![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This project began as a clearing house of sorts. A place for different projects to discuss matters of common interest with each other without the risk of there being multiple discussions on each of the projects' talk pages. Although that did not work out as well as it might have, no harm and some good was done.
Lately, this has become a tribunal and an enforcement agency. New projects must come here to be blessed before they can be started. Existing projects have been assessed for activity and effectiveness and those that have been found wanting, in the perception and opinion of the favored few, have been declared to be inactive.
When was this change authorized and by whom? JimCubb ( talk) 19:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Since what was said (and is being said) above in other sections consists mainly of self-contradictory opinions without a scintilla of evidence or research, even original research, no, I do not agree. JimCubb ( talk) 16:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
See the entries at
Some want to delete all projects that are not currently hyper-active. Some want to delete projects that are currently inactive. Some want to delete only those projects that do not have a history of inactivity. Some, like me, seem to see no reason to delete anything. I particularly disagree with the way things have been done.
Look at all that surrounds and, in my view, should surround Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject The KLF (2nd nomination). I can find no notice on the subject project's talk page that the project was notified that it was being considered for deletion. There is also no notice on the talk pages of any of the members of the project. The nomination, especially the last sentence, seems to me to be snide, uncivil and lacking in an assumption of good faith. As a by-product, the penultimate "comment" invoked WP:RETAIN. For the life of me I cannot see how that section of the Manual of Style applies to the issue at hand. Did I miss something?
The worst part of the situation is exemplified by the comment on the deletion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivium. There is only a nomination. A single point-of-view does not make a consensus. JimCubb ( talk) 18:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry I missed the KLF notification. There were actually two such notices. The first was to the closed 2007 discussion and the second was to the 2011 discussion. I invite you to read the comments on the first discussion and notice how many times "inactivity is not cause for deletion" is stated by how many of the then-members of this project. (Yes, folks, this project went through a period of lack of activity and participation and was re-vitalized.)
So what has done to undelete Trivium? What sanctions have been placed on the admin who closed the discussion? What other discussions were closed in such a capricious manner? What has been done about them? JimCubb ( talk) 20:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, he is right. If 13 "house-cleaners" want to delete a project and the creator of the project objects, there is no consensus, merely a majority. More plausible example -- If 100 editors want to change the Table of Contents on Category:Biography articles without listas parameter from {{ Large Category TOC}} to {{ LargeCategoryTOC2}} because the former makes the page load too slowly but two editors need {{ Large Category TOC}} to do the clean-up they are doing, the change should not be made because even an over-whelming majority is not a consensus and WikiPedia is not a democracy. Sorry to burst your bubble. JimCubb ( talk) 01:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Look at the posts that have asked "can I start the project now" or "how do I delete a proposal". There is the perception among some editors that a project cannot be started without this project's approval and that this project controls the approval process.
Out of curiosity I attempted to read
the Consensus Policy. It needs a good copy editor and some serious criticism. It seems to me that it describes an oligarchy or a system of unrelated oligarchies. The truly odd thing about the policy are the things that can over ride consensus. Facts from reliable sources do not count.
However, one paragraph in
the Level of Consensus section seems to be directly aimed at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes.
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. [italics added]
When the members of {{
Composers}} decided that articles within the project's purview should not have infoboxes, the members of this project and the members of
WPBiog should have written their esteemed colleagues at {{
Composers}} to bugger off that their decision violated a well-established guideline and the consensus of the greater was necessary to make the change.
I fear that this is already much too long or I would address other issues.
JimCubb (
talk) 06:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there anyway you can withdraw a proposal. I had made a proposal for American Idol, before I saw that there was one for the Idol series. Candy o32 15:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi
I think we have a problem with our category listings for WikiProject Robotics.
The main page Category:WikiProject_Robotics has two categories, Category:WikiProject_Technology and Category:WikiProject_Engineering. On these pages the project appears under W though, instead of R.
I also wanted to add us to Category:Science_WikiProjects which is where I first noticed the problem.
The problem seems to also be that I cannot find a category for Wikiproject Robotics articles and wanted to get the matter sorted out if there is a top-level problem.
Chaosdruid ( talk) 05:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Bit of a lengthy heading, but that summarises the situation.
Wilbysuffolk ( talk · contribs) has created {{ Wikipedia:WikiProject East Anglian Transport/talkpages}} which appears to be an incomplete attempt at a project banner, and has added this to approx. 50 talk pages (most, if not all, of which are now in Category:WikiProject banners with formatting errors as a result). I can't find evidence of a formal proposal for such a WikiProject. The editor has since been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet. The parent page Wikipedia:WikiProject East Anglian Transport is up for MFD.
What is the procedure to follow re that talk page "banner"? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 12:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi
I have two questions.
1 Is it correct that editors should not really be changing project assessments/class unless they are a member of the project? I accept that obvious spelling mistakes (stbu, sutb, clas etc.) and perhaps "attention=no" -> "attention=yes" should be able to be changed, especially when the article is perhaps not often read.
2 Is it correct that a field included in a talk page banner should not be removed if the field is set correctly. We have a field "attention=". An editor has brought it to my attention that "The attention bar only does anything when it's to yes, so no reason to have it if it'll just be on no" Is it a policy to remove such fields? We are about to start a drive to improve and reassess articles and it seemed that the field was innocuous enough. It seems a little bizarre that others are going to decide when we can and cannot use particular fields. If the intention is that such fields not be set to "no" then perhaps they should be demoted (by removing the = and options for yes/no) - If the word "attention" is in the banner then it means yes, and if the word is not in it means no?
