This 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Material on this page was archived from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Guide and thus may be out of chronological order in terms of the preceding and subsequent archives. |
Another approach is to use the template that is there for starting new projects and then comment most of it out. This has the advantage that when you need stuff, it's already there and present in a uniform way. Not sure this is non-contentious enough to include so here it is on talk... ++ Lar: t/ c 04:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
After seeing what WP:Philadelphia and WP:Pennsylvania originally used for their project banners, and seeing that both have now reduced their banner image sizes, I've added a note here about the image size. Anything over 100px is way too big for an image; 50px is currently the preferred image size. Slambo (Speak) 11:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Can there be something discussing project overlap? I'm not necessarily talking about descendant projects with obvious overlap, but merely two subjects which have some common topics. Specifically, I'd like to see something written that mentions that it's okay for a given article to "belong" to several WikiProjects. I mention this only because I've seen in the past that sometimes a project banner is removed from an article talk page only because of someone misunderstanding that an article can only be a part of one WikiProject. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 21:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject — Portal dynamics are tricky and require extensive collaboration and could benefit from some central guidance. Please have a look. | 0^#o 21:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't sure if this was the place to suggest guidelines for certain things? I worked out with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) a guideline for writing about fictional characters and fictional TV episodes. It was a tedious process getting feedback, so it'd be a shame to have to make someone go through the same thing.... Thoughts? -- plange 23:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The first topic, What is a WikiProject, beats about the bush and doesn't answer the question: what IS a wikiproject? This should be answered concisely and effectively, as it is a key point. Asking what it is and spouting philisophical verbiage won't help. -Slash-
When I started both the California WikiProject and the Southern California WikiProject, I was frustrated with many of the features and organization of the {{ WikiProject}} template. There were several sections that didn't seem that useful, and when looking at many of the most active WikiProjects, those sections were not used much, and when used, didn't seem to be that useful. I also found very userful sections in some of the most active WikiProjects that were not in the WikiProject template.
I ended up looking through all of the place-related WikiProjects that were running at the time (and quite a few of the other most active WikiProjects), and I tried to incorporated the best features of those WikiProjects in to the two California WikiProjects. I also tried to add most of those features into the WikiProject template.
Since then, the Southern California WikiProject has been extensively reorganized, although I think that it now needs some minor tuneup after experience with the reorganization.
I think that it is time to look again at some of the most active WikiProjects to see what some of their most useful, as well as most innovative features are. Then there should be an extensive overhaul of the WikiProject template. Blank Verse 09:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
This section has remained a stub for a while, but I don't know what it is supposed to talk about... what do we want to put in there? Any ideas? Tito xd( ?!?) 21:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
{{WikiProject|MILHIST}}, {{WikiProject|Meteorology}}, {{WikiProject|Arizona}}</tt>
, or something else? The problem with one big template is that many projects already use a lot of custom parameters (e.g. {{
hurricane}}) and that in some cases, those parameters conflict with one another. This has been discussed previously, and it was generally thought to be a bad idea. Or do you mean something else?
Tito
xd(
?!?) 16:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)I know at one time there were concerns about the effects upon server loads from having too many template redirects. Now, however, I'm seeing loads of template redirects and the developers seem to be saying that if there are any performance problems from template redirects, meta-templates, etc., that they will try to fix them with their programming.
If that's the case, then I think that it would be helpful to have a series of 'standard' redirects that will lead to whatever the banner template's real name is. I would suggest 1) template:WikiProject Example, 2) template:WPExample, and 3) Template:WPE (that is, whatever the WikiProject's shortcut is). The other alternative would be for WP:COUNCIL to maintain a directory of all the WikiProject banner templates.
