![]() | 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
I see in a current MFD that a small number of editors believe that listing a WikiProject at /Proposals before creating it is actually mandatory -- which is obviously wrong, because any couple of editors that want to work together can declare themselves to be a project any day they choose. We're okay with being bold, and editors don't need "official permission" to collaborate.
But I can't decide whether it's worth explicitly mentioning that somewhere. It seems too trivial to include at the top of /Proposals; it seems too late to include it in the setup guide (unless perhaps very early). What do you think? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 07:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Some editors believe it is required, and the very existence of the department may imply it to some. These are very strong reasons for stating prominently that seeking approval is not required. The Transhumanist 19:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
(Following on from 'Bureaucracy' discussion to which this was originally posted): Would it be possible to distinguish between content projects (which rarely do any harm whether they are active or not), and non-content projects involving oversight, bots etc which can have an impact on a large number of pages before anyone notices that they exist? I'm in favour of some kind of control on the latter type (but not the former). -- Klein zach 06:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Here are the goals of the OOK WikiProject:
How can we achieve these goals?
Any ideas you might have would be most appreciated.
I look forward to your replies on the OOK WikiProject talk page, especially concerning #4 (recruiting).
The Transhumanist 19:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:BH wants to expand into a real WikiProject and maybe include additional related artists in the future. See WT:BH for discussion. Any input welcomed!
Happy new Headcheese!- hexa Chord 2 02:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I often tag the talk pages of stubs or other articles needing work with the relevant project templates. The templates don't have well-standardized names; I have to dig through the project pages themselves, which are all arranged in different ways, to find the template I need. It would be nice if all the template names were listed in the charts on the project category pages, as projects should want to encourage even non-members to help them find articles that fall into their scope. I'm bring this up to get consensus before I start adding the templates names to the charts, and to request some help doing so if there is a consensus. — Swpb τ • c 18:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see a better place to put this, but is there a project which covers all of the Vital Articles? I didn't see any. Thanks! - Drilnoth ( talk) 22:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been working on WP:WikiProject Orphanage, and have completed a toolserver report that lists orphaned articles belonging to a specific project. The question is, what mechanism is there for me to make other WikiProjects aware of it? Is there a bot that can place a message on each WikiProject's talk page? Thanks, -- JaGa talk 02:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Company Name: AMAX Information Technologies
Relationship: Staff
Nature of Company: Computer Industry
Draft Article:
User: Amaxhelen/AMAX Information Technologies
Comments: Would like someone in the staff/project to review the article and make any suggestions to keep it at neutral point of view and not trying to self-advertise.
Amaxhelen (
talk)
21:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I am interested in starting am Ernest Hemingway project to improve content related to his life and works. Is there anything like this already going on. Would that be ok to do? kilbad ( talk) 21:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
What do we do when editors disagree as to whether an article should fall under a given wikiproject? Blueboar ( talk) 16:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Was browsing around and I stumbled upon this: [2]. Should I (or anyone else for that matter) bother to get those inactive wikiprojects under their parent project? E.g. merge wikiproject Montreal as a task force to wikiproject Canada? What I am trying to get at is: Should there be an effort to place those wikiprojects that seem to be inactive, place them under a larger viewership so perhaps they become more active and hence develop more productivity? There of course needs to be a consideration of whether this will do any difference (hence why I am posting here to get some feedback on what people generally think). Furthermore what is considered inactive? Just because there is no activity in the projects talk page, does that mean the project itself is inactive? Etc...
Any and all thoughts are welcome. Calaka ( talk) 11:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Should Wikiprojects be able to discuss deletion topics? 18:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Should wikiprojects be able to discuss:
Within their topic area? Ikip ( talk) 17:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
This is to notify the concerned projects that as part of the GA Sweeps the article, Maria Rasputin has been reassessed and found to need some work to maintain its GA status. The reassessment can be found here. Any questions or concerns can be posted on my talk page. H1nkles ( talk) 04:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the best place to mention this or not, but I just wasn't sure about where to place WikiProject Cannabis in the project directory. The topic is a plant, but also covers aspects of science (biology and even chemistry), politics, and sociology. I have not yet added the project to the directory, but feel free to do so if a preferred section can be determined. Thanks! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 00:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Does such a category or list exist? Could it exist if it does not? I believe that a number of pages are over-bannered and I know that there are pages whose banners need to be put into a shell. On days that real life keeps me occupied I may only fix 10-15 banners (listas parameter) but I will see at least one page on those days where a shell is appropriate.
On days when I get really tired of discerning a valid listas parameter I could drop in on such a category and throw on a shell. WARNING:When a collapsed banner is appropriate I am not going to use {{ WPBS}} with the collapsed=yes parameter. {{ WPB}} has been re-programmed so that it is nearly equivalent to that and should be valid. It is certainly easier to apply. I will delete all the number parameters for numbers greater than one.)
Sound fair?
Some editors tend to apply policies or guidelines developed in and for one project to other projects or to the subjects of other projects, often with disregard for the difference in topic and organization of the projects and sometimes somewhat forcefully (I'm not speaking of the thoughtful adaptation of one projects guideline to another projects needs). For example, the literal adaptation of WP:FILMPLOT to music topics which would fall under MOS:MUSIC, though they are quite different mediums. This seems highly inappropriate and that there should be a guideline or policy against this. Any help, thoughts, suggestions? Is there a policy or guideline against this some random place I haven't looked? Hyacinth ( talk) 22:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Some editors tend to apply policies or guidelines developed in and for one project to other projects or to the subjects of other projects, often with disregard for the difference in topic and organization of the projects and sometimes somewhat forcefully (I'm not speaking of the thoughtful adaptation of one projects guideline to another projects needs). For example, the literal adaptation of WP:FILMPLOT to music topics which would fall under MOS:MUSIC, though they are quite different mediums. This seems highly inappropriate and that there should be a guideline or policy against this. Any help, thoughts, suggestions? Is there a policy or guideline against this some random place I haven't looked? Hyacinth ( talk) 22:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The WikiProject Council seems to have become rather catatonic over the past months, so I think we need to take a look at how we can revitalize it a bit and turn it into something with a more productive role within the overall WikiProject community.
