![]() | 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. |
I've been an active Wikipedian for several months now, but I'm well rounded as I liked to be. One of my ongoing issues is the update of the quality list grading scale for selected WikiProject articles. They usually update by itself, but hasn't done that at all, and it's been almost a few weeks.
This was the page that I was referring to that being a problem with? Is there anyway that you can help me here? Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for reading! LeftAire ( talk) 18:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Whenever an article is rated as being list-class, that basically removes it from the usual process of assessment-driven quality improvements. And I hardly think the Featured List class remedies this dysfunctionality to any significant degree. The problem is furthermore exasperated by many articles being assessed as list-class when they really aren't primarily lists but merely contain one or more lists in addition to prose sections.
I would suggest that we get rid of the List and Featured List classes from the WP 1.0 assessment scheme altogether. Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists should be sufficient as a focus arena to work on lists improvement in particular. __ meco ( talk) 11:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Recently our category name was changed from Transcendental Meditation movement to Transcendental Meditation. Now we would like to make the same change in the name of our project at WP:TMMOVEMENT. Can anyone tell me how to do this? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Could we have the implementation of a comprehensive list of WikiProjects that ranks the activity / quality of projects by the different classes on the quality scale, possibly adding weighted measures by taking into account the total number of articles adopted by the projects? __ meco ( talk) 16:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Council, I would like a reassessment of WikiProject Mozilla. It was previously turned down, but I think it could benefit from its on WikiProject. There are dozens of Firefox articles and Mozilla articles that are impossible to coordinate on my own. What many people are unaware of is the giant scope of the Mozilla. It has lots of software, and tons of history. As an example, we would cover articles lesser known to general users. As an example, typing Mozilla into Wikipedia search gives back 3,686 results, and typing Firefox produces 8,353 results! Clearly most of the articles only contain one instance of the word Mozilla or Firefox, but there are enough articles that a WikiProject is needed. We also cover projects that only have semi-relevance to Mozilla, such as the Netscape browser (Firefox is based off of Netscape, and then later Netscape became based on Firefox). Anything semi-relevant to Mozilla would be covered. I believe that this Wikiproject could find hundreds of articles to cover - all in need of some sort of repair. Thank you! ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 20:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I have come across a strange Wikiproject proposal: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/The 39 Clues. I cannot tell what this one is supposed to be about. It almost seems to be that the guy wants 2 separate wiki projects: one completely on him/herself and one on a book series that does not have very many articles about it. I want to say something yet there is no "Discussion" area. Could someone please help me with this. Personally I would take down the proposition, yet I don't have the authority to. Bloope ( talk) 18:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
Are any Wikiprojects using Facebook to co-ordinate communication/communicate to others to get them interested to join the project? Are people free to start doing this? -- Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu ( talk) 22:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I am interested to create a Wikiproject "Share your Wikipedia experiences" if there is not one already. The idea came to my mind after this discussion. Surely many editors have many good/sad/delighting experiences in Wikipedia! -- Tito Dutta ✉ 17:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Just thought I'd let you guys know and deal with this. This WikiProject was created without discussion and only contains 44 articles in it. — Statυs ( talk) 03:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Template:Controversial-Class has been nominated for deletion. 70.24.251.208 ( talk) 06:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Category:D-Class articles has been nominated for deletion. However, Template:D-Class hasn't been nominated. 70.24.251.208 ( talk) 04:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I would like to draw attention to an interesting discussion on principles at Talk:Evolution, where a group of editors have seemigly taken offense at that article's having been added to the purview of WP:RELIGION. It raises the question of whether wikiprojects are allowed to decide their scope on their own or whether local concensus at a given page can remove or add specific pages from the projects domain of interest? Input is requested. I personally don't give a damn either way but I think the principle is interesting to clarify and I do find it quaint and slightly provicative that some editors feel so strongly about the page having any ties to the concept of religion or the related wikiproject. We've had similar issues with WP:CONSERVATISM and WP:USA in the past. Perhaps we should make a procedure for determining project scope in contested cases? ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 03:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I think that the templates in use don't really deal with a case like WPUS. To tag all of the US related articles would bring the project to several million articles. Not really a manageable number. Not to mention the number of pages to be flagged. It would seem a lot better to make this more like a super project that by default allows contents to be listed from other projects so that the sub projects do not appear to be children of the huge project. As long as one project in the US does not wish to be included as a child of WPUS, either a second banner would need to be added or these articles would not be included in the scope of WPUS. It would seem to be more efficient to just say WPABC should be included in WPUS and just not add or modify templates. Don't know how this would actually work, but can we say that a Wikiproject that has a scope of over 50% of the articles in the encyclopedia works (I think the US may be 50%, anyone know)? I'm not knocking the project, just questioning if there is a better way to deal with a project that large. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I've created a template to remind article authors to add assessment templates to the talk pages of their articles. See User:Piotrus/AT. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
FYI, there's an RFC proposal for what seems like a replacement for the WikiProject Council, see Wikipedia talk:The need for coordination.