The reason that this would be helpful is that I've run into quite a few times when I'm adding a banner for one of the Californai WikiProjects, or just doing an article assessment, and will notice that it should also have a banner from another WikiProject (for example, {{ WPSchool}} for Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools). With all the different ways of naming a project banner, it's a real PITA to remember how some of them are named. Blank Verse 20:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I think we might want to consider rephrasing the heading "Is a project needed?" to something else. As it is currently phrased, I think it might be possible for people to overloook this section entirely. The average person reading the guide is generally already convinced that a project is necessary, or they wouldn't be trying to set one up, and they might either skip it entirely or just quickly skim it. Maybe a heading like "Possible project structuring", which is more ambiguous and thus less likely to be quickly written off by potential readership as irrelevant, might work a bit better. Badbilltucker 15:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Many of the project banners (and userboxes too, but that's a different process) were protected against moves and edits this morning due to their widespread use on a large number of pages. Should we now add something into the guide that recommends listing the "final" banner template on WP:RPP after the banner has been added to, say, 50 articles? By encouraging the projects to list their banners there, we don't have to wait for someone to count the number of times a template is used and realize that it has since become a "high risk template." Slambo (Speak) 19:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
When a banner like {{tl|WikiProject California]] is on over 10,000 article talk pages, it makes sense to protect the template from vandal & spammer mischief. There are other banners, like the one for WP:FILM that are also on over 10,000 pages. Blank Verse 11:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I believe that per the usual Wikipedia / mainspace separation (see Wikipedia:Categorization#Wikipedia namespace, WikiProjects should not themselves be categorized into the mainspace category trees -- i.e., Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction should not itself be categorized Category:Science fiction. If so, we may need some clarity on the guidelines about that. Thoughts? -- lquilter 22:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Are Wikiprojects forbidden to support a particular point of view? If so, this page should state it explicitly. Pcu123456789 02:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
the links on this wikiproject are not working well pl help. WikiProject Pakistan/Assessment User talk:Yousaf465
What is the official stance by wikipedia about membership in projects? I am interested in doing a little work on a project, but I don't feel that joining the group is a good idea. Officially is there a rule on the books that dictates that only members of a project are supposed to be involved in the project? Thanks 66.90.162.101 23:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
By project, I am refering to a Wiki Project. Articles which have been grouped together because they concern a specific topic, and to develop a level of consistency to the included pages ( WP:PROJ). Your answers are pretty much what I thought: one is not required to join a "project" in order to participate. I had a recent experience where I was instructed to "join" a particular project, but I am very uneasy about joining. Seems to be a way to regulate who and what can be added to an article or discussion. Whether or not that is the reality, the long term effects could in fact be exclusivity and lack of personal freedom on the Wiki (not to imply anything about WP being a democracy, which it is not, simply that I fear a cliqueish protectivism which could arise from required "membership"). 66.90.162.101 15:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi all. I've created a WikiProject recently, and fell into at least one of the Common Pitfalls that were previously noted in the comments in the Common Pitfalls section. So I've turned all those comments into headings; hopefully they're all useful. Also, I think the article is too long, and doesn't talk enough about scope. My proposal for the article is this (which I will hopefully get around to if there are no complaints):
Actually, I'll start rewriting "Initial considerations" now.
-- TimNelson 04:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, here's my new idea. We restructure the guide like this:
Here's another idea; we could make people start at the bottom (Collaboration), and work their way up :).
Here's how it would go:
-- TimNelson 08:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Most of the ideas have either been implemented or shot down. There are only two remaining ideas, and I'll bring them up for a little more discussion:
Thoughts?
-- TimNelson 13:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
How many people do you usually need to form a task force? I have a few ideas for task forces at Wikipedia:WikiProject Calvinism, but I've shied away from creating any until we get at least 10 people that look like they might be interested in forming a task force. Is 10 a reasonable number?
Incidentally, this is the sort of question I want to answer on a separate Task Forces page :).
-- TimNelson 09:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Have an issue where we (three of us) just started a task force underneath WP:TN for Chattanooga. Another Wiki user came along and started a full Chattanooga wiki project (WP:CHA). Those who started the task force are against the new project. User who created the project seems determined, despite our concerns. Not sure how to go about handling the situation, as he's kind of making a mess of things/harassing (he's left a few comments on my talk page). Qmax 02:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
.. are looking great! Great job to all involved. -- Ned Scott 01:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
What about coordination with other WikiProjects and Portals in Wikipedia and, specially, in other Sister Projects . We can get synergy from this. -- HybridBoy 11:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking about starting a Four Dimensional Geometry WikiProject, does anyone object to that? If no one does, I am going to go ahead and start it.-- Eskimospy 00:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
There's no suggestions about proper ways to attract interest in a WikiProject. What sort of promotion is acceptable, especially given canvassing rules? Should I make a mention on the talk pages of each page that would be within scope? Just the main page? Somewhere in between? Should I even bother submitting a project proposal without additional initial members first? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ ( AMA) 20:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The concept of a successful WikiProject is mentioned, but not illustrated. Can I be Frank? (Talk to me!) 06:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Could someone look here and write something about it? The problem is that one editor insists that putting that article within the scope of WikiProject Serbia 'sounds bad' and 'is continuation of Serbian aggression' (sic). Alæxis ¿question? 18:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to advertise the new template {{ PageStatus}}, which makes WikiProject lists of articles easier to manage. Some WikiProjects may find it quite useful! -- Aquillyne-- ( talk) 20:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 22:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I notice that some project banners claim that a page "is part of" rather than "is in the scope of" a particular project. This seems to contradict project guidelines, which state that projects are not places to create articles.
