![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There are a good number of schools on here. I think most of them are already in the WikiProject School database. If not, tag them {{ WPSchool}} and they will get attention. -zappa 17:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Many articles already contain internal links to other articles and they are no more deadend pages eg: Beard Papa.
Shouldn't these entries be removed?
tkark| wanna Talk 04:47, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
If this list also contains articles that are not deadends, but instead have style problems, then either they need to be removed from this list or this list needs to be called something other than "deadend". It is deceptive to have non-deadends on a deadend list.-- P Todd 22:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree; if this is a deadend page list, non-deadend pages with other problems should not be listed here. That is what the copy-edit tag {{copyedit}}, among others, is for. -- Mddake 01:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I think this list of deadend pages needs an update soon. Can it be re-generated easily ? -- PFHLai 00:07, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)
SimonP updated it. (Yay!) -- Beland 21:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I gave this a shortcut, WP:DEP. I figured "DEP" was the most logical abbreviation of Dead-End Pages. Hope nobody minds. The Literate Engineer 05:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Some of the articles on the deadend list are being marked by striking out. What is this intended to signify? If they are done we've been deleting the entry. What is strikeout supposed to indicate?
RJFJR
20:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
We need to focus more on the sections A, B, C. Work with those first to get their lists to a normal level , then we could work on the rest of the letters -- Revolución ( talk) 22:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Have just removed 20+ repeated items from the B and C lists. How did they get there in the first place? -- Picapica 13:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
A couple of things, first of all i think that the A, B, and C sections are so much larger at least partially because it is easier to work on dead end pages if you get the satisfaction of "i finished all the z's" etc. also because the abc seem to get updated more. I managed to work the b's and c's to just below 300 today, but I cant do it alone. Next question is should wictionary cantidites be removed from the list if they have links in them? Ah well happy editing! -- Meawoppl 20:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Based on a conversation between myself and Jdcooper I think that further conversation about when to remove a page from this list needs to be opened up. Jdcooper pointed out to me (rightfully so) that removing pages tagged for 'Move to Wiktionary' does not necessarily warrant the article being removed from this list. His point being that if the article is not transwikid to Wiktionary before the next run of the Deadend pages report then the article will show up right back here.
My question is this, if the pages are marked 'Move to Wiktionary' and also given a 'Wikify' tag does this fix the problem enough to remove the page. According to the instructions on this page if an article is tagged for AfD it should be tagged 'Wikify' as well to prevent it from re-appearing here.
For articles on AFD, you can tag them {{ wikify}} (in addition to the AFD notice) and remove them from this list. That way, if they survive deletion, they will still be tagged for fix-up. (They will not show up here on the next run if someone adds a single wikilink, but this may not indicate the article is fully wikified.) These pages should be de-listed because later updates to this page may overwrite annotations.
I would just like to ensure that there is a consistent effort for either removing or not removing pages from this list. This helps out those of us working on this list and eliminates duplication of effort.
Anyone have any thoughts, suggestions, criticisms?
James084 13:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Why not do something in-between removing them and leaving them on the list. Why not add some text to the side of the link
For instance next to it can say
This way people know more about the link before they click on it, and yet those who want all the non perfect articles on the list can still have them here.-- E-Bod 22:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for that. It sounds workable and helpful! -- PhiJ 15:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
We've informally tried that in the past. I'm not happy with it because annotations on this list get overwritten when the list is updated: at least in the past that did happen.