Chaosdruid ( talk) 06:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
WPBIO}}
banner ought to have | listas =
included, even if you're personally not sure how to fill in the field.Yea I proposed a WikiProject for Modern Family, but after some thinking and looking at other WikiProjects I have decided that Modern Family doesn't have enough articles under it's register, can someone tell me how I can remove it from the proposal list and could you tell me whats the minimum for a WikiProject NoD'ohnuts ( talk) 01:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
There is an effort to begin an annual discussion forum on the topics of religion, mythology, and philosophy at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting. If it proves successful, it might make sense to encourage other similar large meetings for other topics. In any event, any and all input from any editors is welcome and encouraged. John Carter ( talk) 16:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear WikiProject Council,
Since December 2010, I have been a member of WikiProject Espionage. Currently I have tagged a couple of articles which meet the criteria for WikiProject Espionage. Unfortunately in the last couple of weeks, I've found out through Wikipedia-en/Wikipedia-en-help on Freenode that the current founder of WikiProject Espionage has not been actively contributing since May 5, 2010. I quite enjoy doing the espionage particular one article I am in the process of adding information, footnotes and references. Which is located at User:Adamdaley/biographies while not interfering with the main article itself.
I've also been suggested to see if I would like to join WikiProject Intelligence because it's a relatively new WikiProject starting from scratch. So I thought about it and decided to put my name as a member, while still working on the above WikiProject Espionage article on my subpage.
While I was getting used to being a member of WikiProject Intelligence, I found out that there is a WikiProject Military Intelligence. I am already part of the WikiProject Military History and would rather have WikiProject Intelligence and WikiProject Espionage to be merged.
Currently, there are only four members in WikiProject Espionage and it seems I am the only one keeping the WikiProject alive as being semi-active. To have a founder that does not contribute or reply to my messages as well as another user, it can be frustrating, while I feel having two closely the same WikiProjects nearly the same they should be merged. Otherwise if the WikiProject Espionage becomes obsolete from Wikipedia, then the talkpage tags for that WikiProject will have to be either deleted or replace with another WikiProject.
I would like my above concerns addressed and I welcome any feedback from the WikiProject Council. Adamdaley ( talk) 04:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Gabriele449 - I have no objections with your proposal. There maybe small things that can be cleared up. I think I left a message on your discussion page that the first userbox needs a little adjustment with the ' in it. While this is still under discussion, there will be minor things to sort out and when more users decide to join the WikiProject Intelligence. I'm sure the we can come to a compromise. Adamdaley ( talk) 06:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
UPDATE...
It appears to be that the
WP:WikiProject Intelligence is becoming more of a WikiProject. I have been working with the founder of WikiProject Intelligence with minor details. I feel that we need more members to sign up - which is their choice to sign up, not sign up or just plain contribute to the WikiProject Intelligence articles. As for anything else, concerning information, article's, assessment of article's etc, the founder is the only one who knows what is going to happen with the WikiProject Intelligence. As for WikiProject Espionage, that will be left to the WikiProject Council to decide to keep it or remove it.
Adamdaley (
talk) 04:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
There are currently 27 WikiProjects or taskforces up for deletion at Miscellany for deletion. Some where submitted by me and some but other users but here is a list of the ones I saw on that page:
Please stop by and take a look. -- Kumioko ( talk) 13:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject CSI franchise has been submitted for deletion as well. -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC) and 2 more
![]() | "WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Council for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview questions here. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. If you have any questions, you can leave a note on my talk page. Have a great day. – SMasters ( talk) 16:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC) |
I've been re-considering the merger of WikiProject Espionage and WikiProject Intelligence over the last few days. There seem's to be no communication, or progression of any article's (that I am aware of) being considered added to the WikiProject Intelligence. Therefore, I would put forward my nomination of becoming the main person of WikiProject Espionage (or whatever you would like to call it). I feel that the creator of WikiProject Intelligence is too busy to progress or give a little time to find article's or come up with a plan, while no offence is intended by my brief comment just then. If the two I've named previously in this section is willing to become active or decide to leave, please leave a message on my talkpage and give me your opinion. If WikiProject Intelligence does progress, I will certainly keep an eye on it. Feedback here would be appreciated. Adamdaley ( talk) 04:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I have recently started a list of those reference works which have been recognized by various bodies as being among the better reference works to have come out in a given year at User:John Carter/Reference works. These sources are, basically, evidently among the best sources out there to cover a significant subject. In general, they will be either a comparatively unique reference source on that topic, or perhaps one of the most useful. The list is, ultimately, going to be a lot longer than it currently is, believe me. Anyway, I was wondering whether the rest of you think it would be reasonable to add a section to various project pages to include such sources. I tend to think that they would be among the more accurate presentations on the subject and for those which have detailed references for their articles, among the better bibliographies for the subject, at least up to the time of their being produced. Thoughts? John Carter ( talk) 18:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know whether Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by changes includes bot edits? (I'd personally prefer that bot edits were excluded.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I noticed this new wikiproject WP:WikiProject Prehistoric Mammals; I can't seem to find the proposal for it. Was it proposed? 65.93.12.101 ( talk) 08:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Can we please link BABEL (autotranslate) to the Babylon (NOT Tower of Babel) article by default?
Grevenko Sereth 122.49.186.194 ( talk) 10:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
This message is to publicize Wikipedia:Contribution Team.— Wavelength ( talk) 17:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed a number of broken wikiproject links on talk pages lately so I asked MZM if he could pull a report of them. Here is the report. I have already done most of the US related ones. -- Kumioko ( talk) 00:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
{{ WPKING}}
I was thinking about posting a discussion to the village pump but thought I would vet it here first. It seems as though a lot of WikiProject try to enforce a certain practice or procedure and often times it goes against the Wikipedia guidelines and practices established through the community. I understand that the Wikiproject's should have some control over the articles in there scope but some of the things I have seen do not seem to jive well with established procedures. I am only going to list examples with out the Projects to protect the innocent but, For example:
I agree that WikiProject's should have some control but these types of things are harmful to the cohesiveness of the community as a whole and eventhough WikiProject should establish thier own internal rules there should also be some Wikipedia wide guidelines that the projects need to follow: They should not, for example, be allowed to tell its users to put categories at the top of the article, they should not be able to tell them to undo edits made by someone other than members of the project , etc. I am not trying to get this into a big long heated debate and I know that the council doesn't have much control over the projects but I would like to hear others comments on the types of conduct they have seen (please don't name names) and what they think. -- Kumioko ( talk) 17:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The involvement of multiple editors, each defending the ownership of the other, can be highly complex. The simplest scenario usually comprises a dominant editor who is defended by other editors, reinforcing the former's ownership. This is often informally described as a tag team, and can be frustrating to both new and seasoned editors. As before, address the topic and not the actions of the editors. If this fails, proceed to dispute resolution, but it is important to communicate on the talk page and attempt to resolve the dispute yourself before escalating the conflict resolution process.
