or needed bold/italic fixes - nothing that couldn't have been done in a couple seconds. Nolelover It's football season! 22:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's have a look at some numbers. Participants in the October drive wikified 373 articles. There are 8,612 articles from 2009, or an average of 718 per month; and there are 11,275 for 2010 (and still growing), or an average of 940 articles per month. Going by these numbers, one can easily see that the drives will never be able to completely eliminate the backlog, this is fine as it is only supposed to help reduce it. However, it is clear that even this is a completely uphill battle, that cannot be won. If you feel that the AWB formula for removing the wikify tag is incorrect, then I can request that this function be removed from AWB. There is no other way about it. AWB is not fully automated like a bot, but it is semi-automated. It needs to be in order for AWB users to be able to go through and fix thousands of articles. If AWB is correct the vast majority of the time, and other tags do exist for things like {{Lead missing}}, {{Lead too short}}, {{Inadequate lead}}, {{Sections}}, etc. Then why not let AWB remove the wikify tag? If December hits the figures close to the last 3 months (of over a thousand), then unfortunately, it looks like the December drive would have hardly made a dent in the figures. In fact, the number of articles with the wikified tag will actually increase! Please do not take my comments the wrong way. I am merely trying to be realistic with the figures here. A few of us were using AWB to try and help this project a bit. At the end of this year, it looks set that there will still be over 20,000 articles that need to be wikified. Project wikifiy really does need to look at the definition of what "to wikify" means. As I have mentioned before, there are other projects out there that address some of the other issues that have been brought up in this discussion. But is the project and its broad definition of wikify, causing it to bite more than it can chew? Some food for thought. – SMasters (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with the numbers game. The purpose of the wikify list is not to remove articles from the list but to make them presentable to the readers. That's the only bottom line. I see articles that technically conform to the rules but are still an eye sore and should remain until they are acceptable. Common sense trumps all other arguments. Slightsmile (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
SMasters, I never intended to criticise BTW. There are a large number of articles that can have the tag removed, or be trivially fixed (I've been trying to come up with a good way to work through them). I was just clarifying that it is best to give each one a quick check, which I am sure was the case. I see your point r.e. the size of the backlog - but artificially reducing the count in a way which might leave articles still needing work is only part of the solution IMO :) --Errant (chat!) 12:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Not only is it not even only part of the solution but its counterproductive. Somebody went through the trouble of placing those tags for a reason. Its so handy, volunteers so inclined have a ready list they can pick from to work on. Too easy. Slightsmile (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
"The purpose of the wikify list is not to remove articles from the list." I agree completely. But what is the definition of wikify? That is what needs to be looked at. If the AWB formula is or is not acceptable, make a decision on this. Don't blame AWB users who follow what is set for the wikify tag as opposed to what the intention of this project presents. Again, I'm only trying to put forward some "fruit for thought". – SMasters (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
No one is blaming anyone; AWB is, by definition, going to use a "best guess" over whether the article is Wikified. There is no real way to improve that. So the usual disclaimer applies; which is what I was trying to say - Wikification is not always easy to judge so it is definitely worth double checking! The definition of "wikify" is laid out below; it is largely the same as when I helped write (or rewrite, I forget) it at this projects inception in 2006 - maybe it needs a refresh? We may, as you say, need to look into whether AWB's checks can be modified and whether a better way (perhaps a prompt) could be used instead of complete removal --Errant (chat!) 15:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikify#AWB changes --Errant (chat!) 15:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I hate to seem like a bastard but tools such as Huggle, Twinkle AWB etc state that the user is 100 percent responsible for edits while using these tools. No if ands or buts. Slightsmile (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
We are not disputing who is responsible. We are discussing if the AWB definition of wikify is acceptable or not. If it can be tolerated, then AWB can be used to help reduce the high number of tags, which is currently is an impossible task. If not acceptable, then we need to get AWB to change it, and no one will be able to use AWB to help with wikifying. – SMasters (talk) 04:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
If AWB's definition of wikified conflicts with the the actual meaning of wikifying then yes, don't AWB for wikifying. You say say it's not about who is responsible and then in the same breath say it's AWB's fault. Repeating for the umptied time -
  1. It's not about numbers
  2. You, not AWB, are 100 percent responsible for edits using AWB Slightsmile (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say, "it's not about who is responsible". I said we are not disputing who is responsible. There is a difference. I am fully aware that I am responsible for the AWB edits. No need to go on and on about this. The main issue is whether AWB can remove the wikfy tag correctly through its normal semi-automated feature. I already offered an option to lobby AWB to have this removed completely from AWB if there is consensus for it. AWB is semi-automated, and normally does a good job at being able to fix most things, but perhaps not in this case. Cheers and peace. – SMasters (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay so we're cool then. All the best to you for the holidays. Slightsmile (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and to you too. Have a nice one! :-) SMasters (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Where did everything go?[edit]