I've come up with a few ideas that we might consider pursuing, ranging from the fairly trivial to the grandiose and time-consuming; they're listed below, in no particular order:
Comments on any of these items would be very appreciated, as would any other ideas for getting more benefit out of this group. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
What can be done immediately is update the guide. Then determine which projects are active, dormant or dead. Then try to get active projects involved in the Council.
A single style guide with optional items would be a very good idea. A single class-assessment guide with optional items would be a very good idea.
Change is not bad. Change is necessary. There is a medical term for a body that does not change — dead.
Anyone else have comments or suggestions on any of these points? Kirill [talk] [pf] 05:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
As there haven't been any objections to the first idea, I've gone ahead and trimmed away the membership listings, along with some of the other old material on the page. At some point, we'll probably want to go through and add some of the other links important to WikiProjects (e.g. the various WP1.0 pages, bots, etc.) to the resource section.
How would people feel about adding a copy of the overall 1.0 WikiProject assessment statistics here as well? Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I recently set up WP:MILLS. Just need a little help with Assessment/tagging. For a start, the non-article/list categories will not display correctly. Old Mill should be a disambig page, but it shows as NA class. The second thing is that many of our C class article need to be assessed against the B class criteria. I'd like the assessment to be done in a similar way to WP:MILHIST does for articles like SS Empire Almond. Is there something I've missed when creating the WP? Mjroots ( talk) 12:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
WikiProjects and Task Forces get proposed here without people who'd be interested even noticing, and I'd imagine this has scuppered the success of various projects that could have worked. For this reason, I think two things are necessary:
I just feel bad that we're not encouraging more editors to try starting such WikiProjects, and that editors who do try aren't finding the interested parties that probably exist. What do others think of implementing such measures? Greg Tyler ( t • c) 23:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that getting support should be made a lot easier somehow.. it is quite frustrating. ScarTissueBloodBlister ( talk) 02:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, thinking about this some more: would it make sense to change the instructions on the proposal page to say that task forces don't need to be formally proposed there, and that editors should bring them up at the parent project's talk page instead? Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I went to council's page today, possibly wanted to join the council. But I found out the participants list was redirected by Kirill Lokshin back to council's main page, which caused the list to disappear. Later Kirill trim away the participants list completely from the council's page. I don't know this is accidental or intended but I restored the list and re-added it to the page. -- 98.154.26.247 ( talk) 06:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to begin either a task force or sub-project for barbershop music and its societies ( Sweet Adelines, Barbershop Harmony Society, Harmony, Inc. and their non-US affiliates), choruses, quartets, and notable persons. There is a fairly active community, even on Wikipedia, but there seems to not be an organized presence.
Does the council recommend task force or sub-project? MyrCyn ( talk) 20:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
All of the project banners generate categories that appear at the bottom of the talk page. Some projects generate more categories than others but none of them are really useful.
Any editor who is working on any of the categories is coming from the category to the article. There is no reason that I can imagine that a person would go from an article to a category that is generated by a project banner. (Categories on the article page are a different matter.)
Could all the categories that are on a talk page be hidden and thereby reduce the clutter at the bottom of most of the talk pages?
JimCubb ( talk) 22:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I suppose it could happen and someone would want to navigate the categories starting from an article but as soon as one resolves the issue of the category the category goes away. (When I added a value to |listas=
on
Talk:Vincent S. Green the page moved from
Category:Biography articles without listas parameter to
Category:Biography articles with listas parameter and the addition of a value to |living=
made the page move from
Category:Biography articles without living parameter to
Category:Biography articles of living people.
What categories have become un-hidden? Do you remember where the discussion or announcement was made and when?
The change would be made in the project banner. The programming of the banner would have to be changed so make all those clerical categories hidden. Some projects have already hidden their categories.
{{
HIDDENCAT}}
to all the (13,000) subcategories of
Category:Articles by quality. Although a huge number could be done in one go by adding it to {{
cat class}}
. I'm totally ambivalent on the issue; as the talk pages aren't reader-facing, there is significantly less pressure to hide maintenance categories. What talk page categories are being 'lost' in the clutter from project banners? By this argument, wouldn't all talk page categories be elegible for hiding?
Happy‑
melon
14:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)It cannot be done at the project banner level? I sit corrected.
I am not certain what you mean by "reader-facing" but the less pressure of which you speak could be because no one who is bothered by all that crud at the bottom of the talk pages knows where to go to get support for hiding the list. (There was no pressure to tamper with {{ WPB}} but it was destroyed anyway after months of work was spent to make all the project banners compliant with {{ WPBS}}.)
A bot could go through the the (13,000) subcategories of
Category:Articles by quality rather quickly. The task could be accomplished even more quickly by adding it to {{
cat class}}
. The latter may be the best way to take care of the stuff that will be added by the new categories that are being formed almost daily.
Just out of curiosity how are
Category:United States military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation and
Category:United States military history articles needing attention to coverage and accuracy hidden? There is no {{
HIDDENCAT}}
on either page. Would the mechanism that was used there be a valid approach?
JimCubb (
talk)
19:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
WikiProjectBanners}}
is relevant to this discussion.{{
cat class}}
is definitely the more efficient solution, but it will not be comprehensive as not all assessment categories use that template. Perhaps they should all do so?{{
WPMILHIST Task force checklist item category}}
, which in turn includes the __HIDDENCAT__
behaviour switch. That switch is what triggers the hidden-ness; {{
hiddencat}}
is just a wrapper to produce a visible explanation that the category is hidden.
Happy‑
melon
21:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC){{
Cat class}}
is transcluded on, as best I can determine, 14,434 assessment cats, and the accurate number of total assessment cats is actually a whopping 20,109. So cat class is deployed on about 72% of all assessment cats.