Per Kirill's suggestion, below is a rough draft for redesigning the WikiProject Directory. I threw this together as a wikitable, but the final version should be a template with some of the fields populated by a bot.
Instead of the current labyrinth of pages and redirects for various categories, every project would be in one sortable list. The list's initial order could be alphabetical, by parentage, or anything else. There's little point in having a sorting function in the current system because the separate clusters mean you're only sorting about three or four projects in a cluster.
In the proposed system, "Categories" would be listed in a column and serve as tags that could be used to limit the viewable projects, accomplishing what the current hierarchy of categories and clusters does but with fewer pages and less redundancy.
Italics in the "Name" column would denote a task force, subproject, or even MILHIST's "Operations" with a more specific description in the "Type" column. "Status" would be assigned by a bot based on the semiactive and inactive tags at the top of project pages. The colors are up for debate, if they're needed at all. Additional columns may be needed for watchlists, peer reviews, etc.
Name | Type | Status | Assessments | Collaboration | Portal | Categories |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Architecture | WikiProject | Active | Yes | Inactive | Portal:Architecture | Arts, Culture, Science |
Beauty Pageants | WikiProject | Semi | None | None | None | Arts, Culture, Entertainment |
Entertainment | WikiProject | Inactive | None | None | None | Arts, Culture, Entertainment |
Television | WikiProject | Active | Yes | None | Portal:Television | Arts, Culture, Entertainment |
Arrested Development | Task Force | Active | WP Television | None | Portal:Television | Arts, Culture, Entertainment |
Comments? - Mabeenot ( talk) 00:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, presumably we can get some automated or semi-automated maintenance in place? I think most of the key items that we'd want to list can be collected from other automated listings, and wouldn't require any regular input from the projects themselves.
More generally, I think we might be focusing too much on the "structure" of the listed projects, and not enough on other data points. My guess is that most visitors to the directory are not really looking for a detailed description of how different projects and task forces are related to one another, but rather for information on the individual projects available in their area of interest. In particular, I think visitors are likely to ask three main questions for a particular project:
Almost all of these are data points that either (a) can easily be collated from the WP1.0 assessment listings and the various database reports, or (b) are fixed structural items that don't often change.
I think a directory listing focusing primarily on such "numerical" descriptors of projects' state would be more useful than an exhaustive listing of their inheritance hierarchy. (Indeed, I'm not even convinced we should be listing task forces at all, except perhaps as notes under the parent project.) Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
We've recently expanded Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals to address the issue of whether a formal proposal is mandatory. I've got mixed feelings about this, since I think the process is extremely valuable and this may encourage some people to skip it, but it's true: a formal proposal is an optional step.
However, the section currently begins with this sentence:
"Firstly note that WP:IAR is policy."
Notice that there's no link there, just the initials. It is consequently entirely opaque to newbies. Also, I'm really not sure that emphasizing that "IAR is policy" in a section whose whole point is to say that the process is optional is striking the right balance. Yes, the proposal process is optional. But ~99% of editors ought to do it anyway. I am concerned that telling them they are required to ignore all rules to improve the encyclopedia, plus telling them that this process is optional, is going to result in dead projects and discouraged editors.
We aren't even telling them what a WikiProject is on this page. There's nothing that indicates that, for example, that a WikiProject is a place for collaboration, and consequently requires the involvement of multiple editors. We get a remarkable number of (usually bad) proposals from very inexperienced editors. And yet we're very strongly emphasizing that they can skip the proposal process and declare themselves a WikiProject whenever they'd like.
It seems unbalanced to me. I think we can do better than this. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
During several sessions per day (possibly about 24 cumulative hours) spread from April 22 to 27, 2011, I searched through the pages of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex for links to pages beginning with WikiProject in the Wikipedia namespace. I omitted disambiguation pages ( Category:Wikipedia project disambiguation pages) and soft-redirected pages ( Category:Wikipedia soft redirected project pages), but I included inactive and semi-active WikiProjects ( Category:Inactive WikiProjects and Category:Semi-active WikiProjects). I omitted subpages and sub-subpages and so on, and page panel pages (which were not always subpages).
Along the way, I discovered that many WikiProjects need to be categorized in Category:WikiProjects, and that Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam has by far the largest number of sub-subpages, with links occupying hundreds of pages in the Prefix Index.
From my research, I have produced
User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/List of WikiProjects, mainly for the purpose of using it as a watchlist. Therefore, I have deliberately left the 1775 entries in
ASCIIbetical order and also included the 1775 talk pages. Other editors may wish to adapt a copy of it for the Wikipedia namespace.
—
Wavelength (
talk) 21:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I cleaned out Category:WikiProjects today. Category:Wikipedia WikiProjects probably needs some attention. It appears that a few projects misunderstood the name. I'm going to explain the purpose of the cat in a minute, but may not get back to the clean-up work. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion on whether or not 2011 end times prediction is an appropriate addition to May 21, it would be great to have some involved in the project to share their thoughts at Talk:May 21-- RadioFan ( talk) 21:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
This could probably reasonably be described by several as a disjointed, almost random edit. Do I care? Well, I wrote it anyway - draw your own conclusions.