I came to the page to check if I had recorded something correctly and I have no idea where everything is or why is is gone. If any one could tell me what exactly happened it would be nice. Sumsum2010·T·C 03:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Try refreshing the main page - everything important should work now. ǝɥʇM0N0farewell 03:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see! I think I got there in the middle of the update. Thanks, Sumsum2010·T·C 03:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok I got it now. However, is there a template that would make it so people on the leaderboard can still update their main log and leaderboard entry in one edit, as I normally do? Sumsum2010·T·C 03:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I have tried this new design of the drive and have some likes/dislikes about it:
  1. Home page looks nice
  2. When entering my numbers it takes more time & edits because of the need to switch from the main to the leaderboard
  3. Less intimidating overall
  4. Seems like things got a bit too spread out
My overall thoughts: Good job designing it Mono! However I prefer the previous version mainly because I have to update the leaderboard every time I update my count, making it simpler for me to have one page. Sumsum2010·T·C 04:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I like the new design a lot, mono. Swarm X 22:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree. I doubly-wholeheartedly welcome you back, Mono!!!! I think you can remove the farewell from your sig now, since you are back. WikiCopter (radiosortiesimagessimplicitylostdefenseattack) 00:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

How to wikify[edit]

...for those who are a little unsure on exactly what to do (like me):


  1. Add wikilinks. Where appropriate, make links to other articles by putting "[[" and "]]" on either side of relevant words (see WP:LINK for more information). . Note that dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting; in general, consensus is that there are very limited instances where linking of dates is desirable. Please do not link terms that most readers are familiar with, including common occupations (e.g. "actor/actress", "writer" and "politician"), well-known geographical terms (e.g. "United States", "Britain", "China", "Australia", "New York City" and "Los Angeles"), and everyday items (e.g. "milk", "glass", "house" and "road").
  2. Format the lead. Create or improve the lead paragraph.
  3. Arrange section headers. Arrange section headers as described at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.
  4. Replace html tags with wiki markup, where appropriate. The use of many html tags is discouraged where wiki markup equivalents are available: for example, replace <b>bold text</b> with '''bold text'''. However, this does not apply for all html tags: e.g., H<sub>2</sub>O. See Help:Wikitext examples for a useful list of common wikitext and non-deprecated html tags.
  5. Add an infobox if applicable. Add an infobox if it is appropriate for the article.

ǝɥʇM0N0farewell 03:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but should other aspects of layout not be included, such as the appropriate use of italics/bold/CAPS? Perhaps I'm mistaken about what "wikification" means. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
There's cursory wikification and thorough wikification. I would say if the article meets the following it is wikified:
  1. Subject of article bolded
  2. A lead, and (definitely, if not a stub) sections.
  3. Section headers more-or less correctly capitalised, and in wiki-markup
  4. A sprinkling of links
  5. One or more categories
  6. Any standard appendices with standard names
Stuff like italic tags is automatable (AWB does it for example) and should be done but I would say is not critical. Infoboxes, images, navboxen, tables are all "nice to haves". An article should
  • Look like a Wikipedia article
  • Behave like a Wikipedia article

then sans any gaucheries it is wikified. It may still be rubbish in many other ways.

