Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikify

Welcome to WikiProject Wikify's talk page! Need help? Have comments or questions? Feel free to start a new section below.

WikiProject Wikify was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 28 March 2011.

Archives

August – October 2006 November 2006 – July 2008 August 2008 – December 2010 January 2011 – May 2011 June 2011 – August 2011 September 2011 – August 2012 August 2012 – December 2012 January 2013 – December 2014 January 2015 – December 2017 January 2018 –

I am currently considering launching a project revival. If any of the old leadership is still active and willing or if any of the old members are active and willing to assist, please contact me on my talk page. I will leave this message here for a short while after which I will assume the project is essentially dead and will begin to make changes to attempt reviving it.

The Novac (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Novac: Hey there! I haven't been active in several years, but I happened to drive by on a whim, and was dismayed to find that the the project was dead. So, you're thinking about reviving it? What are your thoughts on its possible future? Best, Braincricket (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Novac: I'd also like to help out however I can. I'll post something on your talk page as well. Sesamehoneytart 19:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Novac: Sure, I'd be happy to help also! Safety Cap (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing a lot of underlinked-tag cleanup, so I'd be happy to support a revival effort. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the inactive news items on the main project page and made some updates on the other pages. Cleared the dust and whatnot. The Novac, are you still interested in reviving the project? I'll leave a note on your talk page just in case. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ZettaComposer: If there is still an effort to revive the project I think we ought to spin up a Freenode IRC channel to help with coordinating drives and help project members meet to discuss the project etc.. Wi7less (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Recently I tried to de-orphan a couple of pages by adding Wikilinks, but did not do it correctly so was asked by someone called Thibbs to join here. They were maiden attempts so I will appreciate if someone could help me do that correctly. I would do more such but currently, I want to rectify my errors so far. How do I de-orphan these pages - Asymmetric negotiation, The Dovetail Group and The Green Project.

Also, how do I apply to join this project group? Please help.

ScrappyYapper (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @ScrappyYapper:! Thanks for your help. What Thibbs was telling you is correct. You were adding links from Asymmetric negotiation to other pages, whereas the orphan tag asks you to add links from other pages to Asymmetric negotiation. An orphan tag tells editors that no one would ever be able to find their way to the Asymmetric negotiation page without searching for it directly, since it is not linked anywhere else. So to fix that, you would go to related pages that may discuss Asymmetric negotiation or be relevant to the topic, and then add links to the Asymmetric negotiation page. If you search for "Asymmetric negotiation" you can see that no other page uses those exact terms, and so you would need to find relevant places that you could add that phrase + link.

I would also note one other comment about some of your edits. Make sure that when you create links, they go directly to the page you want. For example, here you added a link on the word "American" that just takes you to the disambiguation page when what you really want is Americans, the page for people from the US. Additionally, be careful that you don't overlink by adding links to extremely common or basic words. For example, in this edit I would say that words like "tactics", "government" and "decade" are words that are generally understood in context, and should not be linked. Hope this helps! Nolelover (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ScrappyYapper: This wikiproject is not really active at this point. Also, if you are looking to help out in de-orphaning articles, you may want to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage which is dedicated to that task. -- Whpq (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Nolelover: for the insightful explanation. I now clearly understood what de-orphaning a page means. I will work on these pages as per the information. Also, @Whpq: could you please guide me how to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage. Thanks. ScrappyYapper (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage#Participants. -- Whpq (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i am requesting to launch a monthly drive with awards and event coordinators like Copy edit project. It may be a useful start to involve new or more editors in wikify project. Thanks TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheBirdsShedTears: We used to run drives every couple of months, but that hasn't happened since 2015. Unfortunately this project is a little quiet at the moment, and I think part of it has to do with some confusion over what exactly "wikification" means. I don't have the time right now to reboot the project, so drives may not happen for a while unless you find other interested editors. Nole (chat·edits) 03:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted articles showing remarkable on the village Dastak page. Please see

Mahijaat (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of portals listed at Category:Portals needing placement of incoming links would benefit from having links placed to them in articles, such as in the See also sections of articles. Often times, talk pages have the portal links in project templates, but most WP:READERS don't read talk pages. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: How would you measure that enough articles now have portal links, so the portal could be removed from the category? GoingBatty (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: That's a good question. It's all relative to the overall number of articles a general topic has. For example, a portal about computer science, a topic with many articles, would likely need more links in articles leading to it compared to a topic that has an overall lesser article count, such as chocolate. Too few links scattered over too few articles would not ensure that readers see and have access to portal links. Also, major subtopics within a topic should have a portal link in articles, in my opinion, and the more complex and greater a topic is in scope would equate to more necessary links. Maybe I should try to come up with some sort of general ratios relative to topical scopes. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: Thanks for your answer. If you can think of a way to identify which articles need portal links, I could try submitting a bot request for it. Maybe portal links should be added if the article is of "Top" or "High" importance in the associated WikiProject? Or maybe if the article is included in the associated top-level or second-level category? Lists like that would probably need to be vetted by a human first, and the bot would have to ensure not to add a portal link if one already exists in {{portal}} or {{portal bar}} or {{portal-inline}}. GoingBatty (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: Those are exceptional ideas. Yes, top importance and high importance articles receiving the link would clearly be a precise way of going about matters. Likewise for adding portal links to the articles listed within the top- and second-levels of their respective categories. Some immediate notes include:

