All edits made under this proto-policy back to 22 July 2014 have, I believe, been reversed and there will be no further editing under the proto-policy. Swliv ( talk) 21:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
UPDATE: Having put the proto-policy I think completely out of its misery (with much more detail below), I've moved on to a productive post-MinUpg life of, among other things, doing unromantic, manual cite upgrades one at a time; usually as an adjunct to a substantive edit to the same page.
I return here today because I've just encountered a template which, had I learned it a couple-few years ago, could possibly have diverted me from MinUpg altogether. In short,
.
One can place the template -- this is it: {{linkrot}} -- at the head of a References section which has WP:Bare URLs showing. That simple step can draw further editors to help out. Neat. Cheers. Swliv ( talk) 01:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
This was for me a first time experiment to reduce the cumbersome citation process of a proto-policy, I'll call it. The proto-policy I characterized as 'first-round cleanup' of so-called naked or bare URLs in Wikipedia-article footnotes.
The proto-policy, as I've formulated it so far, is linked to here.
The page name is a shortening of minimal upgrade, my name for my usual action under the proto-policy. An earlier somewhat broader term I used in Edit summaries was "citework" (which if it is in red means it hasn't been pursued but if it's in blue with no update here means it's probably been used by another); from here I'll consider it for another proto-policy. Swliv ( talk) 13:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
'Always leave the campsite better than one found it': An old Boy Scout invocation.
A full upgrade is of course preferred over a minupg and is the ultimate goal of this proto-policy.
I do not expect at the present time that it will be me, near term, that accomplishes the full-upgrade goal in most instances. Yesterday's two-step process was a first. I'd love of course to see "1 per [[wp:minupg#Full_upgrade]]"-type Edit summary postings -- like this one -- from other editors.
Now with some months more experience with this proto-policy, I do believe more than ever that even a minupg does leave the 'campsite' (article) better than it was before the minupg. One can see a fair smattering of minupgs in my Contributions list -- eight or so in the most recent 50 edits as of today; lots more in lists accessible there covering more history -- for reference and judgment. Cheers. Swliv ( talk) 14:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
A shortcut for finding naked urls in an article is to search (Command F) the page, when it is opened for editing, for ">h". The search will quickly find the candidates for MinUpg. The shortcut was used, for instance, here, and a 'practice search' can be executed on that page to find the six naked urls in the 'old' (left-hand) column of copy. The six were upgraded as part of the edit, one can see in the right-hand column. Swliv ( talk) 19:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I've not encountered this too often but it happened several times here and in a series of edits either side of that one, same article. The editor had single-bracketed each URL as the publisher of the citation, reducing it, in the footnote, to a bracketed number. It may have been the editor's intent but it didn't seem the best way for the footnote to look; so my MinUpg in this case was to remove the single brackets and italicize the web address. I traced the location of the incidences of the practice by searching for '=['; the '=' sign being from the 'publisher=' component of the footnote template. Swliv ( talk) 22:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
When dates and article-titles can be retrieved from where they are embedded in URLs, as in some of this (massive; 26-item) cleanup, I'll do it. Still not usually 'pretty' but, again, leaving the article better than it was before and would have been without this extra step. Swliv ( talk) 04:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
This section, as per the announcement up top, is being wound down. Of the three currently below, two have been completed (Abdul-Jabbar, Gunshot locator) and one was checked and found to be OK from the perspective of Minupg's I may have executed (Currency Wars). One other 'to do' at the bottom of the page (Baron Wormser) has also been attended to. Swliv ( talk) 02:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Though #Reversal will be proceeding, I'm going to continue to collect 'Pages in need' here for the time being. First of these:
Introducing the proto-policy on my user page today, I wrote "I would certainly welcome input and help on the issue and the proto-policy" and I would. Swliv ( talk) 17:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Per #Input and help above and further consideration, I'm proceeding to reverse the Minupg's I've made. I've identified about 75 instances of use from March 19, 2015 to the present. The most recent three instances have already been reversed; the rest in reverse-chronological order I will reverse (lots of 'reverse') unless someone else volunteers here or I run out of steam. No guarantees about schedule. I will, I expect, be moving to #Full upgrades of some sort; or other appropriate format including just back to bare URLs. (One was a Dead link in Julian Robertson; I reverted it to bare and then tagged it as dead.) I'll go from 3/19/15 back to earliest use after completing this first tranche. I'll be marking Edit summaries with a link to this paragraph, as in: 'via wp:minupg#Reversal'. It seems maybe overly ornate but it's what I can work out as a methodical plan for now. Any other thoughts please add them here. Thanks. 23:41, 19 November 2015.