70.24.251.208 ( talk) 05:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The proposal above is dead, an updated version of the proposal can be found [[ User:Wer900/Community Council of Wikipedia|here]] and there is an ongoing Village Pump discussion here. I am the originator of both the original and the new proposals. Wer900 • talk • coordination consensus defined 04:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Write a static blog with the above title. Would excerpts from this be a suitable subject for a Wiki Project.
Hamish84 ( talk) 07:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
PS. Too old now to digest all the protocol.
A long time time ago I broached the idea of updating the links template and it appeared to reach a consensus to proceed. Hence I've modified the template to add a little more color and to include links into some of the other general sub-categories. I hope this design meets with your approval. Thanks. Regards, RJH ( talk) 17:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there a WikiProject where users can bring articles to verify if sources are being used correctly and users are not keeping true to WP:INTEGRITY? Any help would be appreciated. - B2project ( talk) 00:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
There's a new WikiProject: WikiProject Animals in media. Brambleberry of RiverClan Chat ♠ Watch 21:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
There are a growing number of projects for help using wikipedia as well as those that are a part of the Dispute Resolution that I strongly feel are a part of the Wikipedia Help sections to guide editors and keep them from leaving for many reasons. I feel Wikipedia needs to begin listing Wikipedia help more prominently and I would like to begin here on the WikiProjects Directory.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 06:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm pretty new here, and I have waded through quite a few pages trying to find the answer to this question. Q: If an article is tagged by multiple WikiProjects and is assessed as A Class by one, what is the process for the other WikiProjects to assess it? Do they just go along with the assessment, or do they all need to conduct their own processes to assess it? Help needed... Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( talk) 10:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I am requesting background information and discussion of a potential new WikiProject revolving around government, as a separate and disctinct topic from politics and law. To my dismay, the topics have merged, with government being subsumed under politics, and suffering because of it. And not to make the discussion too easy, the broad meaning (no, not exact meaning, but even a common understanding of the term) of " government" has 2 major understandings in English: the English meaning (see what I did there?) referring to the cabinet, or executive; and a broader meaning which includes other governmental topics such as judicial and legislative functions, geographical administrative units, sub-governments, and law. (Law is also a topic that has their own WikiProject, but is also a focus of Politics.)
These 2 problems have cause me in particular major headaches for articles that I have created or made substantial edits to, such as the federal government of Iraq, government of Kosovo, and the judiciary of Germany. These articles are good example of the difference between politics and government: government articles are way less controversial (I kinda wish more people would vandalize these pages so at I know people care; j/k please don't!), way less visible and edited, a major basis for understanding politics, and fundamental to understanding how law effects politics (instead of the major focus of WP:WikiProject Politics which is usually the reverse).
I cannot raise this topic at WikiProject Politics no more than I can start a conversation about C-SPAN at a Tea Party rally. It is just too crowded, with too much going on. (I will, of course, try and draw interested parties though.) WP:WikiProject Law is another related topic, but those participants probably consider both the broader issues and finer points of law as having little to do with things like the California Department of Motor Vehicles and the rest of the massive $100,000,000,000+/year California government (isn't that like 1/3 of the entire economic output of Greece?). People who write about such disgusting, revolting institutions (j/k DMV you're alright) and watch C-SPAN, IMHO, tend to stand apart from those who write about libertarianism and watch Fox News.