The core issue here is this; is this page a simple list of articles that have no external links (at least at the time the list was generated) or is it a list of articles awaiting triage (at least at the time the list was generated). My personal preference is for the latter - I don't see why anyone would even look for a list of deadend articles, unless they wanted to do something about them. The emerging consensus (at least in practice) is that articles are only removed from this list when they are tagged for deletion (Speedy, ProD or AfD) - anything that looks promising gets categories and minimal links even if it is also tagged "wikify" or whatever. So long as a "has problems" article appears on a "needs attention" list somewhere -and preferably only one list - that's good enough for me! Cje 20:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
If an article is well-categorized but has no internal links in the text itself, is that considered a dead-end page? -- Allen 16:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I suggest not tagging articles nominated for deletion (articles for deletion (AfD), speedy deletion and proposed deletion (prod)) for cleanup, unless the article has a good chance of surviving. The cleanup categories are already swamped, particularly wikification and general cleanup. Some newbie editors may work on articles that end up getting deleted and the rest of us will get frustrated from clicking on pages to work on and repeatedly finding them nominated/proposed for deletion and perhaps removing the tags, unaware that they were intentionally placed after the proposed deletion. Less importantly, it inflates the numbers of articles that actually need cleanup. Since multiple tags are usually added to the article, especially cleanup, wikify and uncategorized, the problems are multiplied. Removing the tags has always been my practice, but I did not know that anyone would ever intentionally add them after the article is nominated/proposed for deletion and I will not fight with other editors by reverting. -- Kjkolb 11:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with both:
for all the reasons given above. Instead, if an article survives AfD or ProD, THEN it should be tagged for wikification (if still required). Is this already part of the process for the admins who handle AfD and ProD? If not, then where should I propose this?
PS Unless a different consensus develops, then I am going to follow the emerging consensus and remove AfD and ProD articles that I find on this list. I think we're all wasting too much time following links to articles that are already being dealt with.
I think Kjkolb brings a valid point. We shouldn't be removing these articles from this list at the expense of another list. The current instructions on the project page state that you should tag an article with the {{ wikify}} template. If a page has been properly tagged for AfD or Prod it would then no longer qualify as a dead-end page, albeit temporarily. If the article survives deletion then it would re-appear here on the next refresh of the dead-end pages; allowing a "dead-end editor" to go about cleaning it up. I completely agree that AfD and Prod articles need to be removed from the list as per Cje. Any additional thoughts or criticisms? James084 13:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
look at Raphew Reed Jr. this diff makes me wonder if it's worth going through and copyediting. anyone ever wonder stuff like this? I wann help but if th orginal author or someone knowledgable never comes back, how do we know if any of this content is any good? does it matter if almost nothing else points to it? Kzz Rzz Knocker 02:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Well I've had a go at editing it! First there is no doubt that the guy exists (multiple Google hits from reputable sites) and won double gold medals in the relays at the 2004 Paralympic games (listed in Wikipedia articles and official sites e.g. [1]). So we have verifiable information and a double gold in a major sporting event is notable. Now I've got a shrewd suspiscion that the original article came from Raphew Reed himself, look at the author name, and that some of his friends have been messing around with the article - the diff you flag. So I've taken everything doubtful (no Google hits) out, and trimmed down the high school history to a level that is more consistent with articles on other athletes. If you find an article that really doesn't justify wikification then propose it for deletion - see WP:PROD, WP:DEL and WP:CSD for the various mechanisms available. Does that help? Yes, I do wonder about bothering with some of the unwikified articles I find here on WP:DEP but this particular one didn't worry me! Cje 13:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some disagreement here as to when to remove Articles from the dead-end list. I'm very new here and went through and cleaned up some short articles for a start. I added links, fixed spelling, added italics and bold, marked them as stubs or move to Wiktionary, etc. Considering the definition on the dead-end page is "The pages contained on the list below are either not wikified (are plain text, not properly formatted, and so on), and/or they do not contain internal links to other articles." it seems that should be enough to remove them from the list. Is there more that needs to be done? I don't want to leave articles there that no longer need dead-end cleanup (as someone else suggested, if they need other help, such as fleshing out, they should be tagged as such). At the same time, I obviously don't want to remove anything that really does belong here. Is there any sort of consensus on when to delete articles from the list? -- Laura S 03:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I was recently asked to update this list again, but would it be preferred if I waited until the list was complete before updating again, or is it better to update more frequently? I personally would like to update more frequently as it purges all the wikified/deleted articles. Martin 16:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
In the last few weeks/days I went through the A-K list and finished it today. In my opinion, it certainly would be worthwhile to update the list because I encountered A LOT of articles that were no longer dead-ends. Some of them had been wikified quite some time ago. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I've identified this project as a candidate for material to be analyzed by Wikipedia Integration methodology. Please feel welcome to offer suggestions and feedback. WP:ʃ Cwolfsheep 16:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been trying to work on DEP either by patrolling the new pages or looking in here once in awhile. There are a lot of pages I've caught by checking the new pages that are a few hours old. Right now it seems there are about 500 new pages started every 4-6 hours.