• Regarding finding articles that need portal links, working backward using the Category:Portals needing placement of incoming links page can provide a guideline for portals that are lacking links to them in articles. Then, adding portal links to stated assessed and categorical articles could ensue. For example, using the "What links here" tool, one can see how many links in article namespace exist to various portals. For example, see Pages that link to "Portal:Wisconsin" in Article namespace. There are presently 222 links in article namespace to the portal, a low amount, and many of the links are presently in similar types of articles, such as geographical articles.
• If the Portal template is in place, then a bot would need to add portal links within that
• The same goes for the portalbar template
• Per WP:SEEALSO, portal links are placed in the See also sections of articles
• A trend with usage of the portalbar has been for its placement at the end of articles, although some articles utilize this in See also sections.

Pinging Certes to this discussion as well, who I've worked with off and on for a few years regarding such matters. I'm not adept at script writing, so I seek out assistance from others when the need arises. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We might automatically generate lists of articles in which to consider placing links but there are pitfalls. Looking at the first portal in the category, Portal:2010s is in WikiProject Years and so is 1492, but that article clearly shouldn't link to that portal. WikiProject Twenty-Tens decade seems more discerning and does suggest some non-obvious but sensible places to put a link, such as Premiership of David Cameron. A first step might be to identify portal-project pairs which are closely linked in this way, but I don't think that information is stored anywhere. (It would be nice if 2010s were "vital portal class" for the 2010s project and "vaguely related portal class" for Years, but it's just "portal class" for both.) I wonder if we could start with articles which are in all of the portal's wikiprojects (i.e. their intersection) and don't already link to the portal. A Quarry query should be able to find those, or PetScan might even be able to manage it. Certes (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of articles in the 2010s project which don't link to the portal. I don't expect we want links from all of them; how do we narrow the search further? Certes (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list which covers 120 of the 209 identified portals, specifically those where categories "Top-/High-importance [portal name] articles" exist. It lists 2352 top- and 15771 high-importance articles, so you may want to look only the top importance initially. Most portals with many top-importance articles are countries, notably Sri Lanka with 315. There is further scope for manually matching portals to categories in a way that can't be done automatically, e.g. Portal:Buses with Category:Top-importance bus transport articles. As always, these require manual checking: Certes (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes and GoingBatty: I get the gist, but not seeing where in the 1492 article where the 2010s portal is linked. At Category:Portals needing placement of incoming links, yes the 2010s portal is listed first, but not seeing any links in the portal that link to the 1492 article or vice versa. What am I missing? Perhaps this is a fluke. I think we should go for it, and any minor complications or minor extant errors can be corrected as people go along. My guess is that the example directly above is an exception, rather than the norm, but I could be incorrect. Bottom line: portals need more links, and it is a pain in the ass in terms of time consumption to do it manually. More later, as I have become busy "in real life" lately. Money makes the world go 'round; and after all, Wikipedia is a hobby! I have to pay my ISP bill to maintain the hobby! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1492 quite rightly does not link to 2010s, but my first draft unhelpfully recommended creating such a link. I've since refined the list to exclude such silly suggestions. Maybe start off with 2300 top-importance articles only? Certes (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get it now. The script list you created had it there. What about just going gung-ho and auto-adding portal links to articles that are top and high ranked in their respective WikiProjects, along with doing so in the top and first subcategories? Let's do this thing! Fact is, portals sometimes don't receive page views because WP:READERS aren't aware of their existence, per the lack of links in articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even top-importance only is 2200 articles to edit (very few need multiple portals), which is rather high for a semi-automated AWB/JWB run. Some suggestions are obvious omissions: although its editors may have more urgent problems right now, Kyiv should surely link to Portal:Ukraine. Others have me questioning whether "importance" can be a one-way street and we're going the wrong way. For example, Desk is rated top-importance by WikiProject Journalism. Should it really link to Portal:Journalism, or might desks be more important to journalists than journalists are to the world of desks? Then we have a few projects such as Sri Lanka which hand out a "top importance" rating far more readily than most. We have the technology to do this but I'm not sure about consensus, especially in view of the strong negative reaction to my previous bulk addition of portal links three years ago. Certes (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes Any list should go through a human review to remove articles that should not have the portal added. Would it make sense to have the discussion of any list at each portal's talk page to drive consensus? GoingBatty (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes and GoingBatty: How about only working to get approval of articles assessed with GA- and FA-status? These articles have gone through a review process, so they're very likely to be assessed correctly and be associated with an appropriate WikiProject. After that, then only have articles within the top and secondary categories within a topical range relative to portals have portal links placed. Some articles will qualify for more than one portal link, and if this were to be implemented, GA- and FA-class articles with portal links already placed from the GA- and FA-run would have to be skipped. This all would be a heckuva lot easier than manually adding thousand of portal links one-by-one by hand.