Rich Farmbrough, 07:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC).

Problems with script[edit]

I've tried a couple different times to add the script and it's still not working for me. I added it, did the Ctrl-shift-R thing and manually cleared my cache, but nothing's working. Is it possible for me to just record the articles and someone else can get the word count? I'm sorry for the extra complication. PrincessofLlyr royal court 15:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No prob. Just tell me (or post here) what articles you've done and I'll be happy to do that for you. Nolelover It's football season! 15:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that would be terrific. What are you doing about pages that don't really need wikifying, or only minimally, and/or need something else done to them? See for example Nathura and also possibly A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. PrincessofLlyr royal court 18:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
First off, the former should be speedied as A10 (or redirected, as Mkativerata just did). Either way, there isn't much to wikify, and I'd just have removed the wikify tag and tagged it for CSD, which you did. A lot of the articles in the backlog really don't need that much, but if you do anything more then just remove the wikify template, you should take credit. The latter really doesn't need to be wikified, although I personally would cut down the Plot and Character sections by a bunch and take off the wikify template. Does that answer your questions? Nolelover It's football season! 21:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Perfectly. Thank you. I'll add a list of the articles I've worked on every few days. Again, I'm sorry about the extra work. PrincessofLlyr royal court 23:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
It's no biggie :) Ten seconds of clicking for each one. Nolelover It's football season! 02:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Okay, here's the initial list. Some of these I haven't had to do a lot, so just let me know if any of them need additional work.

Thanks, PrincessofLlyr royal court 15:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

And there you go! Nolelover It's football season! 15:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! You can add these too:

PrincessofLlyr royal court 04:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Got em. Nolelover It's football season! 15:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

PrincessofLlyr royal court 18:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I got those as well. Nolelover It's football season! 20:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Joyeux Noel!

Thanks, PrincessofLlyr royal court 19:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

PrincessofLlyr royal court 19:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I got those as well. If you get any more, make sure they get recorded by someone, since I'll be out of town. Nolelover It's football season! 00:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I will!! Thanks for participatin, Princess! Last time, I don't think you did. Were busy or something. WikiCopter (radiosortiesimagessimplicitylostdefenseattack) 01:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you. Just curious, but doesn't that put me above Nolelover on the # of words leader board? PrincessofLlyr royal court 02:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Gaaargh! Yes, it does. :) I'll update that. Nolelover It's football season! 07:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I will take care of that too. Nolelover, how was vacation? WikiCopter (radiosortiesimagessimplicitylostdefenseattack) 23:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm on it right now! I'm currently in a hotel in Texas. :) They had a computer, and I just had to check in again before I'm most likely totally off for the next couple days. Nolelover It's football season! 15:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
While you're around, could you explain how to set the catscan parameters to get articles tagged in 2008? I tried using "all articles that need to be wikified; novels; 2008", but that came up with a whole weird mix of things related to '08, not just the ones tagged then. Thanks, PrincessofLlyr royal court 15:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
What you need to do is put the following in the box for categories:
Books [or whatever]
Articles that need to be wikified from July 2008
Articles that need to be wikified from August 2008
Articles that need to be wikified from September 2008
Articles that need to be wikified from October 2008
Articles that need to be wikified from November 2008
Articles that need to be wikified from December 2008
Now, below categories box, there are a few checkboxes. Check only the one that says "At least" and put "2" in the box after it. This means that only articles in at least two of the categories will be displayed. Guoguo12--Talk--  16:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Chart and Proposals[edit]

The chart isn't displaying 200,000 as the goal anymore, for one thing.