My main concern at this point is has this point been raised before, and what the consensus was. I do not want to just toss out a proposal. Int21h ( talk) 03:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Edit: Also, maybe a better place to raise the discussion. Int21h ( talk) 03:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
You can call on me to offer guidance on subjects related to chemistry, including as it applies to the life sciences. My current career focus is on chemical synthesis and medicinal chemistry as it applies to small molecule drug discovery, including structure-based drug discovery (involving macromolecular crystallography, small molecule enzymatic and biophysical screening, etc.). Training is through UChicago PhD, with major pharma experience. Currently a res prof at a major university. Prof D Meduban ( talk) 16:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Where do I go to if I want to convert a task force to a WikiProject? Also, how would I would get the banner, portal, and recognized content run by bots updated once it becomes a WikiProject? Erick ( talk) 08:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, if anyone wants it, I have gotten together the list of the various reference sources of a basically encyclopedic nature which have been reviewed in journals on JSTOR. I did not include some very focused sources, like for instance field guides to birds of California, because there were frankly way too many of them - these are almost all reference works of some sort of topical overview variety. The material is currently unsorted, in multiple e-mails to myself. If anyone wants them, they are, of course, free to drop me an e-mail and I will forward the e-mails to the editor. They could then go over them and add them to pages of individual WikiProjects, which I think might be very helpful to those projects. It could, if the books were reviewed, ultimately give them lists of articles we do and don't yet have, and reference sources which discuss them. I will be trying to get together the list for the various religion and philosophy projects, and then breaking it down into units for each project, but would definitely welcome anyone doing similar for other WikiProjects and groups. But be warned there are several thousand reviews to go through, so it might take some time, even for some of the smaller scope projects. John Carter ( talk) 00:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hugetim ( talk) 15:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Puntland says it is a pilot project not yet started. (The proposal to create has 3 supporters) Is there a flag for {{ WikiProject status}} to tag that? -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 06:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that a couple of WikiProjects have recently been talking about issuing newsletters to their members again, and that there are still a few who actively do so at present. I tend to think that maybe they might be among the better ways of getting interested individuals to maybe think about developing topics and articles that they might not think of otherwise.
As more or less the sole editor involved currently with the Christianity newsletter, I was thinking that, maybe, having an additional newsletter which might cover the broader fields of Religion/Philosophy/Mythology might also be useful, particularly in maybe drawing attention and input on subjects which are perhaps not getting a lot of attention. I think the Buddhism WikiProject, for all intents and purposes, seems rather dormant right now, for instance, and maybe getting together a broad newsletter on religion/philosophy/mythology which might include that in its coverage, and perhaps other religious and philosophical topics, might get a bit more attention and maybe interest in some of the perhaps important but also maybe neglected articles and topics involved. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, it might not be a bad idea to have other broad, topical-type newsletters for some of the other areas of wikipedia. Maybe, for instance, something along the lines of a newsletter for, basically, each of the "hundreds" of the Dewey decimal system, or each of the categories of WP:1.0. If there were interest in such, maybe, and this is just a maybe, we might be able to somehow integrate in some of the material which might be considered for the newsletters in the Signpost as well. Such specific topical updates might also function as a valuable supplement to the Community Portal as well.
Anyone interested in maybe helping develop some such newsletters? John Carter ( talk) 16:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I personally get a feeling that some of the "major" content gets neglected in a way, including a lot of the 1.0 material. Getting a bit more attention to the efforts here, and maybe in some of the WikiProjects which deal with content regarding the major topics, might help, maybe. I have made a proposal for maybe getting some possible regular coverage in the Signpost regarding what might be thought of as the major topical areas at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom#Proposals. One of the editors there responded that some sort of proposal might work, and seemed to agree that maybe it could fly if people would prepare the material. Would anyone here to maybe has helped work on some of the major topical areas be willing to maybe help with a few trial pieces for the Signpost, to see if it might be useful and worth the effort in the long run? John Carter ( talk) 16:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Good evening Wikipedians,
I was wondering if someone on this council page would be able to assist in a debate at Talk:ABU Song Festivals 2012, in which an ediotr is constantly trying to force Project Eurovision from removing the article from their project despite the article genre being within scope of the project. I and a couple of other editors have tried numerous times to explain that no person can decide whether or not an article should be tagged to a specific project, and that the decision on project tagging would be up to a team of members from an interested project (if the article could be within scope), or an active member from a project (if the article is within scope). regardless of how many times the user had been told, they still keep trying to force their way as if to try and proclaim ownership. Any assistance would be appreciated, just in case there are things that haven't already been explained to the user. Much regards, Wesley Mouse 19:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
There is an RFC at Talk:Tom Cruise#LGBT Project on whether the LGBT studies group is permitted to tag and track the article (the article says that Cruise has famously sued people for wrongly claiming that he is gay), or if we need special rules to discriminate against them, because a hypothetical reader glancing over the talk page might interpret the presence of their banner or their project categories as indicating that Cruise is gay.