Somehow, particularly for groups/projects which do not have people actively involved in their maintenance, keeping up with the content, particularly new and potentially duplicate articles, may well be one of the more serious problems we might have. Editors will, I think reasonably, often act on their own when creating a new article on either a "new" notable person or cultural artifact (movie, TV show, book, painting, event, musical work, whatever). Of course, we should support their ability to so. Unfortunately, by doing so they will also often create redundant articles. I created an article on a mosque in Afghanistan which already had an article on another name once, and even got a DYK for it, and also once found three separate biographical articles on the same friend of Mohammed, whose names differed only in the matter of punctuation.
There is also the problem of how to encourage new editors, and keep them. Many new editors may well be most likely to stay if they can create an article from scratch, rather than from the start give attention to existing articles, many of which will already be well developed and/or of perhaps similar, short, length to articles on the topic which might be found elsewhere. We, of course, do not have the space restrictions many print encyclopedias do, but new editors might not think of that. And, for lengthy articles in particular, it can often be hard for even more experienced editors to tell what the article's weaknesses are.
And, of course, there is always the problem of dealing with BLP issues. Personally, I largely avoid editing articles which might fall under WP:BLP because of the difficulties of ensuring policies and guidelines are followed on articles where the content is likely to change after you've done your edit, sometimes dramatically and even, sometimes, in such a way that what you added might later be found to be inaccurate or just plain wrong, like, for instance, some questions of paternity.
I can see a few ways to deal with some of them, but wonder whether there would be enough people interested to make the ideas practical.
1) One might be to create three specific "organizational types" of articles, which might be called "active," "developing," and "historical." All BLPs and many articles on newer active companies and the like might fall in the first, as the articles specifically about the subject in general are likely to be changed, sometimes dramatically, later, depending on developments. These articles would be the kind most dependent on news articles and other type sources, as the material is subject to regular, significant changes. "Developing" might apply to countries, cities, cancelled TV shows, music or videos one or more year old, and similar articles where it might reasonably be said that the bulk of the directly related content is already available, but there is the likelihood that some significant changes will continue to occur. These would be less dependent on news-type articles, but would still probably need regular attention, to ensure they are up to date. "Historical" might apply to dead people, inactive institutions, or artifacts which are of sufficient age that the majority of the content relevant to the subject is unlikely to change. Published books might be the most complete sources for these articles. It might, maybe, even be worthwhile to adjust banners to indicate such differences, although I acknowledge the staggering amount of work which might be involved there. But doing so, in some way, might make it easier for newer editors to find articles that they can help develop more reasonably. If projects were to have "Bibliography" articles or similar, with maybe shorter lists of more recent "reference" type works, newer editors might be able to more quickly find articles which are still in need of development, and find materials to use which would assist in development. If there were articles on the works themselves, particularly regarding their strengths or weaknesses, that might help even more.
There is a problem with this, of oourse, keeping up with these reference sources. I've found about 1000 philosophy and religion "encyclopedias" reviewed on Infotrac. Those two topics being one of 10 main categories we have, that might mean about 10,000 recent "encyclopedias" in total. Finding material on that number of works, and developing related content, would be a serious amount of work. But I think it would be potentially very useful to projects and groups, in both keeping older articles up to date and in developing new articles. And it would be even more work to keep up with later editions, later reviews and books about reference sources, and the like.
2) I also think that, where possible, these reference works could be used to maybe help establish "missing articles" lists for various projects. If, for instance, a given "encyclopedia" article has sufficient references for the subject to be notable as per WP:N, it might help editors interested in a particular subject to have some sort of list of such missing articles, which they could then consult the sources on and develop. I think that might be of particular usefulness to newer editors, but it is dependent on having people keep the lists of reference works and missing articles updated, which would probably be a lot of work. Some of these books have thousands of articles, and some don't have individual reference lists for articles.
For what little it might be worth, I am in the process of e-mailing myself all the articles from subscription databases which deal directly with such "encyclopedic" reference works as I go through the results list. I could, probably, in a few weeks, start to get together lists of such sources relevant to most groups and WikiProjects. I am less sure that I would myself be able to do the development of all the potential articles which might arise from that material.
Do the rest of you think that it would be useful to maybe establish some sort of formal or informal guidelines regarding the types of articles mentioned above (or, maybe, similar classification based on "currency" of content), and, maybe, to develop the lists of references and missing articles? I think they would be beneficial to newer editors, and even some older editors, but am unsure about whether the gains would be worth the amount of effort involved in the creation and maintenance of such. John Carter ( talk) 16:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I think most people looking for this will look under history, not science. I know I did. Dougweller ( talk) 13:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hulk is back. Hulk has created big list of reference sources. Hulk sees that many highly regarded web sources may be useful for more than one project - National Public Radio, for instance. Maybe Australian, British, and Canadian BCs to, Hulk not know. Hulk thinks maybe a lot of editors might not think of using them, so a list might be helpful. Hulk wants to know if there might be somewhere where we could make a list of high quality web sources. And Hulk is getting tired of jokes about his gramma. Hulk's gramma as good as anyone else's. And, even if she is old, Hulk's gramma has same short temper Hulk has, and doesn't like being insulted. Hulk might calm down to become puny Carter now. John Carter ( talk) 19:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Articles
As mentioned above we have a big amount of deletions. There will simply be to many for me to chase after and fix. Meaning I will simply be overwhelmed with the amount of work that will be needed done after the projects and portals are deleted. What it is I need help with? --> Well after a project gets deleted We/I have to go around and remove all the templates from the talk pages and portal templates for all the articles. All this has been mentioned before but no solution has been found. What would be nice is if the people that nominated them actually had to do the cleanup work cause because of the deletions. For example Portal:Family Guy as seen here will have to be removed from the projects templates ( Template:Family Guy) and the portal its self removed from all the pages it's on. So any help here would be great as I cant keep up with the deletion of projects and portals at this time. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion for a listing of projects and portals that we will have cleanup after. Moxy ( talk) 16:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Do we have a way to sort all the articles in a category into the importance x quality score matrix, as project pages allow? LADave ( talk) 18:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This project began as a clearing house of sorts. A place for different projects to discuss matters of common interest with each other without the risk of there being multiple discussions on each of the projects' talk pages. Although that did not work out as well as it might have, no harm and some good was done.
