User talk:Brad101/redundancy
Hey Ive watchlisted this page if you want to discuss it here (see my comments on the WP:WWF page..) or we can organise a time to be on IRC or something - if you like :D --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 09:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Just looking for ideas. I do logistics for a living so I'm looking at all these different projects with different tags and thinking "something isn't right here". The lack of response is rather disappointing but maybe I'm the only one who sees a problem. --Brad101 06:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
so what is really wrong now?
editI honestly don't get why people are bothering with this. Both WP:DEP and WP:WWF (or whatever they are called) attract people who are willing to improve pages. Why is that a problem? Personally, I like DEP, because you see some improvement over time (the list gets shorter). Thats motivation for me to keep working on it. Other people like the wikify project, also fine with me. Why should I move to wikify when I like this one better? It does its job and it does it good (so good actually that part of it can be done by bots). No need to merge the projects, they both do their jobs and do no harm to each other. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Upon re-reading my above statement, I feel that it might have been a bit harshly put. That was not my intention, but I do still feel that both projects have merits next to each other. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's a good point. To add some fire on it, I feel about same as Brad about "something doesn't seem right". I believe that wiki is build in a way to avoid redundancy, and one of its tendencies seem to be merging since you can't create two different articles with the same name. If we have two things with similar meaning, we add them to the same page. So, having all those projects trying to do the same thing, which is helping articles to get to a better standard, give me the opposite feeling of what should happen to them as it naturally happens with articles. Maybe it can't be helped, but he is just trying to figure out if something can be done to better organize those projects. For now I think the best thing to be done is just having a guideline page describing each of those projects, if that doesn't exist already. I couldn't find it anyway.
- What I really hate is manual categorization work such as that on WP:CU. I mean, that listing shouldn't exist by adding comments in one page. It should rather be a comment in the referenced page itself which is going to be automatically listed in a category, or some similar resource. --Caue (T | C) 14:34, Tuesday 2006-10-31 (UTC)
Cleanup vs. wikification
editThere have always been complaints, with some justification, that "cleanup" is too generic a term, and that more-specific tags should be used. "Wikify" is one of those more-specific tags, that's supposed to indicate that the page is just missing links or needs some formatting work. Sometimes a page also has content problems, in which case I think "cleanup" or some more-specific cleanup tag would be more appropriate. Wikification is one of those things you can do without thinking about it too much, but content cleanup often takes more time and maybe even some actual research. So it's useful to have a wikify-only "express" queue, for people who like improving articles without having to think too much, or who like the feeling of making lots of progress very quickly. If there were a shortage of articles to wikify, it might be worth going through the "cleanup" queue and re-tagging as appropriate. But given that there are still thousands of articles identified for wikification, I wouldn't worry about it. So I don't think the tags should be merged, though if you were going to do so, I would merge "wikify" into "cleanup", since the former is a subset of the latter. -- Beland 05:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)