Happy‑
melon
14:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)It appears that there is some agreement that it is not necessary to show all the banner-generated categories at the bottom of the page. I think they take up too much space, Kirill wonders if any one uses the links and WhatamIdoing notes that they are redundant. It also seems that there is no agreement that the effort that is required to hide the catetgories is justified by the result.
Happy-melon wonders if all the assessment categories should use {{
cat class}}
. I think they should in the interest of further uniformity along the lines of the changes that were made for the |nested=
and |listas=
parameters. What does anyone else think?
The name of the game is increasing WikiProject involvement in developing articles. My plan for a "ping a project" system would allow the "local population" of any given article talk page to tag their discussions in order to attract the attention of the named WikiProjects. A robut would add these talk pages to a list that WikiProject members could watch. This way, WikiProjects can see very quickly which pages under their domain need assistance. — harej ( talk) ( cool!) 07:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I have decided to scrap this idea for now. — harej ( talk) ( cool!) 19:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I'd like to ask for some guidance in starting a "task force" or two, which would be attached to WP:LAW and/or WP:SCOTUS. One would be called "1L Curriculum" ("1L" being a widely-accepted term for the first year of American law school), and the second would be called "Upperclass J.D. curriculum". (The distinction is necessary because all 1Ls take the same 7 introductory courses, whereas upperclass students can choose from scores of electives.)
To support these task force(s), I plan to recruit people to them by exploiting my leadership role in student government at my school, and by starting a club, "Columbia Law School Wikipedia Editors", and by seeding clubs like this at other law schools. Therefore, I am optimistic that recruitment will be easy.
The semester starts in a month and I'd like to spend that time recruiting people to these projects, so timely guidance would be appreciated.
Thanks, Agradman talk/ contribs 19:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep, another longwinded subject line. Right now, I am in the process of, basically, copying from a source a list of libraries with special collections of recognized quality for the Christianity WikiProject. This will with luck let people know if there are any particular libraries on something other than just local history in their areas, and, I hope, maybe encourage some individuals who may not be particularly interested in a given topic to maybe do some work on that content, if they have a particularly good library in their area for that subject. They might be persuaded to "trade" working on content on one topic in exchange for someone elsewhere using the special collection they have dealing with another topic. Obviously, I think most people would know that the local government-sponsored library and/or local history society, if there are ones, are good sources for material relevant to those topics, but that isn't always the case for other topics. Would there be any use for maybe making a somewhat broader list of special collections and their locations available for other subjects? I'm not really sure I would be able to do much of it myself, although I do think I could fairly easily generate a broader list of religion libraries, and maybe add some others as I find resources regarding them. John Carter ( talk) 15:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have any tips or tricks for recruiting project members for an existing project (WikiProject California in particular)? I'm thinking of adding several pages to a sandbox page and watching for any related changes (on top of my existing watchlist). Also of maybe requesting a bot similar User:SuggestBot to suggest people to contact based on contributions? I'm trying to get members who already contribute to California related articles. I'm also concerned about the participant list bloat from people who sign up in their first few edits based on regional pride, but only edit Wikipedia for a week or two, and never return after that. Any ideas? - Optigan13 ( talk) 05:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I created a proposal for this wikiproject, a couple people have joined. I would like to create the page for it now but I'm not really sure how, hoping someone can help.. ScarTissueBloodBlister ( talk) 23:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Many WikiProjects have a banner that can be added to the talk page of a relevant article, and these banners often have a link to a Comments page (a sub-page of the Talk page) which I believe is for comments related to article assessment. However, a small problem I have noticed is that some editors, mostly inexperineced IP editors and particularly if the project banner is the only thing on the talk page, think the comments page is a place for general comments of the kind usually found on the talk page of article. Unfortunately, the comments page is often hidden behind a [show] link.
Is there a way that such editors can be "discouraged" from leaving comments on the comments page, because I think their comments are sometime valuable but will never get seen where thay have been left. For an example, see Talk:Lucknow Christian College/Comments.
On some occasions, I have moved a useful comment to the regular talk page, but this is a lengthy and fiddly process to do. Is it possible to automate the process somehow? Astronaut ( talk) 19:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Using my newest generation of my WikiProject Scanner, I generated a very thorough list of WikiProjects. If you happened to catch my presentation at the NYC Wiki-Conference, you'll know that I found the following interesting tidbits:
I posted the entire list as a table at User:ClockworkSoul/List of WikiProjects (data generated on July 27th). I literally just copied and pasted the table from an Excel-generated HTML document, so it's not sortable or anything fancy. In the next few days, I'll be posting all of this data (and more) on the new Igor site: http://www.wiki-igor.net (still under development). Hope you find it useful! – Clockwork Soul 05:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi ClockworkSoul et al - interesting that I get credit for creating the first Wikiproject. I'm a little shaky on whether I fully deserve that title. So for the sake of history here's how it all actually transpired. In September 2001 I wrote the original Wikiproject concept proposal - Wikipedia:WikiProject_proposal. Then in a side discussion User:SJK (then known as Simon J Kissane) suggested we use Sports as a starting point, so I went and set up the project page on his behalf. Hence User SJK also deserves his share of the credit for the first Wikiproject. Cheers Manning ( talk) 02:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been asked if it might be possible to add a link to a WikiProject, specifically WIkipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki, to the various forms of Template:Expand language. Would anyone see any problems with doing so? John Carter ( talk) 18:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
It is important that e.g Template:Expand German has a link to the coordination at Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/German. Given that the translation is being monitored and overlooked by the project a small link to the project for coordination should not be a problem.18:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a large gap on most of the templates. It should definately be added otherwise there is no way for translators to even know about the project. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been looking at {{ WPCouncilRec}}, which appears at the bottom of some WikiProject pages, and I'm not sure that the template is needed, or that its current content makes sense in any case.
