Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikify/Drives/2012/June

Wikified articles with Wikify Tag

So what do we do about articles that are basically fine, already wikified or whatever that still bare the tag. I've been removing them as I come across them, they aren't all that common, but some articles need very little work compared to others. Most of the ones I find just have a lack of interwiki links rather then formatting or coding problems. Some of the sporting ones cannot even have good tables built because there is no context for the source to verify what is what, and I've had to mark others accordingly for issue unrelated to Wikifying. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If no wikification is required due to an incorrect tag placement I remove the tag, add a new tag if appropriate, and if necessary add {{nowikify}} to the initial tagger's talk page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

And BTW, if no changes where made to the article except the removal/addition of tags (e.g. Fascia (phone)), then please don't log it as you didn't actually "wikify" it. (see this discussion).

Also consider that Jeff Farias, for instance, could have done with more wikifying than provided. I have fixed this myself but i fear this issue may extend to more than just this one article (which was confirmed by randomly clicking through your list). Cheers, benzband (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll recheck my articles, I thought I had added the persondata and info box to all the bios already. Strange. I really don't care about some award or whatever, seems to be egotistical, but when the issue of actions came up, I looked the other editors, including Wilhelmina Will's edits. [1] [2] [3] and so on with numerous other articles as listed below. It may have just been random luck, but I'll point that further on down in its own section, since I think it is a discussion matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The drive (and awards) are set up mainly to add some spice to the otherwise repetitive task of wikification, thus encouraging editors to join in the task and reducing the backlog. Problem is, people sometimes tend to go for "quantity rather than quality", so to speak, because quantity is what is measured in the drive. But think: removing the tags just for the sake of clearing the backlog category defeats the purpose of having such a category; so it's not actually helping unless the tags shouldn't have been there in the first place. The idea then is to remove tags when and where needed, but without logging these instances so as to not encourage any inappropriate tag removal.

For my part i don't participate in the actual drive but that doesn't stop me from wikifying (it helps to have more time and just do it because i want to rather than competition ~ that's what we're here for).

If you wikify an article and you're pleased with what you've done, you can also add {{wikified|your username here}} to it's talkpage. benzband (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Deathlaser wikification issues

I noticed that Deathlaser was wikifying many pages incredibly fast so I did a quick review, the first one I saw was Barewal diff. I am including the problems with the wikification of Barewal and will just list the other articles I believe were done incorrectly. My reasoning for listing them will be provided upon request.

Wikilinks were added without thought to pages such as Located (DAB page), economically (possibly uneccessary, a minor issue), wikilink to Bhagwant rather than Bhagwant Mann, inappropriate wikilink to surname Grewal when the mention was of the individual "Samrat Grewal". Wikilink to innapropriate non-existent page recognized. Missing wikilinks to Donald Trump, Warren Buffett, The Open Championship, Players Championship, US Open, and Canadian Open. Another option would have been to A)Remove the section on Samrat Grewal as it is not directly related to the town or B)Create a page on Samrat Grewal if he is determined to be notable, but those are not directly related to Wikification. Infobox was not added, this isn’t completely necessary but if he chose not to {{infobox requested}} should have been added to the talk page.