When I do find a DEP I give it every tag that it seems to need at the time. Something like this: {{uncat}} {{unref}} {{linkless}} {{wikify}} so that it comes to the attention of each cleanup project. If you were to place only the {{wikify}} tag on the article it might be several months before a wikify project member finds the article and adds the additional tags (if ever) the article needs. Currently there are over 7000 articles waiting to be wikified.
If a DEP gets full tags from the beginning then there will be more exposure to bring the article into line which I think is the overall goal of each project. Only problem there is that people often forget to remove the tag after it is no longer needed.
When I visit here and try and work on the DEP list I often find the article has already been tagged for various things which can be rather frustrating. If an article has been seen and given tags, that should turn it over to the various cleanup groups and shouldn't merit listing as a DEP any longer. I notice there is a lot of controversy here over what should or should not be done as far as tags placed or removed, so I'm just putting in my 2 cents on this matter. -- Brad101 12:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Re: all the comments so far have merit. It's possible that a bot placing tags on an article could be done. Isn't there one that already does this? Anyhow, I didn't intend to mean that I place all tags on all articles without looking. I only place tags that an article needs. As far as the {{linkless}} tag goes, I often do find articles with no links from other articles by checking the "What links here". If I see no links or links that only go to user, talk or project pages, I place the tag on.
I'm seeing a lot of redundancy in some cleanup projects and trying to come up with some ideas to get everyone on the same level which is generally bringing articles up to standards. -- Brad101 04:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see User:Brad101/redundancy for things that have been on my mind lately. Use the talk page there for comments about changes etc. Thanks -- Brad101 15:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I have finally got rid of the F's but how come the G's,H's and I's are so long! L06ChBea
As many who work on this part of Wikipedia know, a lot of articles that get listed here are blatant copyright violations. Usually those articles would be listed at WP:CP. For those who aren't aware, a change was recently made to the db-copyvio template that removes the criteria that the article had to be less than 48 hours old. Now, if you find a blatant copyvio you can mark it for speedy deletion regardless of how old the article is. This should help clear this list much quicker. -- cholmes75 ( chit chat) 05:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I see that a recent lot was just cleared out. Congratulations! -- WikiSlasher 08:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out how to get the Dead-End Pages updated. As near as I can figure out, Bluemoose/Martin was responsible for updating the page. Since he has left Wikipedia, this seems to be falling through the cracks. I like working on the Dead-End Pages but without any way of updating the list, I'm unable to work on them. Does anyone know of a way to find another person to do this? I'd volunteer but if it involves downloading the current database (1.8 GBs?) and working with it, that's not possible since I'm on a relatively slow connection. I tried but the estimate for download time was 10-12 hours. Anyone have any ideas? -- Pigman ( talk • contribs) 04:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I have a new version made from the 12-30-06 data, just let me know when you guys want me to put it up. Salad Days 07:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I just did a major revision to this article and it no longer is a dead-end page. I noticed that it was listed by checking the pages that linked to the article. I didn't know if there was anything else I could do to remove this article from your list, I'm not familiar with this project. Any advice for me would be welcomed. CRKingston 02:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The current method of generating the list produces pages that are too long (~170 kb) in some cases. It would be better if this could be broken up into much smaller chunks. This time I did some of this by hand, but it is a time consuming thing to do for a set of pages that is just going to be regenerated in a few days. ike9898 22:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I've just been working on this article (with help) and there is only one dead-end link remaining. Can someone take a look at the article and critique? Is there anything else that needs to be done? Do the stubs have enough information? For R. L. Anderson himself (the remaining link), I was thinking of creating a biographical stub. What would you suggest? After this one is done properly, I'd like to pitch in and help with other orphaned or dead-end articles. Thx! LtlKty 23:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC) talk
I have realized that I should avoid listing pages which contain particular templates the next time this is updated, for example the {{deletedpage}} template... does anyone have any suggestions as to what else to filter out? Perhaps articles already tagged {{wiki}}? Salad Days 00:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I notice from the header that we now have a bot eating all the redlinks for us - good!