There is also a related discussion at WT:BLP.
I know we had that RFC on this exact point a while ago, and that it turned up massively in favor of the WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN guideline, but it seems that we need to go through it all again. So anyone with an opinion about whether or not a group of editors should be permitted to track any article that they're interested in, even if it means that someone might get the idea that suing people for claiming that you're gay is the kind of thing that interests people who study gay rights and queer culture, should consider expressing their opinion, whether that opinion is yay or nay. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#No-importance?, and consider joining the discussion, on the relevance of "No" as an importance criteria. Thanks! Fortdj33 ( talk) 18:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
At the recent London Meetup, one topic of conversation was that projects frequently seem to be dormant and contain editors who don't appear to have contributed in years. Wikipedia:WikiProject Pink Floyd has a policy that if you don't edit a related article on the project for six months, you get taken off the list. I like this as a policy, as did several others at the meetup, as it's obvious then who active project members are and who's worth contacting, before you waste time trying to talk to someone who last edited in 2007. Do any other projects have this policy, and if not, why not? -- Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Côte d'Ivoire where WP:OWN has been brought up as a reason why wikiprojects cannot name themselves? -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 23:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party may interest some people here. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here, at WikiProject Conservatism. Feel free to comment. RGloucester ( talk) 20:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I created {{ WikiProject Images and Media}}. I get lost in setting up all of the features for article assessment and quality. Can I get one of the experts from WikiProject Council to do it? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 08:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA Fram ( talk) 09:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
What's the difference between a sister WikiProject and a related WikiProject? Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 11:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Looking back at the question that was asked in the previous thread, I think it would be interesting to have a special issue of the WikiProject Report dedicated to frequently asked questions about WikiProjects. The questions could be about proposing projects, creating templates, maintaining portals, interesting statistics about WikiProjects, how to overcome certain hurdles, or even lighthearted oddball questions that people have asked over the years. I'd be willing to try answering the questions or we could enlist volunteers from the WikiProject Council and other projects to provide answers. We could collect questions from editors here at the WikiProject Council or in one of the Signpost's sandboxes. What do you folks think? –Mabeenot ( talk) 05:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I posted the question below to Village pump (technical) and no one's answering. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Science I find quite a large number of WikiProjects listed, with a "yes" or "no" answer for each on the question of whether it is "active" or not. How that information was compiled I don't know. Can anyone here suggest anything?
How would I get a list of discussion pages of WikiProjects (so I'm talking about pages called "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Whatever") ranked by the frequency with which they are edited---in effect the most active WikiProjects listed first?
Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
A proposal is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Proposal for a de facto merger between WP:DYK and WP:GAN, with the former's Main Page space being used to showcase the latter. It is being strongly opposed by many DYK regulars, and questions have been raised at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Alternate GA proposal about whether it is compatible with the WikiProject Council guide. Some input from WikiProject Council contributors would be helpful. Prioryman ( talk) 01:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Why are projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_England and other wikiprojects concerned with specific places not listed here? ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 15:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
There are similar wikiprojects that look at the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 15:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Template:Maths rating has been put to WP:TFD over whether a WikiProject can control their own banner coding or not. -- 65.92.181.190 ( talk) 14:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I've proposed that WP:WikiProject Water supply and sanitation by country and WP:WikiProject Water supply and sanitation be merged. See WT:WikiProject Water supply and sanitation by country. -- 65.92.181.190 ( talk) 08:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Going through articles tagged for clean-up, for example Orphaned articles, I notice that a large number have no wikiproject tag or even a talk page. It occurs to me that adding a WikiPoject template would bring these articles to the attention of people who could clean them up. Are there any tools to list articles in a category that do not belong to a WikiProject? Has a message box been considered for talk pages, like {{ Infobox requested}}, that marks and categories articles that have no Wikiproject tagging? -- Traveler100 ( talk) 05:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I've started WikiProject Squatting to address our coverage of squatting-related topics. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
There's a WP:WikiProject Intelligence that was created by repurposing a redirect, but only appears to ever had two members, and no activity on the talk page except people saying that it replicated WP:WikiProject Espionage. Seems like this should be nominated for deletion? -- 70.24.250.26 ( talk) 13:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Has anyone tried to measure the effectiveness of WikiProjects? By this, I mean whether a given WikiProject actually made a significant difference to the quality of articles compared to not having a WikiProject. For example, I recently found out about WikiProject Banksia, which seems almost freakishly effective - 21 featured articles out of 348 total! But is that the WikiProject, or is it a handful of dedicated individuals who would have worked on those articles anyway? RockMagnetist ( talk) 15:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Guys,i saw some of your work on categorization and wandered if you could help me
i have created a media wiki and used categorization to organize it. the front page is broken into four rows looking like this
also at the bottom is the link to the popular pages, however these are all the pages on the wiki using <TopTenPages offset=1/> the offset is the main page
what i would like to do is have each of these four rows containing the popular pages within that category. I have looked everywhere but cant find any syntax that will allow me to use popular pages within another if that makes sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.60.98.134 ( talk) 11:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I've just discovered Wikipedia:WikiProject Marketing, which looks to my inexperienced eye like a still-born attempt by a single user to create a WikiProject. There also exists the inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Advertising that would seem to be covering the same sort of ground.