Lately, this has become a tribunal and an enforcement agency. New projects must come here to be blessed before they can be started. Existing projects have been assessed for activity and effectiveness and those that have been found wanting, in the perception and opinion of the favored few, have been declared to be inactive.
When was this change authorized and by whom? JimCubb ( talk) 19:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Since what was said (and is being said) above in other sections consists mainly of self-contradictory opinions without a scintilla of evidence or research, even original research, no, I do not agree. JimCubb ( talk) 16:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
See the entries at
Some want to delete all projects that are not currently hyper-active. Some want to delete projects that are currently inactive. Some want to delete only those projects that do not have a history of inactivity. Some, like me, seem to see no reason to delete anything. I particularly disagree with the way things have been done.
Look at all that surrounds and, in my view, should surround Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject The KLF (2nd nomination). I can find no notice on the subject project's talk page that the project was notified that it was being considered for deletion. There is also no notice on the talk pages of any of the members of the project. The nomination, especially the last sentence, seems to me to be snide, uncivil and lacking in an assumption of good faith. As a by-product, the penultimate "comment" invoked WP:RETAIN. For the life of me I cannot see how that section of the Manual of Style applies to the issue at hand. Did I miss something?
The worst part of the situation is exemplified by the comment on the deletion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivium. There is only a nomination. A single point-of-view does not make a consensus. JimCubb ( talk) 18:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry I missed the KLF notification. There were actually two such notices. The first was to the closed 2007 discussion and the second was to the 2011 discussion. I invite you to read the comments on the first discussion and notice how many times "inactivity is not cause for deletion" is stated by how many of the then-members of this project. (Yes, folks, this project went through a period of lack of activity and participation and was re-vitalized.)
So what has done to undelete Trivium? What sanctions have been placed on the admin who closed the discussion? What other discussions were closed in such a capricious manner? What has been done about them? JimCubb ( talk) 20:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, he is right. If 13 "house-cleaners" want to delete a project and the creator of the project objects, there is no consensus, merely a majority. More plausible example -- If 100 editors want to change the Table of Contents on Category:Biography articles without listas parameter from {{ Large Category TOC}} to {{ LargeCategoryTOC2}} because the former makes the page load too slowly but two editors need {{ Large Category TOC}} to do the clean-up they are doing, the change should not be made because even an over-whelming majority is not a consensus and WikiPedia is not a democracy. Sorry to burst your bubble. JimCubb ( talk) 01:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Look at the posts that have asked "can I start the project now" or "how do I delete a proposal". There is the perception among some editors that a project cannot be started without this project's approval and that this project controls the approval process.
Out of curiosity I attempted to read
the Consensus Policy. It needs a good copy editor and some serious criticism. It seems to me that it describes an oligarchy or a system of unrelated oligarchies. The truly odd thing about the policy are the things that can over ride consensus. Facts from reliable sources do not count.
However, one paragraph in
the Level of Consensus section seems to be directly aimed at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes.
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. [italics added]
When the members of {{
Composers}} decided that articles within the project's purview should not have infoboxes, the members of this project and the members of
WPBiog should have written their esteemed colleagues at {{
Composers}} to bugger off that their decision violated a well-established guideline and the consensus of the greater was necessary to make the change.
I fear that this is already much too long or I would address other issues.
JimCubb (
talk) 06:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there anyway you can withdraw a proposal. I had made a proposal for American Idol, before I saw that there was one for the Idol series. Candy o32 15:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi
I think we have a problem with our category listings for WikiProject Robotics.
The main page Category:WikiProject_Robotics has two categories, Category:WikiProject_Technology and Category:WikiProject_Engineering. On these pages the project appears under W though, instead of R.
I also wanted to add us to Category:Science_WikiProjects which is where I first noticed the problem.
The problem seems to also be that I cannot find a category for Wikiproject Robotics articles and wanted to get the matter sorted out if there is a top-level problem.
Chaosdruid ( talk) 05:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Bit of a lengthy heading, but that summarises the situation.
Wilbysuffolk ( talk · contribs) has created {{ Wikipedia:WikiProject East Anglian Transport/talkpages}} which appears to be an incomplete attempt at a project banner, and has added this to approx. 50 talk pages (most, if not all, of which are now in Category:WikiProject banners with formatting errors as a result). I can't find evidence of a formal proposal for such a WikiProject. The editor has since been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet. The parent page Wikipedia:WikiProject East Anglian Transport is up for MFD.
What is the procedure to follow re that talk page "banner"? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 12:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi
I have two questions.
1 Is it correct that editors should not really be changing project assessments/class unless they are a member of the project? I accept that obvious spelling mistakes (stbu, sutb, clas etc.) and perhaps "attention=no" -> "attention=yes" should be able to be changed, especially when the article is perhaps not often read.
2 Is it correct that a field included in a talk page banner should not be removed if the field is set correctly. We have a field "attention=". An editor has brought it to my attention that "The attention bar only does anything when it's to yes, so no reason to have it if it'll just be on no" Is it a policy to remove such fields? We are about to start a drive to improve and reassess articles and it seemed that the field was innocuous enough. It seems a little bizarre that others are going to decide when we can and cannot use particular fields. If the intention is that such fields not be set to "no" then perhaps they should be demoted (by removing the = and options for yes/no) - If the word "attention" is in the banner then it means yes, and if the word is not in it means no?