I just wonder: does it know to eat the whole line (everthing after the # and before the next #), or do I have to worry about pieces of my "editor's notes" being left after the entry is gone? -- Alvestrand 01:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Added internal links to this article and edited it a bit. It still needs a lot of work - I've left it as a stub for now. If you agree, I'd like to take it off the dead-end page list - and also the orphaned page list if it is there.-- LtlKty talk | contribs 05:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a thought, Adding a prod tag when we are working the list is becoming a habit for all of us, and I think it's a good one. I have also begun adding a date behind my prod tag on the list so if someone is coming behind me they can tell at glance if it has been over 6 or 7 days, if it is still blue and if the article might need another look. Jeepday 23:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
For no particular reason, I noticed that the counts of articles at the top of each letter were outdated by a month, so I updated them manually. My general observations:
Thanks to everyone for your insightful follow-up. I did not realize what firestorm this would cause, and I did not intend to do harm. YechielMan 05:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
While I really appreciate what your doing on the front page YechielMan I think you need an overview to start off, then a second section with more detail if you want. We don't want to scare off newcomers, by making it to complex, the primary goal of this project is add [[wiki links]] to articles. While the rest of the stuff you are talking about might be nice to do, there are other projects and editors to do them. Just as articles progress slowly so do editors. We start with one thing and as we learn more we do more, but not just starting out. Jeepday 03:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone placed a section break within E at En. This was done already with S, and I'm okay with it, but it messed up the section editing: "En" edited as "F", "F" edited as "G", and so forth. Figure out how to fix that bug before you reinstate the section break. YechielMan 18:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
What is the the thought on putting in section breaks? I like them especially for any letter with lots of articles as it makes it easier to work in the middle of the selection. I don't mind doing the work to put them in as often as Salad Days will reload the data, if other users find them useful. If you don't want them, I will just put them on what ever section grabs my attention to work. Jeepday 03:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I made a new version of the page from a dump ten days old... but I don't dare put it up and remove everyone's comments and so forth. If anyone wants to be bold and risk pissing someone off it is located at: User:Salad_Days/Sandbox_2 and User:Salad_Days/Sandbox_3. Salad Days 01:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Instead of creating these lists, wouldn't it be easier to automatically insert a maintenance tag for dead end pages - subpaged into months. Although there would be no visual guide to how well we are doing, it would easier to remove from the list, and, hopefully, attract more people to help on dead end pages. Just a thought. As for adding the new data, you won't offend me, I can start nearer the top of the list again! -- Richhoncho 01:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Reality check? What's everyone talking about? There seems to be some discussion about maintenance tags versus creating by month categories...? YechielMan 05:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick reminder to everyone on the project that blatant and total copyvio is eligible for speedy deletion under the "db-copyvio|url" template. There's a ton of articles on dead-end pages that are rather long and totally unwikified, which is a dead giveaway. All you have to do is grab a random sentence fragment and paste it into Google in quotes to spot the source. Salad Days 23:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There are a good number of schools on here. I think most of them are already in the WikiProject School database. If not, tag them {{ WPSchool}} and they will get attention. -zappa 17:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Many articles already contain internal links to other articles and they are no more deadend pages eg: Beard Papa.