1. Bangladesh Institute of Management diffY Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
2. African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa (Kampala Convention) diffY Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC) (woops, I noticed that Benzband beat me to this in an edit conflict, we should probably be using {{inuse}}
3. 80/20 (framing system) diff Y —Torchiest ^talk_edits
4. Satnam Dharm diff Redirected. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs}
5. Davison v. Von Lingen diff Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs}
6. Darra Singh diff
7. Danish Census Book diff (No action was even taken on this one) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs}
8. Dance Ireland diff
9. Manu Daftary diff (no action taken) Y —Torchiest ^talk_edits
10. Caillot v. Deetken diff Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs}
11. Daniel Burt (author) diff Y —Torchiest ^talk_edits
12. Martin Buhagiar diff Y —Torchiest ^talk_edits
13. George Burgess (entrepreneur) diff Y —Torchiest ^talk_edits
14. Charles Hamilton Bromby diff Y —Torchiest ^talk_edits
15. Brick clamp diff (no action taken) Y —Torchiest ^talk_edits
16. Frederick Thomas Brentnall diff Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs}
17. Michael Braun (drummer) diff Y —Torchiest ^talk_edits
18. John Bramston (Australian politician) diff undid bad edit(s), replaced tag —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
19. David Bower (politician) diff Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs}
20. Joseph Bosisto diff undid bad edit(s), replaced tag —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
21. Josiah Boothbydiff undid bad edit(s), replaced tag —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
22. Henry Bolton diffY Ryan Vesey Review me!
23. Bluebonnet Electric Cooperative diff Y —Torchiest ^talk_edits
24. Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores diff Y —Torchiest ^talk_edits
25. Henry Edward Bright diff Y —Torchiest ^talk_edits
26. Edwin Gordon Blackmore diff Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs}
27. Cuthbert Robert Blackett diff Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs}
28. Neil Black (Australian politician) diff Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs}
29. BIANCO diff (no action taken) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs}
30. The Best of Yes diffCleaned, added ref improve tag ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 20:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
31. Greg Bergdorf diff (blatant copyvio missed, fixed by me) (Ryan fixed)
32. Benny & Mice diff Y —Torchiest ^talk_edits
33. Marie Baum diff (no action taken and action was clearly needed) Y —Torchiest ^talk_edits
34. Basavaraj durga fort diff
35. Barra Bonita, São Paulo diff (no action taken, wikification was desired, but possibly unneccessary upon removal) looked okay —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
36. ACE (file format) diff undid bad edit(s), replaced tag —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
37. Sunil Mahadik diff (no action taken) Y —Torchiest ^talk_edits
38. Ion Constantinescu diff Y —Torchiest ^talk_edits
39. Collegium of Estates diff Y —Torchiest ^talk_edits
40. Request for waiver diff (No action taken, orphan tag was removed but was necessary or should have been marked with an attempted de-orphan parameter) Y —Torchiest ^talk_edits
41. United States Barista Championship diff undid bad edit(s), replaced tag —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
42. T-code diff Y —Torchiest ^talk_edits
43. Zona Sur (LMB) diff (no action taken, action was necessary) undid bad edit(s), replaced tag —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
44. Wendy Simms (cyclist) diff Y —Torchiest ^talk_edits
45. Trade compliance diff Y (Prodded) —Torchiest ^talk_edits
46. Thomas Brittain Vacher diff Y —Torchiest ^talk_edits
47. Human trafficking in Germany diff undid bad edit(s), replaced tag —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
48. Reginald L. Jones diff Y —Torchiest ^talk_edits
49. Sweet F.A. (TV series) diff undid bad edit(s), replaced tag —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
50. Henry Twiselton Elliston diffY Ryan Vesey Review me!
51. Larry Tanenbaum diff

    Wikify tag re-added, it is late so I can't just do the work at this momentdiff Ryan Vesey Review me! 07:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

52. Beer in Slovenia diffY Ryan Vesey Review me!
53. 2009 Peshawar judicial complex bombing diff Y Ryan Vesey Review me!
54. Fairy lamp diff Shearonink (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
55. RSUA Bronze Medal diffY Ryan Vesey Review me!

I would like to see difs from Deathlaser showing that he has either re-applied the wikify tags, undone his edits, or properly wikified each of the above articles. Furthermore, all pages that aren't fixed by him should be removed from his list and all pages for which he took no action should be removed from his list. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ahh ... the old problem (users who believe wikifying is only adding links, and lots of them) that keeps cropping up. I only had to look through a couple to see the issue; Ryan, thanks for bringing this up. To the best of my knowledge, DL is completely good-faith, and so hopefully some guidance and maybe having him redo these first 60 will be enough. I've notified DL's ex-adopter about this and will wait for those two before commenting further. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not part of the wikify drive but I came across this and started fixing one of them up (The Best of Yes). Not finished yet. I hope it's okay that I did that. (I quite like Yes, y'see.) ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 23:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated OohBunnies; we certainly don't have any monopoly on the 20k article backlog :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 23:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I certainly think that they were good faith and I fear that due to the fact that I was in a rush, my post didn't reflect that. I posted them here because I believe that it is necessary that these be fixed or else they might never be changed. I will begin working on some of these in a couple of days. I hope that people will strike these if they fix them so we can keep track of what needs to be changed. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Nolelover for letting me know about this, and sorry for my late reply. (I was incredibly busy yesterday preparing my students for a piano recital that will take place tonight.) Unfortunately Deathlaser has retired for the second time, but if he (hopefully) returns, help him understand the true meaning of the word "wikify". According to the glossary, wikification "commonly refers to adding internal links to material (Wikilinks) but is not limited to just that. To wikify an article could refer to applying any form of wiki-markup, such as standard headings and layout, including the addition of infoboxes and other templates, or bolding/italicizing of text." For now, redoing the wikification for all of the articles DL has wikified is a good idea. →Bmusician 13:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Since Deathlaser is no longer here, I am going to start working on these now. I will wait on dipankan's below so he has a chance to correct them and receive the credit. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I am going on break (again), so cannot help again, for the following reasons:

1. You tell me what to do too much
2. You need stubs to be perfect, if they are not perfect, you make me seem like a criminal with those ultra-harsh comments
3. Wikipedia is killing my grades
4. Half of you will be celebrating if I leave
5. I'd rather spend this time playing games :).--Deathlaser (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I reckon that's that. I have blanked his entries in the drive. Let's clean this up and move on. Torchiest, thank you very much for helping out back here :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • My Wikipedia Experience is now officially over, what a shame. So why are you linking to LadyofShalott's talk page?
  • BTW: MMRPGs are so much fun, so why did I waste my time on Wikipedia?--Deathlaser (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, if you need to ask...
    • They are fun. I started on RuneScape and played for years. However, those games are also of no long term benefit to you at all, whereas here at Wikipedia I have learned much of the nuances of the English language (not that I don't still have a lot to learn), met some great people and enjoyed contributing to something worth contributing to. How's WoW compare to that?
    • Anyway, Deathlaser, if I can ever help you in any way, I'd be happy to. I hope your break goes well. :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we might need to look back at Deathlaser's work in the April drive as well. The Longlight Legacy, for example, doesn't look to have been properly wikified. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I went through the remaining ones and undid the bad edits, or marked ones that had been dealt with in other ways. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Dipankan001 wikification issues

I also did a search through Dipankan's articles, and will continue to do spot checks (and full checks if I see issues) of other editors. I have included some of the problems with the first two articles and can provide my reasonings upon request.

1. Modern High School & College diff

   Wikilinks added inappropriately. Pupils is wikilinked which heads to an article about the eye, not the student. Public is linked when it should go to state school. It is probably inappropriate to wikilink high-school and college becuse they are part of a name. Lead wasn't reformatted correctly and inappropriate bolding was left throughout. An infobox would have been desired.

2. Counselors for Social Justice diff

   Links to DAB pages, unneccessary links

3. Eli and Edythe Broad Art Museum diff
4. Gennady Konyakhin diff
5. Rogerio Miguel Puga diff
6. Picot of Cambridge diff
7. Document Freedom Day diff
8. Consular office butuan diff
9. Digor (sports) diff
10. Individual physical proficiency test diff
11. Tyne Consort – Quartet & Early Music Ensemble diff

Just like those in the above section, these should be fixed or undone with particular attention paid to removing links to disambiguation pages, links that go to a page other than what the word is referring to, and compliance with WP:OVERLINK Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Advice for new wikifiers

Due to some of the problems I have been seeing I thought I would leave some advice. First, make sure you have read through Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/Drives/Instructions,

Wikilinks

When you add Wikilinks to an article make sure you follow each link to make sure it goes where you plan. Links to disambiguation pages should be avoided. If you cannot confirm the desired result, add {{disambiguation needed}} after the link. Red links should also be avoided, but can be added when you believe the subject of the link should have its own article. Pay particular attention to WP:OVERLINK and avoid wikilinking common things unless it is specifically related to the article. For example, it would normally be inappropriate to link dog; however, it is appropriate in the article fox. Also remember that it is unnecessary to wikilink dates. Finally, it is almost always inappropriate to add the same wikilink more than one time. Consider adding User:Ucucha/duplinks to allow you to check the article after you have wikified it for duplicate links.

Lead

Format or create the lead paragraph. All articles should contain the title of the article bolded in the first sentence and it should define the topic of the article. If a stub is too short to have a lead section, make sure the title is still bolded in the first sentence

Sections

If appropriate, break the article up into sections.

Other issues

Make sure that {{persondata}} is added to an article about a person. In addition add {{L}} to articles about people. An infobox should be added if appropriate, if an infobox could be added but you don't have enough information or time consider adding {{infobox requested}} to the talk page. If coordinates would be appropriate for an article add {{coord missing}}. Finally, your first step should be to check for copyvio. All of the above issues are moot if there is copyvio in the article. If you find some, check the edit history and see if you can revert to a version prior to introduction. If you cannot, consider adding {{Copyvio}} or {{db-copyvio}}.

If anyone else can add to this advice, please do so. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

References: Linkrot should be fixed and references should be properly formatted (using citation templates)? benzband (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Minimum work for addition?

Okay, as mentioned above apparently just removing the wikify tag equates to 'zero credit', even if I properly check the resource, verify, and add a helpful tag referring to the actual problem with the article on the page. [4] The source was terrible so I added the ref-improve and cited a more popular term and noted the reason in my tag. This is quite clearly more work then numerous other entries by other editors who make other minor edits like these three. [5] [6] [7] Or the pile or ones listed above. There are many many more present as well, so the question of the matter is, what is the minimum work required for addition to a 'done list', even removing the tag removes the article from the wikify list.