I see this as more than just semantics, since "is part of" implies some kind of ownership of the page, with the possible implication that membership in the project is required to edit the page (false) or that the project members were responsible for the content of the page (again, often false). "is in the scope of" does not, at least to me, have any such connotations.
So, would it be appropriate to edit such banner templates? Or would I be opening myself to flameage, accusations of vandalism, etc?
-- Zaqrfv ( talk) 06:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if the WikiProject Council itself ran a bot to generate watchlists for projects like User:WatchlistBot did up until August 2007. I saw in the Technical notes that there is a Watchlists section, but SQLBot apparently doesn't do project watchlists ( my request was ignored and deleted), and the second option isn't an automated bot (which is practically useless IMHO).
I would be happy to work with whoever is interested in getting something like this up and running. If there's a way a group of us can work on and administer such a bot together, that would be great.
Also, it would be nice if WPCouncil could have an actual group of us who tend to the technical issues that WikiProjects face. If this exists already, I'd be happy to join it, and if not, I'd be happy to help form it. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how to effect a site-wide change, but I would like to propose that all WikiProjects that rate articles by importance have a change to the name "low". I think it is quite discouraging to new editors to have articles they contribute to deemed of low importance, and I think it is contrary to the goals of including material that is "important" or "noteworthy". Articles are currently rated as being of Low, Mid, High, and Top importance. Perhaps "Low" could become "Basic" or "Standard". I'm sure someone will have a good suggestion. Let's stop using a demeaning rating category... — Reinyday, 20:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I read the guidelines for overtagging and I want to propose that we add something to the guideline. Basically, I want to propose that parent WikiProjects shouldn't tag subprojects articles. For instance, if you have an article about a music album, you tag it for WikiProject Albums and not WikiProject Music as well. Since a subproject is dealing with the article there is no need to include this in the parent projects scope, since that would be double work. It is a basic case of divide and conquer. If people from the parent projects include the subprojects articles they will likely spend all their time tagging articles and not actually getting any real work done on other articles. In a more specific case, I belong to WikiProject The Simpsons. This project have WikiProject Television, WikiProject American Animation (a sub of WikiProject Animation) and WikiProject Comedy (a sub of WikiProject Culture) as parents and sure enough they will all tag a Simpsons article (e.g. see Talk:Homer Simpson). I think four projects are overtagging.
Another problem I would like to address is that of selective tagging. I don't know if we can actually do anything about this, but I still feel it would be nice to mention it in the guideline. Some WikiProjects only starts tagging articles as soon as an article reaches GA or FA level. Nobody gives a rat ass about Simpsons articles when they are filled with OR, cruft and trivia, but then suddenly when the article reaches GA, you see all kinds of WikiProjects popping up and tagging the article. They didn't do any work on it, but you can be sure to find it on their front page as one of their accomplishments. I'm not here to claim ownership of Simpsons articles. If they are entitled to tag it, then they should do it. However, there is something fundamentally wrong about only tagging articles because they suddenly are of quality. It gives a wrong image of how well the project is progressing. Case in point, at WikiProject Comedy they have admitted to tagging articles only when they reach FA, FL or GA ( Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Simpsons#Simpsons_and_Comedy_WikiProject) - although in good faith. When you look at their front page you think that this is brilliant and productive project, but when you look at their talk page you will see that it is a ghost town where there is almost never anybody who responds to comments. I didn't mean to single WikiProject Comedy out, because many projects does it, but it was the best case I could present. I think that people should stop lurking around GAN, FAC and FLC and tag all the articles relevant to their project - even the crappy ones. -- Maitch ( talk) 00:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
As the person who is mainly responsible for this tagging of articles, can I just say that I did because I believed that the Simpsons fell under comedy's duristiction. I do not mind removing the tags so long as it can be done quickly. ISD ( talk) 06:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Material on this page was archived from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Guide and thus may be out of chronological order in terms of the preceding and subsequent archives. |
