Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change/CC-LinkAudit

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change

DRAFT and TEST PROCEDURE Please don't go great guns on this until we discuss and verify what we're doing.

Initial blather

edit

If we're going to really go through all the links to "climate change" and make sure they either point at climate change (general concept) or global warming we need a way to track our progress. I don't know if this is the best way, but it was suggested as an option. I prepared the list using WP:AWB. The search was based on "What links here directly" and limited to articles. I saved the list to a TXT file and then added formatting with Excel. And voila. Maybe there is an easier way, but I am going to try opening the ones that I check in an edit window, then search for "[[climate change]]" and "[[climate change|". After checking and correcting as needed, please mark it {{done}}~~~~

NEED TO DO

edit

We should probably write a short guide with some common changes, and maybe a standard edit summary to leave when saving, etc.

Suggestion Femkemilene

edit

As it's a lot of work put   Done after every page (1/3 of the work), I suggest we work in batches of at least 10, but maybe 100. Furthermore, with a possible name change from global warming -> climate change (my fav option) I think it's best not to burden ourselves with correcting these links. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of view this problem as a simple matter of WP:SOFIXIT when you run into it, but others think its a big deal, apparently. Speaking of, I'm confused what you think about the audit, Femke. Elsewhere I think I heard you say going through all these is the next thing we need to do. Did I misunderstand or are your thoughts still evolving? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for doing it now, but I want it done efficiently and I don't think this is the way forward. For testing purposes, it took me 20 minutes to corrected all links that should go to climate change (general system) from the 130 first entries of the excel sheet. What is your speed approximately? Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Widmanstätten pattern in my wedding ring formed faster. I'm all for a better method. Do you have any ideas? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. We take this excel file: here (made by Thjarkur), which also contains text snippets around the words climate change.
  2. We make on on-wiki table with ~50 slots of 100 pages and ask people to sign up for slots referring to the indexing in the excel sheet. (I've now done first 130 f.i.) (column a)
    1. Volunteers chose a slot (column b)
    2. Volunteers note and correct only pages that incorrectly point towards global warming
    3. Volunteers say that they're done (column c). We track changes in that on-wiki table
  3. Within a week, all done! (that's optimistic, but possible with say ten volunteers).

Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure we're talking about the same basic thing and this page originated from advice at the HelpDesk (this thread) partly from Þjarkur. Setting aside details about how we track the work, is the main time-saver in your method the fact that we would NOT burn up time editing to "bypass" the correct use of the [[climate change]] redirect? Said another way, I think you want us to ''not'' convert [[climate change]] to either [[global warming]] or [[climate change|global warming]] etc . Did I understand that correctly? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is one of the two timesavers, the others being that we only say 'done' every 100 articles, reducing admin load significantly. See table below. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm focussed on bypassing or not bypassing correct redirs. I can think of three strategy options to choose from.
Future-Strategy-Option 1 - Bypass all redirects manually.
This option is already rejected, I just put it here for a complete list when others arrive to read.
Future-Strategy-Option 2 - Allow most redirects to remain
You want to use this approach. I think the rationale includes belief that new incoming links will be created slowly, that pagewatchers will catch many of the EGG errors, and for errors that slip by, if anyone notices the error down the road they can WP:SOFIXIT without muss or fuss.
Future-Strategy-Option 3 - Use a super simple script with popup standard options to bypass the directs. Almost as fast as just reading it... You make your evaluation, then Bam! Click the standard option in the popup for your evaluation. The script does the editing (with occasional manual work for piped links).
Option 2 is desirable if we're certain no one is ever going to do such an audit ever again. Option 3 is desirable if there is a possibility of another audit in five or ten years and we want to spare future editors the pain of re-verifying all the correct ones.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

possible tracking table

edit
Link audit using this excel sheet
Article indices Volunteer Finished
1- 100 Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]   Done
101 - 200 Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]   Done
201 - 300 You?

I indeed think that new incoming links will be made slowly AND that most of the links to climate change (general concept) will be made by people with a higher level of expertise that know they need to check if the link goes to a general article or to the current episode of climate change. Pagewatchers and link-clickers will correct the rest. I think that in 5 years, we'll only have about 20 wrong links or something, nothing I would worry about. That script sounds good too in option 3, seems like not much more work. Except that for me most time is now spend on waiting for the page to be saved.. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The List and Tracking Progress

edit

List created by NewsAndEventsGuy 2019-10-313

Are they all marked "done"? HOORAY! Everyone who helped, please take a bow.

Suggestion which might reduce the amount of manual work

edit

Not wishing to risk a recurrence of the repetitive strain injury I have had in the past I am not volunteering to do any manual work on this. However looking through the spreadsheet of snippets linked above I can see that almost all of the first 100 articles in that spreadsheet are definitely about CURRENT climate change i.e. CURRENT global warming. Exactly 10 articles MIGHT be about climate change as a concept but would need checking manually. So if I looked through the whole spreadsheet I suspect I would be able to produce a list of less than 600 articles for someone else to check manually and, if necessary, amend to link to climate change as a concept. Then presumably the remainder could be either left as they are or dealt with by a redirect or some kind of automated process. If you would like me to look through the whole spreadsheet let me know. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you're recovering soon. My plan is roughly what you describe. I'll post in on the CC(GenCon) talk page, so that we can get going. We can always do a simplified version of NEAG's afterwards if we change our mind and want to get rid of all the CC redirecting links. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change/CC-LinkAudit&oldid=926181489"