It sounds nitpicky to say my Fascia article had less work done and shouldn't be counted when a dozen plus have less work then it, yet are counted. This just seems like an arbitrary way to discount the good-faith edits of others, while I am new to this drive and the ways of 'scoring', I can make mistakes like not adding an info box to one article, but I clearly have added them to others. Such as [8] [9] [10] and other ones which I do limited Wikifying I still add appropriate comments, tags and do some work as needed. [11]

Basically, I record which ones I do whether or not much work was done because of two reasons:

1. Other editors do it quite frequently and a minimum amount of work is sometimes not clearly shown by just the results of the tag. Oftentimes, I spend more time looking for verifiable links and reading through the article or analyzing a stub then it takes to work on it. It seems silly to arbitrarily say my work on Fascia which required me to add to tags and a specific comment about the content or 18th-century American piracy of British literature minor wikify, tag and listing of the dispute on the talk page required less work then numerous examples above.
2. Articles which have their tags removed are not easily peer reviewed. I've done this for articles before to keep track of them for my own sake as much as my peers. If there is a problem I would like a second set of eyes on the matter because I am not an expert at Wikifying and I'm still learning.

Additionally, I had previously marked articles as such, until I broke the article format page and was trying to fix it because I couldn't see the error. I had logged them under the completed ones with 'Removed tag/No work required' [12] Do to breaking of the formatting I battled it for awhile and had to leave before I fixed it, even another editor's 'fix' didn't fix the format of my list and I had to do so myself.

I sincerely believe that if I put back the 'Removed tag/No work required' the issues of other editors could be addressed and I rather not toss out articles from the backlog where checking becomes nearly impossible to peer review them. Though the whole 'work done' matter is a concern, I really prefer since additional eyes are upon the work, that even if 'no work' is done that we still list them because someone else could find a problem that wasn't fixed. If the list is separate and 'not counted' or independent of say a counted list, would that be better? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

TLDR: Make separate 'removed tag/no work/little work' lists? Peer review is possible and important. I have concerns with the identification of what constitutes as 'credit' versus 'no credit' work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Chris. Please read my comment further up the page. Having randomly clicked on some articles in your list, i thought a bit of constructive criticism/advice might be appreciated. I did not doubt your good faith, but just wanted to help. If we are here to build an encyclopedia, might as well do it as best we can. But then again, do whatever you feel is right. Just remember that the whole world is reading it. benzband (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wouldn't deny that you do a descent amount of work to check an article to discover that no wikification is needed. Since we are early in the drive, I wouldn't oppose allowing you to list those articles in the working section. We could get some other editors to work out how to score them. We could count them as a half or create a second scoring system. It is true that removing them helps the backlog. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It was never questionable that removing them helps the backlog (when appropriate), but i don't think that counting as "halves" is a good idea. IMHO, they should be either counted fully, or not at all. Also bear in mind that if everyone starts removing tags inappropriately or without wikifying properly it will do more damage than good to the backlog. benzband (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Benzband has a point there. It is always easier to remove a tag than to wikify an article so I feel that we would have a lot of editors inappropriately removing the tags. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay was making a post at AFD. Could I just put the ones I removed the tag from into an appropriately tagged list separate from the ones which count? I'm all up for peer review, I'm not going to try an fly in the face of consensus or anything. I just have a tendency to record things I do, especially when other eyes can verify whether or not the actions taken were good. I previously had them listed like that because the work was so minor I didn't feel it counted either, as noted in my diff. If I remove the tag and don't list them and it turns out I didn't Wikify fully then it might go to waste, besides if we are going to get the tags under 19,500 should we not record which ones we've done something to? I'll gladly put up the 'No/little work done, do not count these' list again, but as I was corrected before for missing a bio tag, an extra set of eyes checking even ones which WON'T count, couldn't hurt. After all, if I remove the tag and it does need work, it will be difficult to find it again. Oh, and I appreciate the help, I want to make Wikipedia better, and not being told of my mistakes doesn't help me fix them. I try to self-monitor, but I am still new to wikifying like this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh...Ryan, did you notice that Fascia (phone) is one of those stubs that will be repeatedly tagged by AWB because it only has two links? Maybe your parameter would be pretty useful. Now Chris, in this case I'd advocate for a hearty mix of IAR and common sense. If you have put the work into the article, then go ahead and list it, even if you didn't technically add any links, or organize the article at all. Seriously, we can AGF all little over which barnstar you will get at the end of the month. Ben/Ryan, I hope I'm not overstepping my boundaries in saying that if Chris is careful enough to bring this up on the talk page, he's probably competent enough to quickly learn the ropes and be able to tell when he's done enough work to count an article. I'll give you an idea of what I do, which is roughly the same situation. If I randomly click 10 stubs that need to be wikified, odds are that only 3-5 will actually need any measurable work. As such, for the other seven, I'll wikify, cleanup, tag for deletion or otherwise edit them before randomly adding just one or two of those to stand in on my list. This way I feel like I'm putting in a bit more work per listed article, while still removing multiple articles from the backlog. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I have gutted my 54 entries and putting them in a do not count pile. I have also loaded the list of articles to be wikified into my AWB and rechecking them so that false tags can be removed in advance of my work. I've removed more then 20 under such a criteria, many outdated tags that were not removed when the article was improved. Many of these have the infobox and sections that they did not when they were first tagged. Sadly I've also placed probably that many new tags during my AWB use to find and remove all the typos on Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