Shouldn't these entries be removed?
tkark| wanna Talk 04:47, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
If this list also contains articles that are not deadends, but instead have style problems, then either they need to be removed from this list or this list needs to be called something other than "deadend". It is deceptive to have non-deadends on a deadend list.-- P Todd 22:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree; if this is a deadend page list, non-deadend pages with other problems should not be listed here. That is what the copy-edit tag {{copyedit}}, among others, is for. -- Mddake 01:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I think this list of deadend pages needs an update soon. Can it be re-generated easily ? -- PFHLai 00:07, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)
SimonP updated it. (Yay!) -- Beland 21:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I gave this a shortcut, WP:DEP. I figured "DEP" was the most logical abbreviation of Dead-End Pages. Hope nobody minds. The Literate Engineer 05:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Some of the articles on the deadend list are being marked by striking out. What is this intended to signify? If they are done we've been deleting the entry. What is strikeout supposed to indicate?
RJFJR
20:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
We need to focus more on the sections A, B, C. Work with those first to get their lists to a normal level , then we could work on the rest of the letters -- Revolución ( talk) 22:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Have just removed 20+ repeated items from the B and C lists. How did they get there in the first place? -- Picapica 13:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
A couple of things, first of all i think that the A, B, and C sections are so much larger at least partially because it is easier to work on dead end pages if you get the satisfaction of "i finished all the z's" etc. also because the abc seem to get updated more. I managed to work the b's and c's to just below 300 today, but I cant do it alone. Next question is should wictionary cantidites be removed from the list if they have links in them? Ah well happy editing! -- Meawoppl 20:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Based on a conversation between myself and Jdcooper I think that further conversation about when to remove a page from this list needs to be opened up. Jdcooper pointed out to me (rightfully so) that removing pages tagged for 'Move to Wiktionary' does not necessarily warrant the article being removed from this list. His point being that if the article is not transwikid to Wiktionary before the next run of the Deadend pages report then the article will show up right back here.
My question is this, if the pages are marked 'Move to Wiktionary' and also given a 'Wikify' tag does this fix the problem enough to remove the page. According to the instructions on this page if an article is tagged for AfD it should be tagged 'Wikify' as well to prevent it from re-appearing here.
For articles on AFD, you can tag them {{ wikify}} (in addition to the AFD notice) and remove them from this list. That way, if they survive deletion, they will still be tagged for fix-up. (They will not show up here on the next run if someone adds a single wikilink, but this may not indicate the article is fully wikified.) These pages should be de-listed because later updates to this page may overwrite annotations.
I would just like to ensure that there is a consistent effort for either removing or not removing pages from this list. This helps out those of us working on this list and eliminates duplication of effort.
Anyone have any thoughts, suggestions, criticisms?
James084 13:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Why not do something in-between removing them and leaving them on the list. Why not add some text to the side of the link
For instance next to it can say
This way people know more about the link before they click on it, and yet those who want all the non perfect articles on the list can still have them here.-- E-Bod 22:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for that. It sounds workable and helpful! -- PhiJ 15:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
We've informally tried that in the past. I'm not happy with it because annotations on this list get overwritten when the list is updated: at least in the past that did happen.