Another approach is to use the template that is there for starting new projects and then comment most of it out. This has the advantage that when you need stuff, it's already there and present in a uniform way. Not sure this is non-contentious enough to include so here it is on talk... ++ Lar: t/ c 04:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
After seeing what WP:Philadelphia and WP:Pennsylvania originally used for their project banners, and seeing that both have now reduced their banner image sizes, I've added a note here about the image size. Anything over 100px is way too big for an image; 50px is currently the preferred image size. Slambo (Speak) 11:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Can there be something discussing project overlap? I'm not necessarily talking about descendant projects with obvious overlap, but merely two subjects which have some common topics. Specifically, I'd like to see something written that mentions that it's okay for a given article to "belong" to several WikiProjects. I mention this only because I've seen in the past that sometimes a project banner is removed from an article talk page only because of someone misunderstanding that an article can only be a part of one WikiProject. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 21:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject — Portal dynamics are tricky and require extensive collaboration and could benefit from some central guidance. Please have a look. | 0^#o 21:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't sure if this was the place to suggest guidelines for certain things? I worked out with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) a guideline for writing about fictional characters and fictional TV episodes. It was a tedious process getting feedback, so it'd be a shame to have to make someone go through the same thing.... Thoughts? -- plange 23:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The first topic, What is a WikiProject, beats about the bush and doesn't answer the question: what IS a wikiproject? This should be answered concisely and effectively, as it is a key point. Asking what it is and spouting philisophical verbiage won't help. -Slash-
When I started both the California WikiProject and the Southern California WikiProject, I was frustrated with many of the features and organization of the {{ WikiProject}} template. There were several sections that didn't seem that useful, and when looking at many of the most active WikiProjects, those sections were not used much, and when used, didn't seem to be that useful. I also found very userful sections in some of the most active WikiProjects that were not in the WikiProject template.
I ended up looking through all of the place-related WikiProjects that were running at the time (and quite a few of the other most active WikiProjects), and I tried to incorporated the best features of those WikiProjects in to the two California WikiProjects. I also tried to add most of those features into the WikiProject template.
Since then, the Southern California WikiProject has been extensively reorganized, although I think that it now needs some minor tuneup after experience with the reorganization.
I think that it is time to look again at some of the most active WikiProjects to see what some of their most useful, as well as most innovative features are. Then there should be an extensive overhaul of the WikiProject template. Blank Verse 09:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
This section has remained a stub for a while, but I don't know what it is supposed to talk about... what do we want to put in there? Any ideas? Tito xd( ?!?) 21:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
{{WikiProject|MILHIST}}, {{WikiProject|Meteorology}}, {{WikiProject|Arizona}}</tt>
, or something else? The problem with one big template is that many projects already use a lot of custom parameters (e.g. {{
hurricane}}) and that in some cases, those parameters conflict with one another. This has been discussed previously, and it was generally thought to be a bad idea. Or do you mean something else?
Tito
xd(
?!?) 16:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)I know at one time there were concerns about the effects upon server loads from having too many template redirects. Now, however, I'm seeing loads of template redirects and the developers seem to be saying that if there are any performance problems from template redirects, meta-templates, etc., that they will try to fix them with their programming.
If that's the case, then I think that it would be helpful to have a series of 'standard' redirects that will lead to whatever the banner template's real name is. I would suggest 1) template:WikiProject Example, 2) template:WPExample, and 3) Template:WPE (that is, whatever the WikiProject's shortcut is). The other alternative would be for WP:COUNCIL to maintain a directory of all the WikiProject banner templates.