Do people want to retain the template, and, if so, are there any thoughts on more appropriate content for it? Kirill [talk] [pf] 16:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
← I was thinking something along the lines of the box at right. It's sized similarly to a shortcut box, so it should be reasonably easy to align with one of those already on the page; and it provides a backlink to the WPC page without needing either the links in {{ project}} or a separate full-size banner. I'm not sure how useful it would be, though, and whether we want to start using the particular terminology in the example. Kirill [talk] [pf] 22:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Template:WPCouncilRec has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Optigan13 ( talk) 19:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
For whatever they is worth, here are some crude manual statistics that I justgathered about
Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology. (The choice was completely random, and nothing is implied about how that project compares to other projects, on any aspect.)
The project was created in Dec/2006, so it is 2.5 years old. The project's page lists 643 articles, including 8 Featured, 9 Good, 63 B-level, 8 C-level, and 45 unassessed. The remaining 510 articles (~80%) are mainly classed as stub or start level.
The project's roster lists ~70 editors, most of them with declared expertise in the field. However, the effective membership seems to be much smaller. Looking at the edit histories of 20 randomly selected members, it seems that
From these percentages, I would guess that at most 4 of the 70 listed members are really active.
A quick analysys of the edit history of the 8 Featured and 9 Good articles seems to confirm this impression. Of those, 7 articles (41%) were awarded before the Wikiproject was created. In another 7 articles (41%), the most prominent editor was a project member; and in the remaining 3 articles (18%) the main editor was not a member.
Moreover, in those 17 articles, two members (
User:TimVickers and
User:GrahamColm) stood out, sometimes with 500 or more edits to a single article. Another 4 members (
User:MarcoTolo,
User:Scharks,
User:Pixie, and
User:Serephine) made significant contributions, but each about 1/10 of as much as each of those two. Finally, each article has also been edited by dozens of non-member editors, who generally made less than 30 edits to it.
Number of edits was the metric used for these estimates, but I trust that other metrics would give similar result.
The edit analsis also suggests that, to achieve Featured status, an article must have about 500 edits by a single editor (or, rarely, two editors), 10 times more than any other editor.
I will refrain from drawing conclusions for now, but I think that we ought to carry out a more extensive and careful study of how Wikiprojects are faring and what is their effect on the editors' work. All the best, --
Jorge Stolfi (
talk)
21:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The Guide mentions the banner shells in the section about Article Tagging. Would it be appropriate for me to add the current and, so far as I can tall, historical consensus regarding the use of the shells?
Basically it boils down to "If there are more than two banners, use {{ WikiProjectBannerShell}}, also known as {{ WPBS}}. If there are more than five banners, use {{ WikiProjectBanners}}, also known as {{ WPB}}."
It is already on |the Talk Page Layout project page, here under number 6 and it is on the template pages and talk pages for each of the shells.
I think that there are many editors who do not know that either shell exists. Similarly, until November of last year, I think users of {{ WPBS}} did not know that {{ WPB}} existed. (I believe that is why the C. S. Lewis talk page had 13 banners on it in just {{ WPBS}} when I collapsed them.) The pages with two or three banners enclosed in {{ WPB}} could have been done by editors who did not know about {{ WPBS}} or by me when {{ WPBS}} in an intermediate stage of its redevelopment and flat refused to work.
The reason I want the information on when to use which shell is because the shells are for WikiProject Banners and this is the WikiProject Council.
How is activity measured? Talk page edit frequency? Last updated date? M 00:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It's ALIVE!
The first aspect of the new online version of Igor is now online: http://wiki-igor.net. The complete wikiproject list is available, along with ratings of their activity and various other useful and/or interesting data. More will be coming shortly. Please check it out, and please let me know what you think. – Clockwork Soul 23:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
AZ mean Abdulaziz in Arabic "عبدالعزيز" . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulaziz N O ( talk • contribs) 08:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Please help me flesh out a proposal to add WikiProject tools into the MediaWiki software. Thanks. Kaldari ( talk) 21:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have a good set of importance guidelines for a state or similar locality based project. The ones we have at WP:CAL are a bit lacking. Especially with respect to biographies and other cultural material, we have a problem with a lot of California based entertainers getting a bit higher ranking than would seem appropriate. - Optigan13 ( talk) 06:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there a way to adjust the "Add -
Optigan13 (
talk)
15:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
[[/ProjectName|ProjectName]]
here link to be on the current month as opposed to the
Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Proposing a WikiProject section. The last few proposals have been malformed and in the wrong section.
Here is another question: has there been any hard assessment of how much the Wikiprojects mechanism contributes to Wikipedia?
It is easy to come up with potential benefits, e.g. coordination, standardization, marshalling, etc. However, I wonder whether these benefits are real, and how they compare with the costs. namely:
Consider this claim:
Can anyone disprove this claim? 8-)
All the best, --
Jorge Stolfi (
talk)
05:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I am a relatively new contributor and I did not discover the relevant project page for a long time. It seems to be abandoned - so, it cost me some confusion and an expectation that someone was tending the garden, but, that turned out not to be the case. Projects should probably die as soon as there is nobody managing them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Water_sports
Bodysurfinyon (
talk)
17:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Yesterday I had a mini-edit war at Trojan War over the replacement of "now" with "presently". The latter is a word which has different meanings in American and standard English usage and unambiguous terms ("now", "shortly") should be preferred. Indeed, often the word could simply be removed. I note that there are nearly 15K instances of the word.
"Pavement" has over 4K usages and some (references to things being set into the pavement) would certainly confuse or mislead some readers. I'm sure that there are similar problems wiht other terms.
So is there a group known to be working on this issue or an appropriate project to encourage to do so?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 11:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I've proposed moving Wikipedia:WikiProject recruitment for WikiProjects to a working group subpage of the council. Please leave any comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject recruitment for WikiProjects#Moving to subpage of WikiProject Council- Optigan13 ( talk) 01:41, 28 August 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
I see in a current MFD that a small number of editors believe that listing a WikiProject at /Proposals before creating it is actually mandatory -- which is obviously wrong, because any couple of editors that want to work together can declare themselves to be a project any day they choose. We're okay with being bold, and editors don't need "official permission" to collaborate.