The core issue here is this; is this page a simple list of articles that have no external links (at least at the time the list was generated) or is it a list of articles awaiting triage (at least at the time the list was generated). My personal preference is for the latter - I don't see why anyone would even look for a list of deadend articles, unless they wanted to do something about them. The emerging consensus (at least in practice) is that articles are only removed from this list when they are tagged for deletion (Speedy, ProD or AfD) - anything that looks promising gets categories and minimal links even if it is also tagged "wikify" or whatever. So long as a "has problems" article appears on a "needs attention" list somewhere -and preferably only one list - that's good enough for me! Cje 20:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
If an article is well-categorized but has no internal links in the text itself, is that considered a dead-end page? -- Allen 16:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I suggest not tagging articles nominated for deletion (articles for deletion (AfD), speedy deletion and proposed deletion (prod)) for cleanup, unless the article has a good chance of surviving. The cleanup categories are already swamped, particularly wikification and general cleanup. Some newbie editors may work on articles that end up getting deleted and the rest of us will get frustrated from clicking on pages to work on and repeatedly finding them nominated/proposed for deletion and perhaps removing the tags, unaware that they were intentionally placed after the proposed deletion. Less importantly, it inflates the numbers of articles that actually need cleanup. Since multiple tags are usually added to the article, especially cleanup, wikify and uncategorized, the problems are multiplied. Removing the tags has always been my practice, but I did not know that anyone would ever intentionally add them after the article is nominated/proposed for deletion and I will not fight with other editors by reverting. -- Kjkolb 11:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with both:
for all the reasons given above. Instead, if an article survives AfD or ProD, THEN it should be tagged for wikification (if still required). Is this already part of the process for the admins who handle AfD and ProD? If not, then where should I propose this?
PS Unless a different consensus develops, then I am going to follow the emerging consensus and remove AfD and ProD articles that I find on this list. I think we're all wasting too much time following links to articles that are already being dealt with.
I think Kjkolb brings a valid point. We shouldn't be removing these articles from this list at the expense of another list. The current instructions on the project page state that you should tag an article with the {{ wikify}} template. If a page has been properly tagged for AfD or Prod it would then no longer qualify as a dead-end page, albeit temporarily. If the article survives deletion then it would re-appear here on the next refresh of the dead-end pages; allowing a "dead-end editor" to go about cleaning it up. I completely agree that AfD and Prod articles need to be removed from the list as per Cje. Any additional thoughts or criticisms? James084 13:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
look at Raphew Reed Jr. this diff makes me wonder if it's worth going through and copyediting. anyone ever wonder stuff like this? I wann help but if th orginal author or someone knowledgable never comes back, how do we know if any of this content is any good? does it matter if almost nothing else points to it? Kzz Rzz Knocker 02:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Well I've had a go at editing it! First there is no doubt that the guy exists (multiple Google hits from reputable sites) and won double gold medals in the relays at the 2004 Paralympic games (listed in Wikipedia articles and official sites e.g. [1]). So we have verifiable information and a double gold in a major sporting event is notable. Now I've got a shrewd suspiscion that the original article came from Raphew Reed himself, look at the author name, and that some of his friends have been messing around with the article - the diff you flag. So I've taken everything doubtful (no Google hits) out, and trimmed down the high school history to a level that is more consistent with articles on other athletes. If you find an article that really doesn't justify wikification then propose it for deletion - see WP:PROD, WP:DEL and WP:CSD for the various mechanisms available. Does that help? Yes, I do wonder about bothering with some of the unwikified articles I find here on WP:DEP but this particular one didn't worry me! Cje 13:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some disagreement here as to when to remove Articles from the dead-end list. I'm very new here and went through and cleaned up some short articles for a start. I added links, fixed spelling, added italics and bold, marked them as stubs or move to Wiktionary, etc. Considering the definition on the dead-end page is "The pages contained on the list below are either not wikified (are plain text, not properly formatted, and so on), and/or they do not contain internal links to other articles." it seems that should be enough to remove them from the list. Is there more that needs to be done? I don't want to leave articles there that no longer need dead-end cleanup (as someone else suggested, if they need other help, such as fleshing out, they should be tagged as such). At the same time, I obviously don't want to remove anything that really does belong here. Is there any sort of consensus on when to delete articles from the list? -- Laura S 03:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I was recently asked to update this list again, but would it be preferred if I waited until the list was complete before updating again, or is it better to update more frequently? I personally would like to update more frequently as it purges all the wikified/deleted articles. Martin 16:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
In the last few weeks/days I went through the A-K list and finished it today. In my opinion, it certainly would be worthwhile to update the list because I encountered A LOT of articles that were no longer dead-ends. Some of them had been wikified quite some time ago. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I've identified this project as a candidate for material to be analyzed by Wikipedia Integration methodology. Please feel welcome to offer suggestions and feedback. WP:ʃ Cwolfsheep 16:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been trying to work on DEP either by patrolling the new pages or looking in here once in awhile. There are a lot of pages I've caught by checking the new pages that are a few hours old. Right now it seems there are about 500 new pages started every 4-6 hours.