The reason that this would be helpful is that I've run into quite a few times when I'm adding a banner for one of the Californai WikiProjects, or just doing an article assessment, and will notice that it should also have a banner from another WikiProject (for example, {{ WPSchool}} for Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools). With all the different ways of naming a project banner, it's a real PITA to remember how some of them are named. Blank Verse 20:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I think we might want to consider rephrasing the heading "Is a project needed?" to something else. As it is currently phrased, I think it might be possible for people to overloook this section entirely. The average person reading the guide is generally already convinced that a project is necessary, or they wouldn't be trying to set one up, and they might either skip it entirely or just quickly skim it. Maybe a heading like "Possible project structuring", which is more ambiguous and thus less likely to be quickly written off by potential readership as irrelevant, might work a bit better. Badbilltucker 15:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Many of the project banners (and userboxes too, but that's a different process) were protected against moves and edits this morning due to their widespread use on a large number of pages. Should we now add something into the guide that recommends listing the "final" banner template on WP:RPP after the banner has been added to, say, 50 articles? By encouraging the projects to list their banners there, we don't have to wait for someone to count the number of times a template is used and realize that it has since become a "high risk template." Slambo (Speak) 19:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
When a banner like {{tl|WikiProject California]] is on over 10,000 article talk pages, it makes sense to protect the template from vandal & spammer mischief. There are other banners, like the one for WP:FILM that are also on over 10,000 pages. Blank Verse 11:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I believe that per the usual Wikipedia / mainspace separation (see Wikipedia:Categorization#Wikipedia namespace, WikiProjects should not themselves be categorized into the mainspace category trees -- i.e., Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction should not itself be categorized Category:Science fiction. If so, we may need some clarity on the guidelines about that. Thoughts? -- lquilter 22:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Are Wikiprojects forbidden to support a particular point of view? If so, this page should state it explicitly. Pcu123456789 02:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
the links on this wikiproject are not working well pl help. WikiProject Pakistan/Assessment User talk:Yousaf465
What is the official stance by wikipedia about membership in projects? I am interested in doing a little work on a project, but I don't feel that joining the group is a good idea. Officially is there a rule on the books that dictates that only members of a project are supposed to be involved in the project? Thanks 66.90.162.101 23:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
By project, I am refering to a Wiki Project. Articles which have been grouped together because they concern a specific topic, and to develop a level of consistency to the included pages ( WP:PROJ). Your answers are pretty much what I thought: one is not required to join a "project" in order to participate. I had a recent experience where I was instructed to "join" a particular project, but I am very uneasy about joining. Seems to be a way to regulate who and what can be added to an article or discussion. Whether or not that is the reality, the long term effects could in fact be exclusivity and lack of personal freedom on the Wiki (not to imply anything about WP being a democracy, which it is not, simply that I fear a cliqueish protectivism which could arise from required "membership"). 66.90.162.101 15:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi all. I've created a WikiProject recently, and fell into at least one of the Common Pitfalls that were previously noted in the comments in the Common Pitfalls section. So I've turned all those comments into headings; hopefully they're all useful. Also, I think the article is too long, and doesn't talk enough about scope. My proposal for the article is this (which I will hopefully get around to if there are no complaints):
Actually, I'll start rewriting "Initial considerations" now.
-- TimNelson 04:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, here's my new idea. We restructure the guide like this:
Here's another idea; we could make people start at the bottom (Collaboration), and work their way up :).
Here's how it would go:
-- TimNelson 08:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Most of the ideas have either been implemented or shot down. There are only two remaining ideas, and I'll bring them up for a little more discussion:
Thoughts?
-- TimNelson 13:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
How many people do you usually need to form a task force? I have a few ideas for task forces at Wikipedia:WikiProject Calvinism, but I've shied away from creating any until we get at least 10 people that look like they might be interested in forming a task force. Is 10 a reasonable number?
Incidentally, this is the sort of question I want to answer on a separate Task Forces page :).
-- TimNelson 09:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Have an issue where we (three of us) just started a task force underneath WP:TN for Chattanooga. Another Wiki user came along and started a full Chattanooga wiki project (WP:CHA). Those who started the task force are against the new project. User who created the project seems determined, despite our concerns. Not sure how to go about handling the situation, as he's kind of making a mess of things/harassing (he's left a few comments on my talk page). Qmax 02:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
.. are looking great! Great job to all involved. -- Ned Scott 01:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
What about coordination with other WikiProjects and Portals in Wikipedia and, specially, in other Sister Projects . We can get synergy from this. -- HybridBoy 11:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking about starting a Four Dimensional Geometry WikiProject, does anyone object to that? If no one does, I am going to go ahead and start it.-- Eskimospy 00:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
There's no suggestions about proper ways to attract interest in a WikiProject. What sort of promotion is acceptable, especially given canvassing rules? Should I make a mention on the talk pages of each page that would be within scope? Just the main page? Somewhere in between? Should I even bother submitting a project proposal without additional initial members first? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ ( AMA) 20:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The concept of a successful WikiProject is mentioned, but not illustrated. Can I be Frank? (Talk to me!) 06:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Could someone look here and write something about it? The problem is that one editor insists that putting that article within the scope of WikiProject Serbia 'sounds bad' and 'is continuation of Serbian aggression' (sic). Alæxis ¿question? 18:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to advertise the new template {{ PageStatus}}, which makes WikiProject lists of articles easier to manage. Some WikiProjects may find it quite useful! -- Aquillyne-- ( talk) 20:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 22:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I notice that some project banners claim that a page "is part of" rather than "is in the scope of" a particular project. This seems to contradict project guidelines, which state that projects are not places to create articles.