But I can't decide whether it's worth explicitly mentioning that somewhere. It seems too trivial to include at the top of /Proposals; it seems too late to include it in the setup guide (unless perhaps very early). What do you think? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 07:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Some editors believe it is required, and the very existence of the department may imply it to some. These are very strong reasons for stating prominently that seeking approval is not required. The Transhumanist 19:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
(Following on from 'Bureaucracy' discussion to which this was originally posted): Would it be possible to distinguish between content projects (which rarely do any harm whether they are active or not), and non-content projects involving oversight, bots etc which can have an impact on a large number of pages before anyone notices that they exist? I'm in favour of some kind of control on the latter type (but not the former). -- Klein zach 06:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Here are the goals of the OOK WikiProject:
How can we achieve these goals?
Any ideas you might have would be most appreciated.
I look forward to your replies on the OOK WikiProject talk page, especially concerning #4 (recruiting).
The Transhumanist 19:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:BH wants to expand into a real WikiProject and maybe include additional related artists in the future. See WT:BH for discussion. Any input welcomed!
Happy new Headcheese!- hexa Chord 2 02:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I often tag the talk pages of stubs or other articles needing work with the relevant project templates. The templates don't have well-standardized names; I have to dig through the project pages themselves, which are all arranged in different ways, to find the template I need. It would be nice if all the template names were listed in the charts on the project category pages, as projects should want to encourage even non-members to help them find articles that fall into their scope. I'm bring this up to get consensus before I start adding the templates names to the charts, and to request some help doing so if there is a consensus. — Swpb τ • c 18:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see a better place to put this, but is there a project which covers all of the Vital Articles? I didn't see any. Thanks! - Drilnoth ( talk) 22:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been working on WP:WikiProject Orphanage, and have completed a toolserver report that lists orphaned articles belonging to a specific project. The question is, what mechanism is there for me to make other WikiProjects aware of it? Is there a bot that can place a message on each WikiProject's talk page? Thanks, -- JaGa talk 02:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Company Name: AMAX Information Technologies
Relationship: Staff
Nature of Company: Computer Industry
Draft Article:
User: Amaxhelen/AMAX Information Technologies
Comments: Would like someone in the staff/project to review the article and make any suggestions to keep it at neutral point of view and not trying to self-advertise.
Amaxhelen (
talk)
21:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I am interested in starting am Ernest Hemingway project to improve content related to his life and works. Is there anything like this already going on. Would that be ok to do? kilbad ( talk) 21:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
What do we do when editors disagree as to whether an article should fall under a given wikiproject? Blueboar ( talk) 16:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Was browsing around and I stumbled upon this: [2]. Should I (or anyone else for that matter) bother to get those inactive wikiprojects under their parent project? E.g. merge wikiproject Montreal as a task force to wikiproject Canada? What I am trying to get at is: Should there be an effort to place those wikiprojects that seem to be inactive, place them under a larger viewership so perhaps they become more active and hence develop more productivity? There of course needs to be a consideration of whether this will do any difference (hence why I am posting here to get some feedback on what people generally think). Furthermore what is considered inactive? Just because there is no activity in the projects talk page, does that mean the project itself is inactive? Etc...
Any and all thoughts are welcome. Calaka ( talk) 11:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Should Wikiprojects be able to discuss deletion topics? 18:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Should wikiprojects be able to discuss:
Within their topic area? Ikip ( talk) 17:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
This is to notify the concerned projects that as part of the GA Sweeps the article, Maria Rasputin has been reassessed and found to need some work to maintain its GA status. The reassessment can be found here. Any questions or concerns can be posted on my talk page. H1nkles ( talk) 04:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the best place to mention this or not, but I just wasn't sure about where to place WikiProject Cannabis in the project directory. The topic is a plant, but also covers aspects of science (biology and even chemistry), politics, and sociology. I have not yet added the project to the directory, but feel free to do so if a preferred section can be determined. Thanks! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 00:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Does such a category or list exist? Could it exist if it does not? I believe that a number of pages are over-bannered and I know that there are pages whose banners need to be put into a shell. On days that real life keeps me occupied I may only fix 10-15 banners (listas parameter) but I will see at least one page on those days where a shell is appropriate.
On days when I get really tired of discerning a valid listas parameter I could drop in on such a category and throw on a shell. WARNING:When a collapsed banner is appropriate I am not going to use {{ WPBS}} with the collapsed=yes parameter. {{ WPB}} has been re-programmed so that it is nearly equivalent to that and should be valid. It is certainly easier to apply. I will delete all the number parameters for numbers greater than one.)
Sound fair?
Some editors tend to apply policies or guidelines developed in and for one project to other projects or to the subjects of other projects, often with disregard for the difference in topic and organization of the projects and sometimes somewhat forcefully (I'm not speaking of the thoughtful adaptation of one projects guideline to another projects needs). For example, the literal adaptation of WP:FILMPLOT to music topics which would fall under MOS:MUSIC, though they are quite different mediums. This seems highly inappropriate and that there should be a guideline or policy against this. Any help, thoughts, suggestions? Is there a policy or guideline against this some random place I haven't looked? Hyacinth ( talk) 22:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Some editors tend to apply policies or guidelines developed in and for one project to other projects or to the subjects of other projects, often with disregard for the difference in topic and organization of the projects and sometimes somewhat forcefully (I'm not speaking of the thoughtful adaptation of one projects guideline to another projects needs). For example, the literal adaptation of WP:FILMPLOT to music topics which would fall under MOS:MUSIC, though they are quite different mediums. This seems highly inappropriate and that there should be a guideline or policy against this. Any help, thoughts, suggestions? Is there a policy or guideline against this some random place I haven't looked? Hyacinth ( talk) 22:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The WikiProject Council seems to have become rather catatonic over the past months, so I think we need to take a look at how we can revitalize it a bit and turn it into something with a more productive role within the overall WikiProject community.