Chaosdruid ( talk) 06:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
WPBIO}}
banner ought to have | listas =
included, even if you're personally not sure how to fill in the field.Yea I proposed a WikiProject for Modern Family, but after some thinking and looking at other WikiProjects I have decided that Modern Family doesn't have enough articles under it's register, can someone tell me how I can remove it from the proposal list and could you tell me whats the minimum for a WikiProject NoD'ohnuts ( talk) 01:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
There is an effort to begin an annual discussion forum on the topics of religion, mythology, and philosophy at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting. If it proves successful, it might make sense to encourage other similar large meetings for other topics. In any event, any and all input from any editors is welcome and encouraged. John Carter ( talk) 16:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear WikiProject Council,
Since December 2010, I have been a member of WikiProject Espionage. Currently I have tagged a couple of articles which meet the criteria for WikiProject Espionage. Unfortunately in the last couple of weeks, I've found out through Wikipedia-en/Wikipedia-en-help on Freenode that the current founder of WikiProject Espionage has not been actively contributing since May 5, 2010. I quite enjoy doing the espionage particular one article I am in the process of adding information, footnotes and references. Which is located at User:Adamdaley/biographies while not interfering with the main article itself.
I've also been suggested to see if I would like to join WikiProject Intelligence because it's a relatively new WikiProject starting from scratch. So I thought about it and decided to put my name as a member, while still working on the above WikiProject Espionage article on my subpage.
While I was getting used to being a member of WikiProject Intelligence, I found out that there is a WikiProject Military Intelligence. I am already part of the WikiProject Military History and would rather have WikiProject Intelligence and WikiProject Espionage to be merged.
Currently, there are only four members in WikiProject Espionage and it seems I am the only one keeping the WikiProject alive as being semi-active. To have a founder that does not contribute or reply to my messages as well as another user, it can be frustrating, while I feel having two closely the same WikiProjects nearly the same they should be merged. Otherwise if the WikiProject Espionage becomes obsolete from Wikipedia, then the talkpage tags for that WikiProject will have to be either deleted or replace with another WikiProject.
I would like my above concerns addressed and I welcome any feedback from the WikiProject Council. Adamdaley ( talk) 04:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Gabriele449 - I have no objections with your proposal. There maybe small things that can be cleared up. I think I left a message on your discussion page that the first userbox needs a little adjustment with the ' in it. While this is still under discussion, there will be minor things to sort out and when more users decide to join the WikiProject Intelligence. I'm sure the we can come to a compromise. Adamdaley ( talk) 06:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
UPDATE...
It appears to be that the
WP:WikiProject Intelligence is becoming more of a WikiProject. I have been working with the founder of WikiProject Intelligence with minor details. I feel that we need more members to sign up - which is their choice to sign up, not sign up or just plain contribute to the WikiProject Intelligence articles. As for anything else, concerning information, article's, assessment of article's etc, the founder is the only one who knows what is going to happen with the WikiProject Intelligence. As for WikiProject Espionage, that will be left to the WikiProject Council to decide to keep it or remove it.
Adamdaley (
talk) 04:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
There are currently 27 WikiProjects or taskforces up for deletion at Miscellany for deletion. Some where submitted by me and some but other users but here is a list of the ones I saw on that page:
Please stop by and take a look. -- Kumioko ( talk) 13:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject CSI franchise has been submitted for deletion as well. -- Kumioko ( talk) 16:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC) and 2 more
![]() | "WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Council for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview questions here. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. If you have any questions, you can leave a note on my talk page. Have a great day. – SMasters ( talk) 16:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC) |
I've been re-considering the merger of WikiProject Espionage and WikiProject Intelligence over the last few days. There seem's to be no communication, or progression of any article's (that I am aware of) being considered added to the WikiProject Intelligence. Therefore, I would put forward my nomination of becoming the main person of WikiProject Espionage (or whatever you would like to call it). I feel that the creator of WikiProject Intelligence is too busy to progress or give a little time to find article's or come up with a plan, while no offence is intended by my brief comment just then. If the two I've named previously in this section is willing to become active or decide to leave, please leave a message on my talkpage and give me your opinion. If WikiProject Intelligence does progress, I will certainly keep an eye on it. Feedback here would be appreciated. Adamdaley ( talk) 04:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I have recently started a list of those reference works which have been recognized by various bodies as being among the better reference works to have come out in a given year at User:John Carter/Reference works. These sources are, basically, evidently among the best sources out there to cover a significant subject. In general, they will be either a comparatively unique reference source on that topic, or perhaps one of the most useful. The list is, ultimately, going to be a lot longer than it currently is, believe me. Anyway, I was wondering whether the rest of you think it would be reasonable to add a section to various project pages to include such sources. I tend to think that they would be among the more accurate presentations on the subject and for those which have detailed references for their articles, among the better bibliographies for the subject, at least up to the time of their being produced. Thoughts? John Carter ( talk) 18:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know whether Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by changes includes bot edits? (I'd personally prefer that bot edits were excluded.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I noticed this new wikiproject WP:WikiProject Prehistoric Mammals; I can't seem to find the proposal for it. Was it proposed? 65.93.12.101 ( talk) 08:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Can we please link BABEL (autotranslate) to the Babylon (NOT Tower of Babel) article by default?
Grevenko Sereth 122.49.186.194 ( talk) 10:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
This message is to publicize Wikipedia:Contribution Team.— Wavelength ( talk) 17:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed a number of broken wikiproject links on talk pages lately so I asked MZM if he could pull a report of them. Here is the report. I have already done most of the US related ones. -- Kumioko ( talk) 00:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
{{ WPKING}}
I was thinking about posting a discussion to the village pump but thought I would vet it here first. It seems as though a lot of WikiProject try to enforce a certain practice or procedure and often times it goes against the Wikipedia guidelines and practices established through the community. I understand that the Wikiproject's should have some control over the articles in there scope but some of the things I have seen do not seem to jive well with established procedures. I am only going to list examples with out the Projects to protect the innocent but, For example:
I agree that WikiProject's should have some control but these types of things are harmful to the cohesiveness of the community as a whole and eventhough WikiProject should establish thier own internal rules there should also be some Wikipedia wide guidelines that the projects need to follow: They should not, for example, be allowed to tell its users to put categories at the top of the article, they should not be able to tell them to undo edits made by someone other than members of the project , etc. I am not trying to get this into a big long heated debate and I know that the council doesn't have much control over the projects but I would like to hear others comments on the types of conduct they have seen (please don't name names) and what they think. -- Kumioko ( talk) 17:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The involvement of multiple editors, each defending the ownership of the other, can be highly complex. The simplest scenario usually comprises a dominant editor who is defended by other editors, reinforcing the former's ownership. This is often informally described as a tag team, and can be frustrating to both new and seasoned editors. As before, address the topic and not the actions of the editors. If this fails, proceed to dispute resolution, but it is important to communicate on the talk page and attempt to resolve the dispute yourself before escalating the conflict resolution process.