I see this as more than just semantics, since "is part of" implies some kind of ownership of the page, with the possible implication that membership in the project is required to edit the page (false) or that the project members were responsible for the content of the page (again, often false). "is in the scope of" does not, at least to me, have any such connotations.
So, would it be appropriate to edit such banner templates? Or would I be opening myself to flameage, accusations of vandalism, etc?
-- Zaqrfv ( talk) 06:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if the WikiProject Council itself ran a bot to generate watchlists for projects like User:WatchlistBot did up until August 2007. I saw in the Technical notes that there is a Watchlists section, but SQLBot apparently doesn't do project watchlists ( my request was ignored and deleted), and the second option isn't an automated bot (which is practically useless IMHO).
I would be happy to work with whoever is interested in getting something like this up and running. If there's a way a group of us can work on and administer such a bot together, that would be great.
Also, it would be nice if WPCouncil could have an actual group of us who tend to the technical issues that WikiProjects face. If this exists already, I'd be happy to join it, and if not, I'd be happy to help form it. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how to effect a site-wide change, but I would like to propose that all WikiProjects that rate articles by importance have a change to the name "low". I think it is quite discouraging to new editors to have articles they contribute to deemed of low importance, and I think it is contrary to the goals of including material that is "important" or "noteworthy". Articles are currently rated as being of Low, Mid, High, and Top importance. Perhaps "Low" could become "Basic" or "Standard". I'm sure someone will have a good suggestion. Let's stop using a demeaning rating category... — Reinyday, 20:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I read the guidelines for overtagging and I want to propose that we add something to the guideline. Basically, I want to propose that parent WikiProjects shouldn't tag subprojects articles. For instance, if you have an article about a music album, you tag it for WikiProject Albums and not WikiProject Music as well. Since a subproject is dealing with the article there is no need to include this in the parent projects scope, since that would be double work. It is a basic case of divide and conquer. If people from the parent projects include the subprojects articles they will likely spend all their time tagging articles and not actually getting any real work done on other articles. In a more specific case, I belong to WikiProject The Simpsons. This project have WikiProject Television, WikiProject American Animation (a sub of WikiProject Animation) and WikiProject Comedy (a sub of WikiProject Culture) as parents and sure enough they will all tag a Simpsons article (e.g. see Talk:Homer Simpson). I think four projects are overtagging.
Another problem I would like to address is that of selective tagging. I don't know if we can actually do anything about this, but I still feel it would be nice to mention it in the guideline. Some WikiProjects only starts tagging articles as soon as an article reaches GA or FA level. Nobody gives a rat ass about Simpsons articles when they are filled with OR, cruft and trivia, but then suddenly when the article reaches GA, you see all kinds of WikiProjects popping up and tagging the article. They didn't do any work on it, but you can be sure to find it on their front page as one of their accomplishments. I'm not here to claim ownership of Simpsons articles. If they are entitled to tag it, then they should do it. However, there is something fundamentally wrong about only tagging articles because they suddenly are of quality. It gives a wrong image of how well the project is progressing. Case in point, at WikiProject Comedy they have admitted to tagging articles only when they reach FA, FL or GA ( Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Simpsons#Simpsons_and_Comedy_WikiProject) - although in good faith. When you look at their front page you think that this is brilliant and productive project, but when you look at their talk page you will see that it is a ghost town where there is almost never anybody who responds to comments. I didn't mean to single WikiProject Comedy out, because many projects does it, but it was the best case I could present. I think that people should stop lurking around GAN, FAC and FLC and tag all the articles relevant to their project - even the crappy ones. -- Maitch ( talk) 00:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
As the person who is mainly responsible for this tagging of articles, can I just say that I did because I believed that the Simpsons fell under comedy's duristiction. I do not mind removing the tags so long as it can be done quickly. ISD ( talk) 06:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)