Never mind, I saw it. WikiCopter (radiosortiesimagessimplicitylostdefenseattack) 02:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

For the second, next year I'd like the third column to be Articles from 2008. The current choice was my own arbitary choice from the copyedit drive, and it has nothing to do with the wikification. There are very few 5k articles in any case. WikiCopter (radiosortiesimagessimplicitylostdefenseattack) 02:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, I can't find the awards in the new system anymore. I already posted at Mono's talk, I hope this gets to someone. WikiCopter (radiosortiesimagessimplicitylostdefenseattack) 02:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I had noticed that as well, but knowing that it's in the history, I hadn't thought much about it. Nolelover It's football season! 03:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I just put the award gallery on the Instructions(What to do) page. Sumsum2010·T·C 03:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Nolelover It's football season! 03:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Good. WikiCopter (radiosortiesimagessimplicitylostdefenseattack) 04:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Another big drop in numbers[edit]

Today over 300 articles were apparently wikified, and the total number is going down by a couple every few minutes. With the previous incident in mind, does anyone know anything about this? Nolelover It's football season! 03:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I have found that Diannaa was doing another AWB run. I just wanted to make sure some vandal wasn't randomly removing tags from articles. Nolelover It's football season! 03:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I apologise for doing AWB runs; I did not see the discussion above with SMasters until just a few minutes ago. I will not do it this way any more if your group does not approve. I am sure, though, that many tags were added using automated software, so there is no reason not to remove them that way. In many cases the maintenance tags are added to the article when it is first patrolled by new page patrollers, and is not removed by subsequent users because they are not entirely sure what wikification means. AWB seems to have very few false positives so I hope I haven't made a big mistake doing it this way.:( By the way I am not counting these removals in the drive totals; only my manually done work is included on the charts. --Diannaa (Talk) 05:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Err, I looked over many of the articles you removed the template from, and I agree with the vast majority of them. I don't think we ("we" being the WWF) do not approve of these AWB runs, but many/some of the articles that SMasters removed tags from still needed to be wikified in some way, and that obviously led to problems. That said, I entirely agree with what you say about new-page patrollers adding the tags, and the template languishing there long after the article has been improved. I mentioned this to some other editors, and for this reason, I think these AWB runs are needed (at least once - next drive, they won't be necessary, due to their having been done now). Anyway, are we going to ask the AWB developers to modify the formula used to determine if the wikify tag should be taken off? Nolelover It's football season! 07:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for checking my work. I am glad the majority look ok. I have posted a note for the AWB people and will let you know what response I get. You are right; once we have gone over the entire backlog with the automated tool, it won't have to be done that way again for a while. But it propbably should be done occasionally, as the group can then focus its efforts on the articles that actually need wikification. There is just so much to do: there are 178,000 articles needing coords; 5000 needing copy edit; 17,000 unreferenced BLPs; and so on. The more uses we can find for these automated tools the better. If we want the world to take Wikipedia seriously as a valuable resource we have to clean up as much of these messes as possible, and automated tools can help our human editors focus their work on the material that needs it the most. --Diannaa (Talk) 18:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
As you can see the discussion has kinda stalled on the wikify tag as viewed through AWB. I am up to July 2010 and the articles from there to the end are a lot less developed; I am getting a much larger number of false positives. I will carry on till the end if my interest holds out that long. Typically I will add section headers if there are obvious ones; add copy edit tags to articles that need that kind of work; fill in some of the metadata; light copy edits. I will skip and will leave the wikify tag in place on any that need more work than that. --Diannaa (Talk) 01:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Leave the last seven months alone, and go back onto the old months. Maybe you will pick up something you missed. WikiCopter (radiosortiesimagessimplicitylostdefenseattack) 00:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I will. Going through July 2010 was not very productive as I only found one article that needed no modification before the Wikify tag could be removed. Merry Christmas! --Diannaa (Talk) 18:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that going through articles tagged in '08 would show a vast difference, which possibly proves the system is working :) I guess our aim is not to clear the backlog so much as to make sure it stays within what is reasonably possible for the wider Wiki community to "get to eventually" :) I suspect that any aim of wikifying all articles prior to '10 to any degree of completeness would be an entirely inhuman effort :P --Errant (chat!) 00:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Increase in numbers[edit]