Per Kirill's suggestion, below is a rough draft for redesigning the WikiProject Directory. I threw this together as a wikitable, but the final version should be a template with some of the fields populated by a bot.
Instead of the current labyrinth of pages and redirects for various categories, every project would be in one sortable list. The list's initial order could be alphabetical, by parentage, or anything else. There's little point in having a sorting function in the current system because the separate clusters mean you're only sorting about three or four projects in a cluster.
In the proposed system, "Categories" would be listed in a column and serve as tags that could be used to limit the viewable projects, accomplishing what the current hierarchy of categories and clusters does but with fewer pages and less redundancy.
Italics in the "Name" column would denote a task force, subproject, or even MILHIST's "Operations" with a more specific description in the "Type" column. "Status" would be assigned by a bot based on the semiactive and inactive tags at the top of project pages. The colors are up for debate, if they're needed at all. Additional columns may be needed for watchlists, peer reviews, etc.
Name | Type | Status | Assessments | Collaboration | Portal | Categories |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Architecture | WikiProject | Active | Yes | Inactive | Portal:Architecture | Arts, Culture, Science |
Beauty Pageants | WikiProject | Semi | None | None | None | Arts, Culture, Entertainment |
Entertainment | WikiProject | Inactive | None | None | None | Arts, Culture, Entertainment |
Television | WikiProject | Active | Yes | None | Portal:Television | Arts, Culture, Entertainment |
Arrested Development | Task Force | Active | WP Television | None | Portal:Television | Arts, Culture, Entertainment |
Comments? - Mabeenot ( talk) 00:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, presumably we can get some automated or semi-automated maintenance in place? I think most of the key items that we'd want to list can be collected from other automated listings, and wouldn't require any regular input from the projects themselves.
More generally, I think we might be focusing too much on the "structure" of the listed projects, and not enough on other data points. My guess is that most visitors to the directory are not really looking for a detailed description of how different projects and task forces are related to one another, but rather for information on the individual projects available in their area of interest. In particular, I think visitors are likely to ask three main questions for a particular project:
Almost all of these are data points that either (a) can easily be collated from the WP1.0 assessment listings and the various database reports, or (b) are fixed structural items that don't often change.
I think a directory listing focusing primarily on such "numerical" descriptors of projects' state would be more useful than an exhaustive listing of their inheritance hierarchy. (Indeed, I'm not even convinced we should be listing task forces at all, except perhaps as notes under the parent project.) Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
We've recently expanded Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals to address the issue of whether a formal proposal is mandatory. I've got mixed feelings about this, since I think the process is extremely valuable and this may encourage some people to skip it, but it's true: a formal proposal is an optional step.
However, the section currently begins with this sentence:
"Firstly note that WP:IAR is policy."
Notice that there's no link there, just the initials. It is consequently entirely opaque to newbies. Also, I'm really not sure that emphasizing that "IAR is policy" in a section whose whole point is to say that the process is optional is striking the right balance. Yes, the proposal process is optional. But ~99% of editors ought to do it anyway. I am concerned that telling them they are required to ignore all rules to improve the encyclopedia, plus telling them that this process is optional, is going to result in dead projects and discouraged editors.
We aren't even telling them what a WikiProject is on this page. There's nothing that indicates that, for example, that a WikiProject is a place for collaboration, and consequently requires the involvement of multiple editors. We get a remarkable number of (usually bad) proposals from very inexperienced editors. And yet we're very strongly emphasizing that they can skip the proposal process and declare themselves a WikiProject whenever they'd like.
It seems unbalanced to me. I think we can do better than this. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
During several sessions per day (possibly about 24 cumulative hours) spread from April 22 to 27, 2011, I searched through the pages of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex for links to pages beginning with WikiProject in the Wikipedia namespace. I omitted disambiguation pages ( Category:Wikipedia project disambiguation pages) and soft-redirected pages ( Category:Wikipedia soft redirected project pages), but I included inactive and semi-active WikiProjects ( Category:Inactive WikiProjects and Category:Semi-active WikiProjects). I omitted subpages and sub-subpages and so on, and page panel pages (which were not always subpages).
Along the way, I discovered that many WikiProjects need to be categorized in Category:WikiProjects, and that Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam has by far the largest number of sub-subpages, with links occupying hundreds of pages in the Prefix Index.
From my research, I have produced
User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/List of WikiProjects, mainly for the purpose of using it as a watchlist. Therefore, I have deliberately left the 1775 entries in
ASCIIbetical order and also included the 1775 talk pages. Other editors may wish to adapt a copy of it for the Wikipedia namespace.
—
Wavelength (
talk) 21:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I cleaned out Category:WikiProjects today. Category:Wikipedia WikiProjects probably needs some attention. It appears that a few projects misunderstood the name. I'm going to explain the purpose of the cat in a minute, but may not get back to the clean-up work. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion on whether or not 2011 end times prediction is an appropriate addition to May 21, it would be great to have some involved in the project to share their thoughts at Talk:May 21-- RadioFan ( talk) 21:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
This could probably reasonably be described by several as a disjointed, almost random edit. Do I care? Well, I wrote it anyway - draw your own conclusions.