When I do find a DEP I give it every tag that it seems to need at the time. Something like this: {{uncat}} {{unref}} {{linkless}} {{wikify}} so that it comes to the attention of each cleanup project. If you were to place only the {{wikify}} tag on the article it might be several months before a wikify project member finds the article and adds the additional tags (if ever) the article needs. Currently there are over 7000 articles waiting to be wikified.
If a DEP gets full tags from the beginning then there will be more exposure to bring the article into line which I think is the overall goal of each project. Only problem there is that people often forget to remove the tag after it is no longer needed.
When I visit here and try and work on the DEP list I often find the article has already been tagged for various things which can be rather frustrating. If an article has been seen and given tags, that should turn it over to the various cleanup groups and shouldn't merit listing as a DEP any longer. I notice there is a lot of controversy here over what should or should not be done as far as tags placed or removed, so I'm just putting in my 2 cents on this matter. -- Brad101 12:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Re: all the comments so far have merit. It's possible that a bot placing tags on an article could be done. Isn't there one that already does this? Anyhow, I didn't intend to mean that I place all tags on all articles without looking. I only place tags that an article needs. As far as the {{linkless}} tag goes, I often do find articles with no links from other articles by checking the "What links here". If I see no links or links that only go to user, talk or project pages, I place the tag on.
I'm seeing a lot of redundancy in some cleanup projects and trying to come up with some ideas to get everyone on the same level which is generally bringing articles up to standards. -- Brad101 04:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see User:Brad101/redundancy for things that have been on my mind lately. Use the talk page there for comments about changes etc. Thanks -- Brad101 15:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I have finally got rid of the F's but how come the G's,H's and I's are so long! L06ChBea
As many who work on this part of Wikipedia know, a lot of articles that get listed here are blatant copyright violations. Usually those articles would be listed at WP:CP. For those who aren't aware, a change was recently made to the db-copyvio template that removes the criteria that the article had to be less than 48 hours old. Now, if you find a blatant copyvio you can mark it for speedy deletion regardless of how old the article is. This should help clear this list much quicker. -- cholmes75 ( chit chat) 05:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I see that a recent lot was just cleared out. Congratulations! -- WikiSlasher 08:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out how to get the Dead-End Pages updated. As near as I can figure out, Bluemoose/Martin was responsible for updating the page. Since he has left Wikipedia, this seems to be falling through the cracks. I like working on the Dead-End Pages but without any way of updating the list, I'm unable to work on them. Does anyone know of a way to find another person to do this? I'd volunteer but if it involves downloading the current database (1.8 GBs?) and working with it, that's not possible since I'm on a relatively slow connection. I tried but the estimate for download time was 10-12 hours. Anyone have any ideas? -- Pigman ( talk • contribs) 04:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I have a new version made from the 12-30-06 data, just let me know when you guys want me to put it up. Salad Days 07:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I just did a major revision to this article and it no longer is a dead-end page. I noticed that it was listed by checking the pages that linked to the article. I didn't know if there was anything else I could do to remove this article from your list, I'm not familiar with this project. Any advice for me would be welcomed. CRKingston 02:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The current method of generating the list produces pages that are too long (~170 kb) in some cases. It would be better if this could be broken up into much smaller chunks. This time I did some of this by hand, but it is a time consuming thing to do for a set of pages that is just going to be regenerated in a few days. ike9898 22:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I've just been working on this article (with help) and there is only one dead-end link remaining. Can someone take a look at the article and critique? Is there anything else that needs to be done? Do the stubs have enough information? For R. L. Anderson himself (the remaining link), I was thinking of creating a biographical stub. What would you suggest? After this one is done properly, I'd like to pitch in and help with other orphaned or dead-end articles. Thx! LtlKty 23:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC) talk
I have realized that I should avoid listing pages which contain particular templates the next time this is updated, for example the {{deletedpage}} template... does anyone have any suggestions as to what else to filter out? Perhaps articles already tagged {{wiki}}? Salad Days 00:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I notice from the header that we now have a bot eating all the redlinks for us - good!