I don't know what is the correct thing to do here (if anything)? Thryduulf ( talk) 15:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Gentlemen,
I need help in establishing a collaborative and independent sub-project regarding the finances of the government of Puerto Rico (see Puerto Rico government budget balance and public debt of Puerto Rico). Unfortunately, I'm not an expert on these matters and I need help digging into the references available in English and expanding these two articles onto a Wikipedia:Good article.
I believe this should be a project spearheaded by the WikiProject Business/Accountancy Taskforce with help from:
What needs to be done?
Background. In a recent referendum the people of Puerto Rico opted to change their current political status. This is exposing Puerto Rico in international news. One subject of interest are its finances, in specific the public debt of Puerto Rico and its ongoing Puerto Rico government budget balance that has experienced a deficit in 12 consecutive years. I beleive that it's in the best interests of Wikipedia, the Puerto Rican people, and the international community to have Wikipedia:Good articles on these two subjects.
— Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 13:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to drum-up some interest in Wikipedia:WikiProject Skateboarding. The WikiProject has been inactive for quite some time and I am working on getting it active again. But it's pretty clear this is going to require a team effort...
I have left talk page messages for previously active member editors who are still active on WP but there's not many of them. I'm creative, but not nearly creative enough to create a Wikipedia ad.
Short of leaving a 600 x 600 ad at WP:ANI (sure, I'd get banned, but it might be worth it, long-term) or vandalising the Main Page, what are my options? Stalwart 111 01:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnkitBot
Should this bot tag talk pages (on WikiProject-by-WikiProject basis or without) with a message that a deadlink has been found in that particular article. According to me (and only me), I think it should help because in most of the cases it's only the page creator who actually gives any attention to his/her own article (not always). Then, it's even usual for a passerby to see and fix it. I (i.e. my bot) could work on a project-by-project basis (on request) and tag the articles with the deadlink notification. But then as it always does, consensus is required. -- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 12:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
One question, please. Can we tag talk pages in articles of Serbian Ortodox churches with {{ WPSERBIA}} if those are not located in Republic of Serbia, but some other neighboring countries? Thanks! -- WhiteWriter speaks 11:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Greetings folks, I have been involved with several WikiProjects. In fact I set up the Philosophy task forces after seeing the value in it from the Military History project. I am wondering about a few issues.... Should we even have WikiProjects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Parapsychology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Creationism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicine? How about Wikipedia:WikiProject Anarchism, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism? Don't get me wrong, the Anarchist task force has produced some stellar work, and I'm a big socialist myself. My point is that we shouldn't segregate based on like-mindedness. These should be task forces of larger projects (as Anarchism is) for the sake of bringing in academic experts. For instance, I think that WikiProjects should only be organized under the name of academic departments like universities. In this view, Anarchism, and Socialism would be task forces of WikiProject Politics, and there just wouldn't be a Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicine. I see that as totally harmful of Wikipedia's purpose. There should be a Pseudoscience task force of WikiProject Science instead. Could a proposal to abolish special, ideologically based WikiProjects and make them task forces of academically based projects work? There are all kinds of changes I would make if I could do it unilaterally, but what is the political environment here? Greg Bard ( talk) 09:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Pls see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikiproject notes in articles - The issues may be much bigger then just the note on the pages - However I believe the viability of the note its self is what we should talk about at this time. Moxy ( talk) 23:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Maybe this is just a personal opinion, but I think one of the difficulties we might be having in a lot of areas is that the almost incredible number of articles we have, over 4 million?!, and comparatively few editors and active groups of editors that exist to deal with them, makes it harder for individual editors, or groups of editors, to focus much attention on some of the articles which would presumably be the most significant, important, or whatever word you might want to use to an encyclopedia. Maybe, I don't know, one thing that might help the groups have a bit more "direction" (and also, presumably, maybe cooperation, collaboration, and other things which might help stimulate Project-related activity) is to set some good, but reasonably achievable, goals for the next year. And, of course, the more people who help develop a more central article now, the less likely that article will be to need long-term continued attention in the same area, which would make it more likely that some of the these "central" articles might get more attention as well later. I have made a few proposals to that effect at the talk page of the Religion Project, and think that, in some cases, the increased focus on some of these more central articles might be a real and significant improvement to the effectiveness of such projects. Maybe, if several did have lists of articles they considered of primary importance to the project having a really "encyclopedic", or encompassing, treatment of a topic, either those articles might be tagged as "Core" importance or something similar, and project banners might even go so far as to point out the "core" articles needing most attention and/or ones that haven't been created yet. Maybe.
