Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Antarctica

message: As a first selection of articles to be created, I'm using the Times Concise Atlas of the World. The Antarctica map of this atlas has a few hundred names on it; I aim to create an article for each name in this atlas. Eugene van der Pijll 21:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are now articles on every feature named on that map except for those in Victoria Land and in the Transantarctic Mountains. Eugene van der Pijll 18:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The map of the Times Concise Atlas of the World 

message: Discussions between User:Eugene van der Pijll and User:Citylover mostly removed, for clarity. If you want, you can find them in the history: ; or see User:Citylover/Workinprogress/Eubot.
I've left some points that I had not yet answered. Eugene van der Pijll 15:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for [[User:Eubot|Eubot]]'s work 

message: :Add any additional comments
::I would generally suggest that Eubot inserts the articles automatically and not just creates the pages. The only question for me is when the moment is reached that Eubot should do it. I think that already at this moment now, Eubot is better than maybe 60% of human editors, especially the unexperienced ones (unexperienced in regard to creating new pages about geographical features in Antarctica). As soon as Eubot has reached the point when it is better than maybe 70% or 80% of human editors and almost no mistakes are found anymore, in my opinion, it would be wise to allow Eubot to create not only the lists, but also the original pages (unless this would be against copyright law, but this is a purely legal question). Otherwise, these articles might be created slowly but surely by others who might not find the pregenerated pages because they do not try out the Whatlinkshere-page and the work on Eubot was for nothing. -- Citylover 07:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I would only consider this if there is a general consensus that this is a good idea. Let's wait a week or so, to see if there are large improvements that can still be made. After that, I can mention this discussion on Wikipedia talk:Bots, and on the Missing articles project page (where there was some enthusiasm about these articles. If the people there think the articles are good enough, I'll upload the articles. Eugene van der Pijll 16:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed. Today, I worked on other pages but I have not forgotten this page yet... I hope I find time still today to check the entries until S generated by Eubot (probably I will also re-check my suggestions above at R and especially S and T. -- Citylover 15:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *I created dozens and dozens (hundreds maybe) based on the USGS GNIS. Doing it by hand is a (tedious) chore. A bot that could create new entries automatically from this public domain info would be most welcome. It should never try to overwrite an existing article - a human would need to verify that the previously existing article included the USGS info or disambiguation was needed. RedWolf 07:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: I found the following information on the talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles: "There are over 14,000 of them." This would mean that the number of articles is so huge that it is impossible to this with human work in a considerably short time and still in high quality: In order to achieve a high standard of quality, a human creator of these articles would have to do the tasks listed just below, some of them very prone to formal errors or typo errors. Most of these tasks could be done not only automatically, but also much faster and much more reliable than by humans:
* carefully create Wikilinks without mistakes inside the text (something that Eubot does automatically with hardly any mistakes now and hardly ever omitting any Wiklink to another geographical feature inside Antarctica that would be possible)
* add and especially format geographical coordinates without any mistakes (Eubot does not do such mistakes at all), not mixing up E and W, not forgetting "coor dm", not forgetting enough |, not forgetting the parentheses.
* correctly assign the different Categories like Geography of Antarctica, Mountains of Antarctica, Glaciers of Antarctica, Mountain ranges of Antarctica, Headlands of Antarctica, Lakes of Antarctica and Volcanoes of Antarctica especially distinguish between the Categories Islands of Antarctica and Sub-antarctic islands (which Eubot does with the utmost reliability).
* mind the bold format of the article name at the beginning of the main text of the article.
* writing out and wiklinking of all the abbreviations, which is an especially nasty task for human editors, whereas Eubot is able to reliably and correctly convert all the abbreviations into one single, standardized expression and Wikilink at the same time, enabling also new articles (for example about the various expeditions).
All in all, the work of Eubot has already now attained such a high quality that that the 14000 articles could be created automatically (maybe not now, but in the near future). Therefore, it could be prevented that more new articles on geographical features in Antarctica are created by people - often in a lower quality than if they would have been created by Eubot. -- Citylover 09:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many entries are in the file ANTARCTICA.TXT? 

message: Maybe it would be unwise to create all the 14000 articles at once. This could provoke opposition from people who are totally against the database-aspect of Wikipedia or generally against articles created by Wikipedia:Bots or think that these articles are generally useless and nobody reads them (which is most certainly not the case, given only the importance of geographical coordinates in the future of Wikipedia) or that the articles are too small (OK, they are small, but one has to begin somewhere and they are always open to expansion). Therefore, it is maybe better to just create maybe between 100 and 1000 articles every day, maybe during the times when Wikipedia is not overloaded. -- Citylover 10:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should do it in batches just to slip under the radar. It won't work, and it's not the correct thing to do. It is probably better to do it slowly, because each article still has to be checked... They are still far from perfect. Eugene van der Pijll 16:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed of article creation 

message: If Eubot really automatically creates these pages, it should under no circumstances forget to write down and afterwards publish a list on Wikipedia of the following things: -- Citylover 08:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will program Eubot to make such lists. Eugene van der Pijll 16:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of already created articles 

message: What about including within each article Eubot has generated with one of the tags listed in the list just below? These are just several suggestions, one single tag would be chosen among them (please make your own suggestions): -- Citylover 08:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will at least leave a helpful message with a link to a feedback page in the edit summary; I may also leave a larger note on the talk page of each created article. Eugene van der Pijll 16:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about a "Eubot-tag"? 

message: While I do not oppose the idea of merging the articles belonging geographically to each other (as long as redirects are made/kept from the original articles of the particular geographical features to the article they were merged into), I think that it is much more important to let Eubot explore/conquest/occupy the new territory in Antarctica first. Afterwards, the articles can still be merged on an individual and slowly proceeding base. For more information/suggestions about this topic, see also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. -- Citylover 07:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging the articles belonging geographically to each other 

message: Hi - discovered this project while using the "what links here" on a stub I just made (I've on occasions been adding geography stubs on Antarctica from information on a large map I've got.). I notice that a lot of these articles are listed as  where quite a few of them could use the more specific . Grutness...wha? 23:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: Hi all.
Naval vessels are generally given names including standard prefixes in Wikipedia - so we have an article at HMS Victory rather than HMS Victory, and the latter link won't usually be much help except for particularly well-known ships. I recently created a list of all articles where we've got links the wrong way around, to check if they're correct, and there's a lot of hits on the various Antarctica lists.
To get some idea of what I mean, Pine Island Bay was written from one of these standard texts, so was corrected:
* ...for the USS Pine Island, seaplane tender...
* ...for the USS Pine Island, seaplane tender...
Would it be possible to alter the wikification script, if it's going to be run again in the future, so that it includes the USS as part of the wikilink? I'll go through and alter these ones, but may as well avoid it cropping up again.
Thanks all. These are pretty impressive article stubs, incidentally - well done to whoever generated them. Shimgray | talk | 18:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ship names 

message: There are still a lot of missing articles, since many entries links to dab pages or features with identical names in other locations (see e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Antarctica/H4). Would it be possible to create a list of articles not categorized in a sub-category of :Category:Geography of Antarctica? - 4ing (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing articles (dab-links or link to other features)