I just wonder: does it know to eat the whole line (everthing after the # and before the next #), or do I have to worry about pieces of my "editor's notes" being left after the entry is gone? -- Alvestrand 01:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Added internal links to this article and edited it a bit. It still needs a lot of work - I've left it as a stub for now. If you agree, I'd like to take it off the dead-end page list - and also the orphaned page list if it is there.-- LtlKty talk | contribs 05:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a thought, Adding a prod tag when we are working the list is becoming a habit for all of us, and I think it's a good one. I have also begun adding a date behind my prod tag on the list so if someone is coming behind me they can tell at glance if it has been over 6 or 7 days, if it is still blue and if the article might need another look. Jeepday 23:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
For no particular reason, I noticed that the counts of articles at the top of each letter were outdated by a month, so I updated them manually. My general observations:
Thanks to everyone for your insightful follow-up. I did not realize what firestorm this would cause, and I did not intend to do harm. YechielMan 05:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
While I really appreciate what your doing on the front page YechielMan I think you need an overview to start off, then a second section with more detail if you want. We don't want to scare off newcomers, by making it to complex, the primary goal of this project is add [[wiki links]] to articles. While the rest of the stuff you are talking about might be nice to do, there are other projects and editors to do them. Just as articles progress slowly so do editors. We start with one thing and as we learn more we do more, but not just starting out. Jeepday 03:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone placed a section break within E at En. This was done already with S, and I'm okay with it, but it messed up the section editing: "En" edited as "F", "F" edited as "G", and so forth. Figure out how to fix that bug before you reinstate the section break. YechielMan 18:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
What is the the thought on putting in section breaks? I like them especially for any letter with lots of articles as it makes it easier to work in the middle of the selection. I don't mind doing the work to put them in as often as Salad Days will reload the data, if other users find them useful. If you don't want them, I will just put them on what ever section grabs my attention to work. Jeepday 03:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I made a new version of the page from a dump ten days old... but I don't dare put it up and remove everyone's comments and so forth. If anyone wants to be bold and risk pissing someone off it is located at: User:Salad_Days/Sandbox_2 and User:Salad_Days/Sandbox_3. Salad Days 01:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Instead of creating these lists, wouldn't it be easier to automatically insert a maintenance tag for dead end pages - subpaged into months. Although there would be no visual guide to how well we are doing, it would easier to remove from the list, and, hopefully, attract more people to help on dead end pages. Just a thought. As for adding the new data, you won't offend me, I can start nearer the top of the list again! -- Richhoncho 01:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Reality check? What's everyone talking about? There seems to be some discussion about maintenance tags versus creating by month categories...? YechielMan 05:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick reminder to everyone on the project that blatant and total copyvio is eligible for speedy deletion under the "db-copyvio|url" template. There's a ton of articles on dead-end pages that are rather long and totally unwikified, which is a dead giveaway. All you have to do is grab a random sentence fragment and paste it into Google in quotes to spot the source. Salad Days 23:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)