Somehow, particularly for groups/projects which do not have people actively involved in their maintenance, keeping up with the content, particularly new and potentially duplicate articles, may well be one of the more serious problems we might have. Editors will, I think reasonably, often act on their own when creating a new article on either a "new" notable person or cultural artifact (movie, TV show, book, painting, event, musical work, whatever). Of course, we should support their ability to so. Unfortunately, by doing so they will also often create redundant articles. I created an article on a mosque in Afghanistan which already had an article on another name once, and even got a DYK for it, and also once found three separate biographical articles on the same friend of Mohammed, whose names differed only in the matter of punctuation.
There is also the problem of how to encourage new editors, and keep them. Many new editors may well be most likely to stay if they can create an article from scratch, rather than from the start give attention to existing articles, many of which will already be well developed and/or of perhaps similar, short, length to articles on the topic which might be found elsewhere. We, of course, do not have the space restrictions many print encyclopedias do, but new editors might not think of that. And, for lengthy articles in particular, it can often be hard for even more experienced editors to tell what the article's weaknesses are.
And, of course, there is always the problem of dealing with BLP issues. Personally, I largely avoid editing articles which might fall under WP:BLP because of the difficulties of ensuring policies and guidelines are followed on articles where the content is likely to change after you've done your edit, sometimes dramatically and even, sometimes, in such a way that what you added might later be found to be inaccurate or just plain wrong, like, for instance, some questions of paternity.
I can see a few ways to deal with some of them, but wonder whether there would be enough people interested to make the ideas practical.
1) One might be to create three specific "organizational types" of articles, which might be called "active," "developing," and "historical." All BLPs and many articles on newer active companies and the like might fall in the first, as the articles specifically about the subject in general are likely to be changed, sometimes dramatically, later, depending on developments. These articles would be the kind most dependent on news articles and other type sources, as the material is subject to regular, significant changes. "Developing" might apply to countries, cities, cancelled TV shows, music or videos one or more year old, and similar articles where it might reasonably be said that the bulk of the directly related content is already available, but there is the likelihood that some significant changes will continue to occur. These would be less dependent on news-type articles, but would still probably need regular attention, to ensure they are up to date. "Historical" might apply to dead people, inactive institutions, or artifacts which are of sufficient age that the majority of the content relevant to the subject is unlikely to change. Published books might be the most complete sources for these articles. It might, maybe, even be worthwhile to adjust banners to indicate such differences, although I acknowledge the staggering amount of work which might be involved there. But doing so, in some way, might make it easier for newer editors to find articles that they can help develop more reasonably. If projects were to have "Bibliography" articles or similar, with maybe shorter lists of more recent "reference" type works, newer editors might be able to more quickly find articles which are still in need of development, and find materials to use which would assist in development. If there were articles on the works themselves, particularly regarding their strengths or weaknesses, that might help even more.
There is a problem with this, of oourse, keeping up with these reference sources. I've found about 1000 philosophy and religion "encyclopedias" reviewed on Infotrac. Those two topics being one of 10 main categories we have, that might mean about 10,000 recent "encyclopedias" in total. Finding material on that number of works, and developing related content, would be a serious amount of work. But I think it would be potentially very useful to projects and groups, in both keeping older articles up to date and in developing new articles. And it would be even more work to keep up with later editions, later reviews and books about reference sources, and the like.
2) I also think that, where possible, these reference works could be used to maybe help establish "missing articles" lists for various projects. If, for instance, a given "encyclopedia" article has sufficient references for the subject to be notable as per WP:N, it might help editors interested in a particular subject to have some sort of list of such missing articles, which they could then consult the sources on and develop. I think that might be of particular usefulness to newer editors, but it is dependent on having people keep the lists of reference works and missing articles updated, which would probably be a lot of work. Some of these books have thousands of articles, and some don't have individual reference lists for articles.
For what little it might be worth, I am in the process of e-mailing myself all the articles from subscription databases which deal directly with such "encyclopedic" reference works as I go through the results list. I could, probably, in a few weeks, start to get together lists of such sources relevant to most groups and WikiProjects. I am less sure that I would myself be able to do the development of all the potential articles which might arise from that material.
Do the rest of you think that it would be useful to maybe establish some sort of formal or informal guidelines regarding the types of articles mentioned above (or, maybe, similar classification based on "currency" of content), and, maybe, to develop the lists of references and missing articles? I think they would be beneficial to newer editors, and even some older editors, but am unsure about whether the gains would be worth the amount of effort involved in the creation and maintenance of such. John Carter ( talk) 16:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I think most people looking for this will look under history, not science. I know I did. Dougweller ( talk) 13:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hulk is back. Hulk has created big list of reference sources. Hulk sees that many highly regarded web sources may be useful for more than one project - National Public Radio, for instance. Maybe Australian, British, and Canadian BCs to, Hulk not know. Hulk thinks maybe a lot of editors might not think of using them, so a list might be helpful. Hulk wants to know if there might be somewhere where we could make a list of high quality web sources. And Hulk is getting tired of jokes about his gramma. Hulk's gramma as good as anyone else's. And, even if she is old, Hulk's gramma has same short temper Hulk has, and doesn't like being insulted. Hulk might calm down to become puny Carter now. John Carter ( talk) 19:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Articles
As mentioned above we have a big amount of deletions. There will simply be to many for me to chase after and fix. Meaning I will simply be overwhelmed with the amount of work that will be needed done after the projects and portals are deleted. What it is I need help with? --> Well after a project gets deleted We/I have to go around and remove all the templates from the talk pages and portal templates for all the articles. All this has been mentioned before but no solution has been found. What would be nice is if the people that nominated them actually had to do the cleanup work cause because of the deletions. For example Portal:Family Guy as seen here will have to be removed from the projects templates ( Template:Family Guy) and the portal its self removed from all the pages it's on. So any help here would be great as I cant keep up with the deletion of projects and portals at this time. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion for a listing of projects and portals that we will have cleanup after. Moxy ( talk) 16:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Do we have a way to sort all the articles in a category into the importance x quality score matrix, as project pages allow? LADave ( talk) 18:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)