Anyway, I think it might be worth considering something along these lines for some groups, and would appreciate any input any of the rest of you might have regarding this topic, like whether it is really likely to be useful and/or, maybe, other steps which might be taken to further the goals of maybe increasing the effectiveness of WikiProjects. John Carter ( talk) 19:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The shortcut, WP:QXZ, which redirects to Template:Wikipedia ads (the talk page of which references this one) has been nominated for deletion. Your comments in the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 8#Wikipedia:QXZ would be most welcome - doubly so if you can explain the origin of the "QXZ" acronym (if that is what it is). Thryduulf ( talk) 00:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:CANADA is requiring the replacement of the banners of other projects without the consultation of the members of those projects. Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Assessment says that WPTORONTO, WPMONTERAL, WPVANCOUVER, WPOTTAWA banners should be removed and replaced. There has never been such an agreement. Indeed when the WPCANADA banner was expanded with the city projects as a flagged additional project there was not supposed to be a replacement drive, as seen in the old page version. Why can't projects use their own banners, why are we forced to use WPCANADA's banner? When WPCANADA added these projects to their banner, it was without the consent of the projects in question, or even informing them. Now, WPCANADA seek to replace these banners without the consent or even informing them that this is even happening. -- 70.24.247.127 ( talk) 05:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I apologize if this is the wrong place for this but, I will try to keep it brief in comparison to the resulting problems of a missing MOS. I made an attempt on the talkpage for the specific needed MOS here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Dutch_and_German_surnames_van_.26_von The resulting problem without this seemingly minor guideline has left an opening for a particular editor to WP:hound my edits based on their misinterpretation of a guideline. I get it - when it comes to making little difference between upper and lower case "V" in a Dutch surname. In fact I totally agree with the other editor that stated "it is no big deal". The problem starts when after I either start an article or work within one and I use the proper lower case "v" that very same editor follows my tracks and contributes only by capping the "V" or changing namespaces the same way. Basically saying the proper way is in their mind "wrong" so they change it unilaterally to fit their mis-interpretation. The editor has repeatedly claimed that surname is "Anglicized" but has fallen short when asked for references to support their theory.... JGVR ( talk) 23:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_16#Empty_A-class_categories for a proposal to delete about a thousand empty A-class categories. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:WPBannerMeta/hooks#Project task force to do lists. --
Trevj (
talk) 11:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC) --
Trevj (
talk) 11:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I recommend that all watchers of this page also watch
Wikipedia:Database reports/New WikiProjects.
—
Wavelength (
talk) 17:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Consumer Reports calls itself a wikiproject, but it does not manage any articles. Should it be reclassified? RockMagnetist ( talk) 19:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment does not have the importance parameter activated. A number of editors have express surprise about it. See Template talk:WikiProject Environment and Template_talk:WikiProject_Environment#Display_importance for the !voting. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 07:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Done --
Alan Liefting (
talk -
contribs) 02:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I think the wiki project Wikipedia:WikiProject Kingdom of Hungary, that was created a couple of days ago, is unnecesary. We already have a wiki project named Wikipedia:WikiProject Hungary and I don't see why we would create a wiki project for each form of government of a country.
