Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikify/Drives/2012/March Mini

Word count

I just put my name down for this drive, and the first random article I got to wikify was Methylobacillus flagellatus, which is 1633 words long. That seems to beat Assassins Creed's score by a long way, but since I'm new to Wikipedia and this is my first drive, I thought I should make sure I'm not doing something wrong. So just to clarify, does the "largest" on the leaderboard refer to the word count of the whole article — the "prose size" as given by the page size tool? And if so, is that before or after my wikification? Also, could someone skim that methylobacillus article for me to make sure I've wikified it properly?

Thanks. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup, prose size as given by the tool before you started wikifying - exactly. I've gone ahead and updated you. And Methylobacillus flagellatus was done very well...good job. :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks. DoctorKubla (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

And thank you for your work :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Monthly listings missing?

I can't find the listings by month (which used to be on the upper right side of the page), and I'd like to work on the oldest months first. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed - Femto Bot (talk · contribs) blanked {{wikification progress}} with this edit, but i have restored the template. Cheers, benzband (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Miniapolis (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Not looking good

24.7% at the moment. It looks like AWB users are tagging articles faster than even User:jobberone can wikify them. As long as bots are placing tags that only humans can remove, it doesn't look like we have a hope in hell of pushing back the tide. I know Wikipedia has no deadline, but it's a little disheartening. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

We are aware about this, in fact the whole point of this "mini" drive was to finish what was started during the February drive. [FAILED] Some time in February the number of articles tagged with {{wikify}} shot right up, and the drive concluded with a very small percentage, despite having wikified hundreds of articles. And this number is still increasing. In short: → it's gonna be a long hard rag, but we'll make it. (from MOTD) benzband (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• And I'm coming across a lot of stubs pointlessly tagged with wikify. What am I supposed to do with, for instance, Epitizide? DoctorKubla (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • As for this kind of thing, i would advise removing the tag, along with any improvements you can make (however minor :-) to the article. And for the bother of doing so you might as well log it. Cheers ~ benzband (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Wow, it's...sad that this was tagged, but we can only blame the AWB algorithm for that. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
      • It is very disheartening, as DoctorKubla put it, especially when the bots are tagging articles which are about as wikified as they can be, for their size. I've watched this happen for months now; sometimes we have a stroke of luck and get the backlog down to around 19,000 articles - I think one time we even made it about halfway from there to 18,000. Then, without fail, thousands of articles are tagged in a single month, and within a wink it becomes as if no one did anything during the drive. It's been on my mind to say this, but I thought it best if the subject were brought up first: Suppose the bots are programmed to avoid tagging articles for wikification, just until we can get the backlog down to around 10,000 or so, and then we release them into that field again? That might at least get us past the first road block. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)