AA-Association done. Ignored many just missing infoboxes. So that's 350+ checked with 10% that needed no work at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

People using {wikify} tag incorrectly

I have seen too many articles tagged with wikify when they should have been tagged with something else. The article I am currently working on was tagged as wikify with reason: references need cleanup. I always go ahead and fix any problems I see before removing the wikify tag, even though it isn't necessary. My question is, how can we prevent this? Based on my experience, I would say at least half of the articles tagged for wikification are not actually in need of wikification. Should there be a one day temporary ban for using the wikify tag incorrectly? I am unsure how to solve this problem, what are your ideas? Athleek123 (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The main thing is informing the person who tagged it. And make sure you are checking all of the reasons. The tag may have been added because it was lacking an infobox or used html when wiki markup should have been used. If it was truly added incorrectly, you can add {{nowikify}} to the talk page of the person who added the tag. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Will do, thanks! Athleek123 (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

User:3family6 wikification issues.

I just stumbled upon one of the articles in User:3family6 wikified articles list, and what I found that he had just removed the wikify tag and no change made to the article itself. The article is s-block and diff. There might be similar issues with other articles too. VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  09:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the concern, but here I don't think any action is necessary. The only concern laid out in the template was organization, and the one section header 3family6 added took care of that. I glanced through a couple others, and they looked okay. Ryan/Sumsum/Ben? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 12:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I dislike these science articles that don't follow any reasonable style. My recent edit fixed the section issue that I saw and then this fixed an example of unconventional layout. It might be good to create a wikitable out of the Diagonal relationship section. The properties section should be reformatted, it is set up like a talk page discussion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sandbox

Why is this page part of the category "Articles that need to be wikified with reasons given" (along with a bunch of others)? Doesn't look like it belongs there. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a sandbox page for use by Twinkle, I'll make a bot request that something clears it out occasionally. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, there is actual content history on that page. I'll make a note at WP:AN. It might be useful to split the content history from the sandbox history. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Articles that need to be wikified with reasons given

I've been working on this backlog since it's a goal of the drive, but am starting to run into a couple of problems. The articles tagged with a reason seem to be very recently Twinkle-tagged by new-page patrollers. Many have been created by new editors who disregard an {{in use}} tag (which makes the articles difficult to work on), so I'm going back to the "regular" backlog. Any suggestions for working on this category? All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I would figure you could just ignore the ones with construction tags, trusting that whoever is working on them will handle the other tags eventually. Here's a way you can isolate the ones that don't have that problem.

1. Go to this page.
2. Set the Depth value to 5.
3. Copy/paste "Articles that need to be wikified with reasons given" into the Categories box.
4. Copy/paste "Pages actively undergoing construction" and "Pages actively undergoing a major edit" into the Negative Categories box.
5. Click Do it!.

That should give you the list you want. Right now, searching with only the top category and searching with the two negative categories included seems to give the same results, meaning no articles in the first category have those two construction tags on them, I think. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much; the article I had trouble with (Centers For Disease Deterrence and boy, is that an odd entity) had no {{under construction}} tag, but I appreciate the chance to get more familiar with CatScan :-). All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Awards!

Sorry for being in too haste. But I want to know when are the awards going to be given. This will be my first. :) VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  08:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay, Vivek Rai; the editors who normally deliver the awards are likely burdened with detainments elsewhere. I'll see to the delivery later on today, if no one else can. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Phew! With all that running around I might consider entering a 5K... one of these days. XD Anyway, the job is done at last! Cheers, and see y'all at the next drive! :) Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Great job Will! Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 19:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)