Another round of thinking on 'next steps here' at User_talk:Swliv#WP namespace. Swliv ( talk) 20:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
All edits made under this proto-policy back to 22 July 2014 have, I believe, been reversed and there will be no further editing under the proto-policy. Swliv ( talk) 21:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
UPDATE: Having put the proto-policy I think completely out of its misery (with much more detail below), I've moved on to a productive post-MinUpg life of, among other things, doing unromantic, manual cite upgrades one at a time; usually as an adjunct to a substantive edit to the same page.
I return here today because I've just encountered a template which, had I learned it a couple-few years ago, could possibly have diverted me from MinUpg altogether. In short,
.
One can place the template -- this is it: {{linkrot}} -- at the head of a References section which has WP:Bare URLs showing. That simple step can draw further editors to help out. Neat. Cheers. Swliv ( talk) 01:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
This was for me a first time experiment to reduce the cumbersome citation process of a proto-policy, I'll call it. The proto-policy I characterized as 'first-round cleanup' of so-called naked or bare URLs in Wikipedia-article footnotes.
The proto-policy, as I've formulated it so far, is linked to here.
The page name is a shortening of minimal upgrade, my name for my usual action under the proto-policy. An earlier somewhat broader term I used in Edit summaries was "citework" (which if it is in red means it hasn't been pursued but if it's in blue with no update here means it's probably been used by another); from here I'll consider it for another proto-policy. Swliv ( talk) 13:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
'Always leave the campsite better than one found it': An old Boy Scout invocation.
A full upgrade is of course preferred over a minupg and is the ultimate goal of this proto-policy.
I do not expect at the present time that it will be me, near term, that accomplishes the full-upgrade goal in most instances. Yesterday's two-step process was a first. I'd love of course to see "1 per [[wp:minupg#Full_upgrade]]"-type Edit summary postings -- like this one -- from other editors.
Now with some months more experience with this proto-policy, I do believe more than ever that even a minupg does leave the 'campsite' (article) better than it was before the minupg. One can see a fair smattering of minupgs in my Contributions list -- eight or so in the most recent 50 edits as of today; lots more in lists accessible there covering more history -- for reference and judgment. Cheers. Swliv ( talk) 14:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
A shortcut for finding naked urls in an article is to search (Command F) the page, when it is opened for editing, for ">h". The search will quickly find the candidates for MinUpg. The shortcut was used, for instance, here, and a 'practice search' can be executed on that page to find the six naked urls in the 'old' (left-hand) column of copy. The six were upgraded as part of the edit, one can see in the right-hand column. Swliv ( talk) 19:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I've not encountered this too often but it happened several times here and in a series of edits either side of that one, same article. The editor had single-bracketed each URL as the publisher of the citation, reducing it, in the footnote, to a bracketed number. It may have been the editor's intent but it didn't seem the best way for the footnote to look; so my MinUpg in this case was to remove the single brackets and italicize the web address. I traced the location of the incidences of the practice by searching for '=['; the '=' sign being from the 'publisher=' component of the footnote template. Swliv ( talk) 22:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
When dates and article-titles can be retrieved from where they are embedded in URLs, as in some of this (massive; 26-item) cleanup, I'll do it. Still not usually 'pretty' but, again, leaving the article better than it was before and would have been without this extra step. Swliv ( talk) 04:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
This section, as per the announcement up top, is being wound down. Of the three currently below, two have been completed (Abdul-Jabbar, Gunshot locator) and one was checked and found to be OK from the perspective of Minupg's I may have executed (Currency Wars). One other 'to do' at the bottom of the page (Baron Wormser) has also been attended to. Swliv ( talk) 02:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Though #Reversal will be proceeding, I'm going to continue to collect 'Pages in need' here for the time being. First of these:
Introducing the proto-policy on my user page today, I wrote "I would certainly welcome input and help on the issue and the proto-policy" and I would. Swliv ( talk) 17:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Per #Input and help above and further consideration, I'm proceeding to reverse the Minupg's I've made. I've identified about 75 instances of use from March 19, 2015 to the present. The most recent three instances have already been reversed; the rest in reverse-chronological order I will reverse (lots of 'reverse') unless someone else volunteers here or I run out of steam. No guarantees about schedule. I will, I expect, be moving to #Full upgrades of some sort; or other appropriate format including just back to bare URLs. (One was a Dead link in Julian Robertson; I reverted it to bare and then tagged it as dead.) I'll go from 3/19/15 back to earliest use after completing this first tranche. I'll be marking Edit summaries with a link to this paragraph, as in: 'via wp:minupg#Reversal'. It seems maybe overly ornate but it's what I can work out as a methodical plan for now. Any other thoughts please add them here. Thanks. 23:41, 19 November 2015.
Another round of thinking on 'next steps here' at User_talk:Swliv#WP namespace. Swliv ( talk) 20:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)