Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikify/Backlog cleanup taskforce

Why Do Copyvio Check On All Articles

I thought the point of this exercise was to quickly remove all the articles that are incorrectly tagged with wifify. If that is the goal, I would think that only those articles that a quick glance shows are wikified (has lead paragraph and sections etc.) would be further scrutinized to check for copyright violations and redundancy. The directions at least make it seem like your doing copyvio and redundancy checks on all articles in the categories which would just duplicate effort, since for those articles that remain in the list, that checking will be done by whoever ends up wikifying it. --JeffW 20:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I Doing This Right?

Of the articles I signed up to look at four of them 1926 Slavery Convention, 66th Military Intelligence Group - Darmstadt, Germany, 7.7 x 58 Arisaka, and 9 x 21mm Gyurza should have the wikify template removed because they are stubs and not worth wikifying. 4231 menu and 42nd Street Nightclub should be prod'ed. 1990-1999 world oil market chronology is a chronology and I didn't see any guidelines for wikifying lists and chronologies. And finally 1:18 scale and 4 x 400 metres relay do need to be wikified so they should be left alone as part of this sub-project.

Is that how these articles should be handled? --JeffW 20:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the guidance I got on the talk page of the main page on stubs, I've decided that 1926 Slavery Convention, 66th Military Intelligence Group - Darmstadt, Germany, and 9 x 21mm Gyurza do need to be wikified. 7.7 x 58 Arisaka looks wikified to me so I'll check it for copyvio and redundancy and remove the template. --JeffW 07:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Wrong tagger

I posted this on the main discussion board, but this might be a better place for it. I've been coming across a lot of stub articles that have been marked for wikifying by User:Elonka, that already have everything possible done to them. Could someone have a check through that I'm not mistaken here, and then maybe post on Elonka's talk page? I'm too much of a wimp to critique someone quite as established.--MarkyParky 23:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]