However, using the script that Certes developed at Quarry looks very, very promising, particularly because it finds pages that lack portal links, and from there, sure, a human can manually double-check for entries that don't fit topically. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We could easily filter the list for GAs and FAs. However, specialists have written plenty of good articles on less important topics, and sadly some important topics still have lower quality articles. If we want to start with a test run of fewer than 2000 pages, which I think is a jolly good idea. I've added a Quality column to quarry:query/63285. (Blank means below GA.) Its 18,123 suggestions (2531 Top, 15,772 High) include 206 FAs (42 Top, 164 High) and 628 GAs (118 Top, 510 High). Starting with the 42 Top FAs and perhaps 118 Top GAs might be sensible. Certes (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes and GoingBatty: I think we should move forward on this, meaning that you guys should, since I don't have coding skills in these areas. Some portals are badly in need of incoming links in articles to them. Furthermore, it looks like very prominent links will be removed from Main page soon. See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Proposal to change portal links on the Main Page for more info. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but unfortunately that biased travesty of an RfC is forming a consensus to hinder readers who want to find portals, not to help them. Certes (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes: Well, despite the RfC, many portals still need links to them in articles, but not necessarily only those that are listed on Main page. Regardless of what occurs with the Main page links, many of the portals listed at Category:Portals needing placement of incoming links have woefully few links to them. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Today I expanded backlog information within this section. It was shamelessly "cloned" from Wikipedia:Orphan, Step 1: Finding an orphaned article section. Hoping this is helpful for those who like to check Progress, and perhaps reduce the backlog. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do articles tagged with {{Citation style}} get assigned to this project? ~Kvng (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same question for {{Lead too short}}, {{Lead too long}}, {{Lead rewrite}}, {{Lead extra info}}. ~Kvng (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:All articles with too few wikilinks is empty. Good reason for project inactivity. All the other articles associated with this project have other problems (see discussion immediately above). ~Kvng (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng I don't remember seeing your username before, so forgive me if you already know all of this, but this project's peak was ~2010-2012, when underlinked articles was more of an issue. Following this discussion and the successful elimination of that first backlog, the project proposed that {{wikify}} be deprecated at this TfD and replaced by more specific maintenance templates, such as the ones you flagged above. Just as other media organizations may have an internal style guide that affects content (while being a different sort of work from a copyeditor who is tasked with improving grammar and sentence structure), so the project then pivoted to encompass a variety of style guide-type issues that affect visual consistency across the site. See the breadth of issues located at Category:Wikipedia articles with style issues by issue, which the project would/should have taken on more of, were it active. So yeah, it includes more than just wikilinks--this project has not been focused solely on articles with too few links since 2012. Unfortunately, most of the main organizers retired or took long breaks (myself included) between 2012-2016, so the project eventually fell off. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I came here hoping to help wikify and it took me a while to determine that all that work's already been done. I've taken the liberty to update the project description to reflect the updated mission. ~Kvng (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng No problem! Just out of curiosity, what brought you here? This project isn't advertised around much anymore, and outside of the second item in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikify#How_to_wikify, I'm curious what gave you the idea that the project mostly dealt with Category:All articles with too few wikilinks? Alyo (chat·edits) 04:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alyo, I saw JoeNMLC's post at Wikipedia_talk:Orphan#WikiProject_Wikify_-_Finding_articles_to_wikify. The title of the project WikiProject Wikify is what gave me the impression. ~Kvng (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, thanks! Alyo (chat·edits) 16:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've lately taken the approch of finding articles that could be wikilinked more, instead of articles with too few wikilinks. While it's not exactly the same issue, it's a different way to continue the WikiProject. Nobody (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! And very in keeping with the spirit of the project. There are quite a number of categories covered (in theory) by the project, so there are a number of important things people could be doing. One that takes a little more work, but is a little more visible, is Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup. Given how google and other searches work (esp now that they're pulling things into AI summaries), having clear lead sections that properly introduce the topic and cover what's in the article is a hugely important task. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]