Does anybody want to shed light on why the number of articles needing wikification jumped from 19,275 to over 20,000 in the last week? Guoguo12--Talk--  02:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, speaking of strange increases, why did the number of articles needing wikification from 2008 go up between December 25 and December 26? Guoguo12--Talk--  02:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Drive activity winding down, and people tagging articles at a very fast pace. The '08 articles did go down. Where are you looking to see the increase? Sumsum2010·T·C 02:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
On the log page. Note the number for December 26 is higher than that of December 25. Guoguo12--Talk--  02:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I was looking at the wrong row! Maybe a miscalculation my by me? Sumsum2010·T·C 04:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe. How do you calculate the number for 2008 anyway? Do you manually add the numbers up? Guoguo12--Talk--  15:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
That's how I've always done it. Adding 5-8 months can't be that hard. Nolelover It's football season! 15:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, okay, I was just wondering if there was some tool you guys use. Guoguo12--Talk--  15:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
That is also how I get the number.Sumsum2010·T·C 18:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I've found that a lot of the wikify tags from this month were added by Yobot using AWB (although it also removed some). Unfortunately, some of the tags are erroneous (e.g., [1],[2], [3]). Should we bring this up at the owner's talk page? Guoguo12--Talk--  15:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
So it could be a broken bot? Sumsum2010·T·C 18:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, Yobot is a legitimate bot that uses AWB, but according to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 11, Yobot isn't authorized to tag pages with {{wikify}}. So... Guoguo12--Talk--  18:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
You're right, it actually specifies not being able to touch wikify tags! Maybe report it to the creator of the bot? Sumsum2010·T·C 23:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I already did here. The owner's reply linked to Wikipedia_talk:AWB#Wikify, which was started by Diannaa after the discussion above ("Another big drop in numbers"). Guoguo12--Talk--  01:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... so just wait and see what happens over there. Sumsum2010·T·C 01:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. Guoguo12--Talk--  01:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, what is happening is nothing at all; the discussion is over a week old. I guess there's no point in crying over spilled milk anyway. Guoguo12--Talk--  19:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Just a note,
The graph looks wrong again, I will have to check again. WikiCopter (radiosortiesimagessimplicitylostdefenseattack) 22:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Barnstars for Wikification drive.[edit]

Are the barnstars going to be handed out soon? It's been nearly a week since the drive ended, and nobody seems to have gotten any. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that I'm back, I'll start that process. Anyone else is welcome to help out. Nolelover It's football season! 00:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
There, I think that's everyone. Now, does anyone mind giving one to (ahem...) me? I just don't feel right giving it to myself. Nolelover It's football season! 01:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
All done! I just have one question about my barnstar, I received the correct level barnstar but the wordcount is less my 5000 rollover words, should I change this or just leave it as it is and remember to make the calculation in February? Sumsum2010·T·C 02:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that you had 76K this drive, and 5K rollover, which is why I obviously gave you the 80K Barnstar. However, because I was congratulating participants for their work in this drive, I only listed the wordcount for December. I wouldn't mind going back in the middle of our next drive and making sure that all the editor's rollover wordcount was correct, so I'd think you can leave as is and make the small calculation in February. I'll do the tedious work for the majority if you can take care of yourself. Nolelover It's football season! 00:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Alright, if you want me to I can help you on the next drive with this. Sumsum2010·T·C 00:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
It's just a matter of going through each person's previous entries and making sure that they have their rollover words correct, if they have them at all. Tedious, but easy. Nolelover It's football season! 00:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)