Category talk:Articles that need to be wikified/Archive 1

message: Um, the page reads "This category contains articles that need Wikifying, that is, formatting the articles according to the guidelines laid out at Wikipedia:How to edit a page."  but it seems that Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style has the guidelines that people should use.  TomCerul 15:01, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

message: Many times when new, long, unwikified pages get created by unregistered users, these are cut-and-paste copyright violations.  I find that a significant number of the articles in this category can easily be found as such by doing a simple Google search on a portion of the text.  So before you put "wikify" notices on a page, please google it first, and if it's a cut-and-paste, replace it with a "copyvio" notice instead.  NTK 18:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found the same thing, something like 1:3 of the wikify articles that I have checked are copyvios. I've added a 'check for copyvios' warning to the wikify page. --nixie 05:19, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If something is has a copyright violation, should the wikify tag be removed?  (Yeah, newbie, sorry!) Csari 03:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The whole article should be removed and replaced with the copvio template. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Btw, everyone was a newbie once. :) Garion96 (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violations 

message: * How does one create sub-categories ? Markh 15:48, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
::Add to the article::Foo articles needing wikification. Then put that cat in the main wikification cat. Maurreen (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub categories 

message: The focus letter has been the same for weeks now. Nobody seems to be updating it so I am removing it. All the letters need work, not just specific letters. I have also added a hideable box to store the progress in, so they don't overclutter the page. QQ 12:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Using a new template, the focus letter will now update every day, elininating the need for manual updating which has been neglected. QQ 16:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Didn't even realized there was a focus letter until the change. :) I saw it now, good idea. I only would change it every other day. One day seems too short per letter. Garion96 (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Where did the focus letter go?  I actually have been paying attention to it, and like the element of 'randomness' it adds to how I pick an article to work on.  If it weren't for the focus letter, I probably would have felt entirely overwhelmed and never started wikifying pages on the list.  I'd like to see it come back, even if it occasionally lands on an empty letter. Archivizt 15:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. It was not removed because of the empty letters, someone removed it without leaving a note. Let's put it back. Piet 16:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The reason for removal may have been that a few people are working on another mechanism for categorizing the list. Piet 16:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus letter. 

message: I always check for copyright violations before I start working on an article that needs wikifying, but these signs will help to identify the most likely ones. I also have this on my userspace if you find it useful. 
===Signs that an article may be a copyvio===
# It is a very long article made in a single edit. 
# It has formatting that Wikipedia does not support (you'll see symbols or code).
# It has indented paragraphs, more than one blank line between paragraphs or long sections of text without paragraphs.
# It is almost entirely unwikified or is wikified in an inappropriate manner (redundant linking, large numbers of redlinks or linking words unlikely to ever have articles).
# The article is extremely promotional, or appears to be professionally written, or the writing style has characteristics of newspaper or magazine articles. 
# It has a big reference list, especially if most of the references are offline.
# The content was added by an anonymous user or a registered user with no user page.
===Signs that an article may not be a copyvio===
# It does not have the signs above. 
# It has a few obvious spelling errors.
# The author appears to know how to use Wikipedia.
# A note on the talk page or in the edit summary when the material was added says the source is public domain or gives permission for it to be used. This may need to be verified, however. 
===How to find the source===
Take a word grouping that's big or unusual enough not to get a lot of irrelevant hits and search for it in quotes. Use the middle of a sentence because the beginning of sentences are often altered, especially if the article's title or a pronoun is used. For example, people change "he" to "mike smith", "microsoft" to "the company" or vice versa. Make sure you try at least one search that doesn't include the company's or person's name because it may have been different in the source ("microsoft" vs "microsoft corp." vs "microsoft corporation", also "mike smith" vs "michael smith" vs "michael j. smith"). Also, take samples from different parts of the page because sometimes original material is mixed in with copyrighted content. If you're only going to take one or two samples, don't use text from the introduction because it is often reworded or even original. If you have problems with Wikipedia mirrors showing up, exclude the words "wikipedia", "wiki" and "gnu" from the search results by adding a hyphen to them. That will remove most of them. 
===Notification===
I suggest that you check who added the wikify tag to an article. That way, you can notify editors who repeatedly add the tag to copyright violations, especially if it has been added to obvious ones. This can make a big difference because most wikify tags are applied by a relatively small number of editors. In fact, some editors have added hundreds of copyvios in a very short amount of time. You should tell them how to identify copyvios, find the source and how to report them. If the person who added the copyrighted information is likely to do it again, you should tell them that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted content and what sources are usually copyrighted.
--Kjkolb 14:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice about copyright violations 

message: I suggest that you check who added the wikify tag to an article. That way, you can notify editors who repeatedly add the tag to copyright violations, especially if it has been added to obvious ones. This can make a big difference because most wikify tags are applied by a relatively small number of editors. In fact, some editors have added hundreds of copyvios in a very short amount of time. You should tell them how to identify copyvios, find the source and how to report them. If the person who added the copyrighted information is likely to do it again, you should tell them that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted content and what sources are usually copyrighted.
--Kjkolb 14:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notification

message: Why does the current focus not move to 'A' if there are no articles under 'Y' and 'Z'? Piet 08:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it used to be changed manually, but now there's  there. I guess that it moves it one letter per day automatically. It would be better if it stayed there until all of the articles were gone, though. -- Kjkolb 08:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I manually set it to A. I hope it doesn't upset anyone. --Apoc2400 09:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current focus, zero articles 

message: What exactly is wikify?H-BOMB 19:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the page? This category contains articles that need wikifying, that is, formatting the articles according to the guidelines laid out at Wikipedia:Guide to layout. See Wikipedia:How to edit a page for technical help and Wikipedia:Manual of Style for broader questions. Follow the links to find out more. Piet 20:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HELP 

message: Was there a reason  was removed from the page? Any objections to my restoring it? (I doubt that there would be, but I'd rather my time wikifying than arguing over the present/absence of a single tool.) -- llywrch 22:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it! Martin 22:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: See my comment above under Focus Letter.  I'm all for it. Archivizt 22:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: For now I added it back. →AzaToth 23:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus letter? 

message: By popular demand, Pearle is now converting the category to use .  This means this category will be sorted by month, making it a better FIFO queue.  There's no longer any need for any humans to sort articles by date.  Pearle will do this overnight, so human editors can devote all their energy to actual wikification.  Please let me know if there are any problems or concerns. -- Beland 03:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet. Thanks, Beland. -- Kjkolb 06:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely brilliant, thanks Beland! Martin 08:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thumbs up! GfloresTalk 15:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Great job! Garion96 (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now sorting by date 

message: (This has been moved here because the progress counting method has changed. -- Beland 20:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived progress bar 

message: I have notice a lot of article that, while they can use some work, are basically wikified. If it has a heading paragraph, section, categorized and some relevant wikilinks what is left to do? Jon513 19:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel it's wikified enough already, remove the tag and leave a comment on the edit summary if possible. GfloresTalk 20:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is wikified?