CZ Talk:Unchecklisted Articles

Improve formula

Can we add "less approved articles" to the formula that creates this list. Many approved articles such as Biology, dog and wheat are in this list when they are checklisted. The checklist is on the /draft talk page rather than the main talkpage.

Also, can we add "less category disambiguation" to the formula. It has not been decided how to checklist these pages. Once we add 'page type' to the checklist then we can run through the pages in that category but we don't need them on this list just now. Derek Harkness 23:07, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for your remarks. Yes, it should be improved. I thought also about adding links to the relevant WP pages (to see whether an article is external). Just wait one or two days - the script should learn to read and compare more than two categories. --Aleksander Stos 11:33, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

OK. No more approved articles, no more disambigs. Please note that the dismbigs are defined as the pages from the "Disambiguation" category. A page is categorized as "disambig" by adding the {{disambig}} template to the page itself and not the talk page (until a checklist solution is implemented!). --Aleksander Stos 17:19, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

PS. Subpages (e.g. Biology/Gallery) are not eliminated (yet). But these are easy to recognize without clicking.

Should the strikeouts be left up?--Robert W King 15:32, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

Not sure if I understand what you mean. If you suggest that to simply delete checklisted entries is easier than to strike it out, then I agree (yesterday I did so on the page). Initially, striking out was proposed to see the progress of work. After all, it is not that necessary, as the enumerated list of entries itself shows it too. --Aleksander Stos 03:19, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

I think he meant the inverse. When the list is updated, their are no strikeouts and so it looks like no-body's doing any work. I don't think we need to keep the strikeouts and I agree with Aleksander that deleting a line is just as good as striking. It might be good to log the progress each week we update. We started this list with some 500+ and now we are just over the 300 mark.Derek Harkness 09:17, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

Agree with the "delete and weekly log" idea. Will try to accordingly adjust the intro.--Aleksander Stos 03:44, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

List order

Currently the list is orderd alphabeticaly. Would it be posible to change this so that articles are ordered in terms of age. The ones that have been sitting longest can then get done first. Derek Harkness 06:31, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, interesting idea. Feasible, sure, but this needs some new code. I think of making a log of each update and searching through the logs to determine the "age" of a given article. This gives the accuracy of one cycle (or one week), but an alternative solution by direct checking up the history of the listed articles seems hardly acceptable and I'd prefer to avoid it. So give me some time. --Aleksander Stos 16:55, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Ok, now it's sorted by age (according to Special:Ancientpagescreation date). --Aleksander Stos 13:26, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

section breaks?

Would it be worthwhile to put in section breaks, perhaps at each month, to make editing easier? Anthony Argyriou 12:54, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

Good idea. What about a section every 30 articles? Aleksander Stos 16:19, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

I'd thought of breaking it every 100 articles, but the numbering starts over with each break, which is why I suggested time-based breaks. That way, you can see at a glance that we have 15 unchecklisted articles from April, 52 from May, 127 from June, and 144 from July (or whatever the real numbers are). If smaller sections are desired, perhaps they could be broken down by week or ten-day instead. If you prefer straight numerical breaks, I'd think either 25 or 50, for divisibility by 100. 50 is longish, but not awful. 25 would be easier to find specific articles in, but will create many sections. Anthony Argyriou 16:22, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

Ok - I was bold and split it by month, just to see what it looks like. Someone should remove the subheads and try it at every 25 or 50 in a day or so, to see what that looks like. Anthony Argyriou 16:44, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

It was OK, but, well, now it looks like split by month will soon give no more than two sections :-) Hopefully, there will be less than 100 articles in the backlog. Thus, splitting by 25 seems better adapted. I will try it on next update. Aleksander Stos 04:50, 4 August 2007 (CDT)

Is there a need?

Is there a need to continue putting checklists on all these articles, considering that subpages should be going up soon and they include the checklist? Just curious, that's why I've been ignoring this recently. --Todd Coles 14:35, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

I think we may continue. This wouldn't be double work, since the subpage with the data for a cluster contains the same wikicode as the checklist (I mean abc, cat1, cat2 etc). One copy-paste on the subpage creation is enough to transfer the info. Since many checklisted pages need this action it might be also automated (with a script). So anyway the work wouldn't be lost. But if you feel like checklisting directly within new subpage system, I think it'd be preferable. All one needs is to create Template:Articlename/Metadata following an example taken from any "clustered" article (and then put {subpage9} template on the subpages ). Aleksander Stos 15:16, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

I hope someone might write a bot to make the transformation... --Larry Sanger 16:15, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Seems doable. Maybe not fully automatic, but somewhat human-assisted. Do you have an idea when such action would be desirable? An approximate date of the official adoption of subpages?Aleksander Stos 17:04, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

The subpages will contain a checklist, but it will still need to fill it in. I think a bot to pull the data form the existing checklist should be relatively easy to do. Human monitored of course (someone sitting clicking, yes, yes, no, yes) So continuing with the existing checklists is not a waist of time or duplicating anything. Derek Harkness 06:31, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Exactly what I meant. Thanks for making it clear. Aleksander Stos 14:29, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Catch us up, please?

If anyone can take the lead in catching us up here, to push us over the 3,000 "live" hump, that would be fantastic. We are working toward a new press release. May I point out that CZ:Start article may expedite the process... --Larry Sanger 08:36, 7 September 2007 (CDT)