I've come up with a few ideas that we might consider pursuing, ranging from the fairly trivial to the grandiose and time-consuming; they're listed below, in no particular order:
Comments on any of these items would be very appreciated, as would any other ideas for getting more benefit out of this group. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
What can be done immediately is update the guide. Then determine which projects are active, dormant or dead. Then try to get active projects involved in the Council.
A single style guide with optional items would be a very good idea. A single class-assessment guide with optional items would be a very good idea.
Change is not bad. Change is necessary. There is a medical term for a body that does not change — dead.
Anyone else have comments or suggestions on any of these points? Kirill [talk] [pf] 05:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
As there haven't been any objections to the first idea, I've gone ahead and trimmed away the membership listings, along with some of the other old material on the page. At some point, we'll probably want to go through and add some of the other links important to WikiProjects (e.g. the various WP1.0 pages, bots, etc.) to the resource section.
How would people feel about adding a copy of the overall 1.0 WikiProject assessment statistics here as well? Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I recently set up WP:MILLS. Just need a little help with Assessment/tagging. For a start, the non-article/list categories will not display correctly. Old Mill should be a disambig page, but it shows as NA class. The second thing is that many of our C class article need to be assessed against the B class criteria. I'd like the assessment to be done in a similar way to WP:MILHIST does for articles like SS Empire Almond. Is there something I've missed when creating the WP? Mjroots ( talk) 12:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
WikiProjects and Task Forces get proposed here without people who'd be interested even noticing, and I'd imagine this has scuppered the success of various projects that could have worked. For this reason, I think two things are necessary:
I just feel bad that we're not encouraging more editors to try starting such WikiProjects, and that editors who do try aren't finding the interested parties that probably exist. What do others think of implementing such measures? Greg Tyler ( t • c) 23:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that getting support should be made a lot easier somehow.. it is quite frustrating. ScarTissueBloodBlister ( talk) 02:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, thinking about this some more: would it make sense to change the instructions on the proposal page to say that task forces don't need to be formally proposed there, and that editors should bring them up at the parent project's talk page instead? Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I went to council's page today, possibly wanted to join the council. But I found out the participants list was redirected by Kirill Lokshin back to council's main page, which caused the list to disappear. Later Kirill trim away the participants list completely from the council's page. I don't know this is accidental or intended but I restored the list and re-added it to the page. -- 98.154.26.247 ( talk) 06:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to begin either a task force or sub-project for barbershop music and its societies ( Sweet Adelines, Barbershop Harmony Society, Harmony, Inc. and their non-US affiliates), choruses, quartets, and notable persons. There is a fairly active community, even on Wikipedia, but there seems to not be an organized presence.
Does the council recommend task force or sub-project? MyrCyn ( talk) 20:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
All of the project banners generate categories that appear at the bottom of the talk page. Some projects generate more categories than others but none of them are really useful.
Any editor who is working on any of the categories is coming from the category to the article. There is no reason that I can imagine that a person would go from an article to a category that is generated by a project banner. (Categories on the article page are a different matter.)
Could all the categories that are on a talk page be hidden and thereby reduce the clutter at the bottom of most of the talk pages?
JimCubb ( talk) 22:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I suppose it could happen and someone would want to navigate the categories starting from an article but as soon as one resolves the issue of the category the category goes away. (When I added a value to |listas=
on
Talk:Vincent S. Green the page moved from
Category:Biography articles without listas parameter to
Category:Biography articles with listas parameter and the addition of a value to |living=
made the page move from
Category:Biography articles without living parameter to
Category:Biography articles of living people.
What categories have become un-hidden? Do you remember where the discussion or announcement was made and when?
The change would be made in the project banner. The programming of the banner would have to be changed so make all those clerical categories hidden. Some projects have already hidden their categories.
{{
HIDDENCAT}}
to all the (13,000) subcategories of
Category:Articles by quality. Although a huge number could be done in one go by adding it to {{
cat class}}
. I'm totally ambivalent on the issue; as the talk pages aren't reader-facing, there is significantly less pressure to hide maintenance categories. What talk page categories are being 'lost' in the clutter from project banners? By this argument, wouldn't all talk page categories be elegible for hiding?
Happy‑
melon
14:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)It cannot be done at the project banner level? I sit corrected.
I am not certain what you mean by "reader-facing" but the less pressure of which you speak could be because no one who is bothered by all that crud at the bottom of the talk pages knows where to go to get support for hiding the list. (There was no pressure to tamper with {{ WPB}} but it was destroyed anyway after months of work was spent to make all the project banners compliant with {{ WPBS}}.)
A bot could go through the the (13,000) subcategories of
Category:Articles by quality rather quickly. The task could be accomplished even more quickly by adding it to {{
cat class}}
. The latter may be the best way to take care of the stuff that will be added by the new categories that are being formed almost daily.
Just out of curiosity how are
Category:United States military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation and
Category:United States military history articles needing attention to coverage and accuracy hidden? There is no {{
HIDDENCAT}}
on either page. Would the mechanism that was used there be a valid approach?
JimCubb (
talk)
19:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
WikiProjectBanners}}
is relevant to this discussion.{{
cat class}}
is definitely the more efficient solution, but it will not be comprehensive as not all assessment categories use that template. Perhaps they should all do so?{{
WPMILHIST Task force checklist item category}}
, which in turn includes the __HIDDENCAT__
behaviour switch. That switch is what triggers the hidden-ness; {{
hiddencat}}
is just a wrapper to produce a visible explanation that the category is hidden.
Happy‑
melon
21:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC){{
Cat class}}
is transcluded on, as best I can determine, 14,434 assessment cats, and the accurate number of total assessment cats is actually a whopping 20,109. So cat class is deployed on about 72% of all assessment cats.
