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)

Can we get this list refreshed? I just scanned through it and crossed off many that I knew already had a completed metadata template. Chris Day (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

I was off-line last week, now getting back and catching up. Aleksander Stos 06:38, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Popups

Also note that if using Popups - the article title, as is, will appear in the abc field, which will quite often be incorrect. E.g., abc = Catalog_of_Thai_cuisine will need to be changed to abc = Thai cuisine, Catalog of Anton Sweeney 09:39, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Netherlands and spherical harmonics

I saw two of my articles: The Netherlands and Spherical harmonics in the list. I gave both a checklist quite some time ago. How is that possible?--Paul Wormer 10:39, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

This list is populated every couple weeks, so I'm guessing whenever the script ran those articles didn't have a checklist. If you checklist something after that, it doesn't automatically remove itself from the list. --Todd Coles 10:58, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

Update

I've just updated the list. Please be aware that there might be some entries that are already checklisted in the new subpages system (vie the Metadata page). Sorry for the inconvenience (it should be fixed in a not-too-distant future...). I'll think about the alphabetisation too. Aleksander Stos 09:26, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

update

This page needs some minor rewriting to bring it up to date with subpages, but could someone start by redirecting the "check it" links to the metadata page? Since it's generated automatically, I dunno where to do that. :-\ Thanks. --Joe Quick 21:20, 23 October 2007 (CDT)

Agreed. Stay tuned. (sorry, the present update still in old format; maybe next time..) Aleksander Stos 02:45, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

Just updated, again in the old format (been busy recently). But it is still useful, SubpaginationBot bein supposed to transform the old-fashioned checklists into beautiful metadata pages ;) Aleksander Stos 08:13, 1 November 2007 (CDT)

Updated the wording slightly. --Robert W King 13:35, 17 November 2007 (CST)

New tools for subpages

Here they go, enjoy. It's just a first draft. Comments and ideas welcome. Aleksander Stos 10:56, 18 December 2007 (CST)

update delayed

A technical issue has to be decided/resolved before next update can be done. For more details see here. Aleksander Stos 03:24, 29 December 2007 (CST)

So, congratulations for actually catching up are not in order (yet)?

Happy New Year! --Larry Sanger 17:33, 31 December 2007 (CST)

Well, let's hope that we don't have to back through all of the subpaginated articles without the abc field filled in. That would be a Big Project, indeed. In the mean time, I've started filling that field in by default, which makes the categorization work just fine. So there's really no reason to not update the list - we just need to remind people to use that field. --Joe Quick 17:50, 31 December 2007 (CST)

Well, the problem is that the category browsing is somewhat broken for articles with the empty "abc" field (e.g. try to go to the end of the category "Internal Articles" or "CZ_Live"). Consequently, the script doesn't find quite many checklisted articles and shows them on the list, which becomes unnecessarily long and cluttered. I hoped that Chris could fix it in just few minutes, so I preferred to wait. Since, apparently, he's on holidays and you're so impatient :) I put the list as it stands (with some comment). Aleksander Stos 11:53, 2 January 2008 (CST)

Well done on at least cutting the number of unchecklisted articles by 300! And, in the process, boosting our article count over 4,600! --Larry Sanger 12:06, 2 January 2008 (CST)

300 is probably more than in reality; it's related to a problem with the {subpage} template (or to the way we were handling it). Aleksander Stos 14:43, 2 January 2008 (CST)

Probably close to half of the articles on the list show up as purple links for me, meaning that I've already checklisted them. I'm sure that we reduced the number by much more than 300. (Thanks for humoring me, Aleks. ;-) --Joe Quick 15:11, 2 January 2008 (CST)

Wow!

Holy S- guys, the end is near! --Robert W King 17:02, 14 January 2008 (CST)

Exactly my reaction! Wow! I'm amazed! Thanks! --Larry Sanger 19:36, 14 January 2008 (CST)

AWESOME! HIGH FIVES ALL AROUND --Robert W King 21:43, 22 January 2008 (CST)

Yes, I am so impressed with this--and it's also wonderful that your push actually put us over 5,000 articles! Yay! --Larry Sanger 22:11, 22 January 2008 (CST)