Happy‑
melon
14:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)It appears that there is some agreement that it is not necessary to show all the banner-generated categories at the bottom of the page. I think they take up too much space, Kirill wonders if any one uses the links and WhatamIdoing notes that they are redundant. It also seems that there is no agreement that the effort that is required to hide the catetgories is justified by the result.
Happy-melon wonders if all the assessment categories should use {{
cat class}}
. I think they should in the interest of further uniformity along the lines of the changes that were made for the |nested=
and |listas=
parameters. What does anyone else think?
The name of the game is increasing WikiProject involvement in developing articles. My plan for a "ping a project" system would allow the "local population" of any given article talk page to tag their discussions in order to attract the attention of the named WikiProjects. A robut would add these talk pages to a list that WikiProject members could watch. This way, WikiProjects can see very quickly which pages under their domain need assistance. — harej ( talk) ( cool!) 07:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I have decided to scrap this idea for now. — harej ( talk) ( cool!) 19:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I'd like to ask for some guidance in starting a "task force" or two, which would be attached to WP:LAW and/or WP:SCOTUS. One would be called "1L Curriculum" ("1L" being a widely-accepted term for the first year of American law school), and the second would be called "Upperclass J.D. curriculum". (The distinction is necessary because all 1Ls take the same 7 introductory courses, whereas upperclass students can choose from scores of electives.)
To support these task force(s), I plan to recruit people to them by exploiting my leadership role in student government at my school, and by starting a club, "Columbia Law School Wikipedia Editors", and by seeding clubs like this at other law schools. Therefore, I am optimistic that recruitment will be easy.
The semester starts in a month and I'd like to spend that time recruiting people to these projects, so timely guidance would be appreciated.
Thanks, Agradman talk/ contribs 19:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep, another longwinded subject line. Right now, I am in the process of, basically, copying from a source a list of libraries with special collections of recognized quality for the Christianity WikiProject. This will with luck let people know if there are any particular libraries on something other than just local history in their areas, and, I hope, maybe encourage some individuals who may not be particularly interested in a given topic to maybe do some work on that content, if they have a particularly good library in their area for that subject. They might be persuaded to "trade" working on content on one topic in exchange for someone elsewhere using the special collection they have dealing with another topic. Obviously, I think most people would know that the local government-sponsored library and/or local history society, if there are ones, are good sources for material relevant to those topics, but that isn't always the case for other topics. Would there be any use for maybe making a somewhat broader list of special collections and their locations available for other subjects? I'm not really sure I would be able to do much of it myself, although I do think I could fairly easily generate a broader list of religion libraries, and maybe add some others as I find resources regarding them. John Carter ( talk) 15:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have any tips or tricks for recruiting project members for an existing project (WikiProject California in particular)? I'm thinking of adding several pages to a sandbox page and watching for any related changes (on top of my existing watchlist). Also of maybe requesting a bot similar User:SuggestBot to suggest people to contact based on contributions? I'm trying to get members who already contribute to California related articles. I'm also concerned about the participant list bloat from people who sign up in their first few edits based on regional pride, but only edit Wikipedia for a week or two, and never return after that. Any ideas? - Optigan13 ( talk) 05:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I created a proposal for this wikiproject, a couple people have joined. I would like to create the page for it now but I'm not really sure how, hoping someone can help.. ScarTissueBloodBlister ( talk) 23:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Many WikiProjects have a banner that can be added to the talk page of a relevant article, and these banners often have a link to a Comments page (a sub-page of the Talk page) which I believe is for comments related to article assessment. However, a small problem I have noticed is that some editors, mostly inexperineced IP editors and particularly if the project banner is the only thing on the talk page, think the comments page is a place for general comments of the kind usually found on the talk page of article. Unfortunately, the comments page is often hidden behind a [show] link.
Is there a way that such editors can be "discouraged" from leaving comments on the comments page, because I think their comments are sometime valuable but will never get seen where thay have been left. For an example, see Talk:Lucknow Christian College/Comments.
On some occasions, I have moved a useful comment to the regular talk page, but this is a lengthy and fiddly process to do. Is it possible to automate the process somehow? Astronaut ( talk) 19:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Using my newest generation of my WikiProject Scanner, I generated a very thorough list of WikiProjects. If you happened to catch my presentation at the NYC Wiki-Conference, you'll know that I found the following interesting tidbits:
I posted the entire list as a table at User:ClockworkSoul/List of WikiProjects (data generated on July 27th). I literally just copied and pasted the table from an Excel-generated HTML document, so it's not sortable or anything fancy. In the next few days, I'll be posting all of this data (and more) on the new Igor site: http://www.wiki-igor.net (still under development). Hope you find it useful! – Clockwork Soul 05:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi ClockworkSoul et al - interesting that I get credit for creating the first Wikiproject. I'm a little shaky on whether I fully deserve that title. So for the sake of history here's how it all actually transpired. In September 2001 I wrote the original Wikiproject concept proposal - Wikipedia:WikiProject_proposal. Then in a side discussion User:SJK (then known as Simon J Kissane) suggested we use Sports as a starting point, so I went and set up the project page on his behalf. Hence User SJK also deserves his share of the credit for the first Wikiproject. Cheers Manning ( talk) 02:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been asked if it might be possible to add a link to a WikiProject, specifically WIkipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki, to the various forms of Template:Expand language. Would anyone see any problems with doing so? John Carter ( talk) 18:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
It is important that e.g Template:Expand German has a link to the coordination at Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/German. Given that the translation is being monitored and overlooked by the project a small link to the project for coordination should not be a problem.18:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a large gap on most of the templates. It should definately be added otherwise there is no way for translators to even know about the project. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been looking at {{ WPCouncilRec}}, which appears at the bottom of some WikiProject pages, and I'm not sure that the template is needed, or that its current content makes sense in any case.
Do people want to retain the template, and, if so, are there any thoughts on more appropriate content for it? Kirill [talk] [pf] 16:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
← I was thinking something along the lines of the box at right. It's sized similarly to a shortcut box, so it should be reasonably easy to align with one of those already on the page; and it provides a backlink to the WPC page without needing either the links in {{ project}} or a separate full-size banner. I'm not sure how useful it would be, though, and whether we want to start using the particular terminology in the example. Kirill [talk] [pf] 22:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Template:WPCouncilRec has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Optigan13 ( talk) 19:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
For whatever they is worth, here are some crude manual statistics that I justgathered about
Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology. (The choice was completely random, and nothing is implied about how that project compares to other projects, on any aspect.)
The project was created in Dec/2006, so it is 2.5 years old. The project's page lists 643 articles, including 8 Featured, 9 Good, 63 B-level, 8 C-level, and 45 unassessed. The remaining 510 articles (~80%) are mainly classed as stub or start level.
The project's roster lists ~70 editors, most of them with declared expertise in the field. However, the effective membership seems to be much smaller. Looking at the edit histories of 20 randomly selected members, it seems that
From these percentages, I would guess that at most 4 of the 70 listed members are really active.
A quick analysys of the edit history of the 8 Featured and 9 Good articles seems to confirm this impression. Of those, 7 articles (41%) were awarded before the Wikiproject was created. In another 7 articles (41%), the most prominent editor was a project member; and in the remaining 3 articles (18%) the main editor was not a member.
Moreover, in those 17 articles, two members (
User:TimVickers and
User:GrahamColm) stood out, sometimes with 500 or more edits to a single article. Another 4 members (
User:MarcoTolo,
User:Scharks,
User:Pixie, and
User:Serephine) made significant contributions, but each about 1/10 of as much as each of those two. Finally, each article has also been edited by dozens of non-member editors, who generally made less than 30 edits to it.
Number of edits was the metric used for these estimates, but I trust that other metrics would give similar result.
The edit analsis also suggests that, to achieve Featured status, an article must have about 500 edits by a single editor (or, rarely, two editors), 10 times more than any other editor.
I will refrain from drawing conclusions for now, but I think that we ought to carry out a more extensive and careful study of how Wikiprojects are faring and what is their effect on the editors' work. All the best, --
Jorge Stolfi (
talk)
21:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The Guide mentions the banner shells in the section about Article Tagging. Would it be appropriate for me to add the current and, so far as I can tall, historical consensus regarding the use of the shells?
Basically it boils down to "If there are more than two banners, use {{ WikiProjectBannerShell}}, also known as {{ WPBS}}. If there are more than five banners, use {{ WikiProjectBanners}}, also known as {{ WPB}}."
It is already on |the Talk Page Layout project page, here under number 6 and it is on the template pages and talk pages for each of the shells.
I think that there are many editors who do not know that either shell exists. Similarly, until November of last year, I think users of {{ WPBS}} did not know that {{ WPB}} existed. (I believe that is why the C. S. Lewis talk page had 13 banners on it in just {{ WPBS}} when I collapsed them.) The pages with two or three banners enclosed in {{ WPB}} could have been done by editors who did not know about {{ WPBS}} or by me when {{ WPBS}} in an intermediate stage of its redevelopment and flat refused to work.
The reason I want the information on when to use which shell is because the shells are for WikiProject Banners and this is the WikiProject Council.
How is activity measured? Talk page edit frequency? Last updated date? M 00:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It's ALIVE!
The first aspect of the new online version of Igor is now online: http://wiki-igor.net. The complete wikiproject list is available, along with ratings of their activity and various other useful and/or interesting data. More will be coming shortly. Please check it out, and please let me know what you think. – Clockwork Soul 23:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
AZ mean Abdulaziz in Arabic "عبدالعزيز" . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulaziz N O ( talk • contribs) 08:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Please help me flesh out a proposal to add WikiProject tools into the MediaWiki software. Thanks. Kaldari ( talk) 21:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have a good set of importance guidelines for a state or similar locality based project. The ones we have at WP:CAL are a bit lacking. Especially with respect to biographies and other cultural material, we have a problem with a lot of California based entertainers getting a bit higher ranking than would seem appropriate. - Optigan13 ( talk) 06:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there a way to adjust the "Add -
Optigan13 (
talk)
15:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
[[/ProjectName|ProjectName]]
here link to be on the current month as opposed to the
Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Proposing a WikiProject section. The last few proposals have been malformed and in the wrong section.
Here is another question: has there been any hard assessment of how much the Wikiprojects mechanism contributes to Wikipedia?
It is easy to come up with potential benefits, e.g. coordination, standardization, marshalling, etc. However, I wonder whether these benefits are real, and how they compare with the costs. namely:
Consider this claim:
Can anyone disprove this claim? 8-)
All the best, --
Jorge Stolfi (
talk)
05:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I am a relatively new contributor and I did not discover the relevant project page for a long time. It seems to be abandoned - so, it cost me some confusion and an expectation that someone was tending the garden, but, that turned out not to be the case. Projects should probably die as soon as there is nobody managing them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Water_sports
Bodysurfinyon (
talk)
17:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Yesterday I had a mini-edit war at Trojan War over the replacement of "now" with "presently". The latter is a word which has different meanings in American and standard English usage and unambiguous terms ("now", "shortly") should be preferred. Indeed, often the word could simply be removed. I note that there are nearly 15K instances of the word.
"Pavement" has over 4K usages and some (references to things being set into the pavement) would certainly confuse or mislead some readers. I'm sure that there are similar problems wiht other terms.
So is there a group known to be working on this issue or an appropriate project to encourage to do so?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 11:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I've proposed moving Wikipedia:WikiProject recruitment for WikiProjects to a working group subpage of the council. Please leave any comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject recruitment for WikiProjects#Moving to subpage of WikiProject Council- Optigan13 ( talk) 01:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)