Even now Wikipedia:WikiProject Hungary is kind of inactive, I don't think we should split it TransylvaniaRomania ( talk) 16:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
To clarify the usage of physical determinism, I have posted a request for comment. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Spurred by recent discussion about how to categorize the eponymous WikiProject categories ( Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science#Parentage and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 24#Category:WikiProject Medicine descendant projects), I'd like to propose an improvement to the WikiProject categorization within Category:WikiProjects. Currently, WikiProjects are categorized by a combination of "type/descriptive" (as in Category:Science WikiProjects) and parentage. Some projects can be found within a descriptive category, while others require searching through categories of other WikiProjects to look for your target project. I believe that an eponymous category for a project should only contain content that a project would like to manage...a completely separate project should not necessarily be within a different project's category hierarchy. Not all projects claim to have "parents" or "children", but "related" projects. Often, when a project's category needs to be categorized, it is just dumped in the main category of another project.
Rather than forcing a project to have parents and children to facilitate categorization, why not make categories for the headings in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. Essentially, the Directory is a categorization of projects by topic, so why not have the categorization parallel this? We already have many of the topic categories in use ( Category:Art WikiProjects, Category:Culture WikiProjects, Category:Environment WikiProjects, Category:Geographical WikiProjects, Category:History WikiProjects, Category:Humanities WikiProjects, to name a few). This way, all of the projects categories can be easily found by category, no guessing is required as to parentage, and every project can have control of all content within their project's eponymous category. I realize this would be a large undertaking, but as the projects are poorly categorized now, it is something that can be slowly phased in, one topic area at a time. -- Scott Alter ( talk) 04:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
If there is a "parent" WikiProject with a category (e.g. Category:WikiProject Fauna), the new category should be made a subcategory of that as well.
I just gave this a shot with Category:Health WikiProjects, which has a parent of Category:Science WikiProjects. If you look at Category:Science WikiProjects, to separate the subcategories from projects, I made the sort key for subcategories start with " ", while the main project for the category starts with a "*". Any comments? -- Scott Alter ( talk) 05:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. I've been engaging in discussion with the WikiProject Medicine community and have a couple questions that pertain to the logistical landscape and ability to intercommunicate with specific WikiProjects in different languages within Wikipedia. I'm posing the question here because I'm assuming the Council has a broad view of the community landscape and you may have gotten these sort questions before.
But before that, here is some background on my experiment, which I hope to build-out with community buy-in. The project is intended to collaborate with others to surface and generate knowledge as it relates to Regional Variations in Standards of Care; regions are intended to be country-specific and standards of care means how disease states are tackled and treated in different regions. Many countries view and tackle disease states differently (whether it be due to cultural, societal, economic or other reasons, and this type of information is not readily available for all to view in one standardized place). One can think of this looking something similar to the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care, but on a global scale. I've created mock-up articles that model the inclusion of Regional information and have vetted it past the community in WikiProject Medicine. Here are the mock-up articles I created: Epidemiology of Hypertension, Diagnosis of Hypertension, Management of Hypertension. In doing so, articles could potentially build out to discern the variations in health care that exist by country and by disease state. The questions below will help me better understand the constructs within Wikipedia that would allow one to connect Wikipedians from different countries on one specific effort.
1. Is
WikiProject Medicine specific to the English Version of Wikipedia?
2. Or put another way, does each language have its own version of WikiProject Medicine?
3. Or does WikiProject Medicine span across all Wikipedia language domains?
4. Is there a tagging method that allows for people within those languages to partake in a regionally specific, yet globally collective project?
My assumption, in the above, is that most Wikipeidans supporting a certain Wikipedia language domain currently reside, or at least better understand the variations, within that specific region of the world, respective of language.
I appreciate your any feedback and guidance I can get to move forward. Thanks. GT67 ( talk) 17:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors: I have been looking at a lot of articles about Bluegrass music and musicians, and there are a large number with few or no references. I am thinking of organizing a Wikiproject for Bluegrass music to improve some of these articles and encourage the creation of some obvious missing ones. There are currently about 500 articles linked to the Bluegrass music article.
I have put messages on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Country Music and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Roots music talk pages to see if the folks at these related projects have any objections or suggestions. I've also collected some information about Bluegrass topics on a user page at User talk:Anne Delong/Bluegrass Topics. Is there anything else that I should do before I put in a project proposal to see if other editors are interested? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. Are there any women editors from Louisiana? Please contact me if you can! SarahStierch ( talk) 13:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Your WP:Keep It Simple label, {{ User label WPCouncil}} is in danger of being deleted. See ( Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 6#Template:User_label.) If you still want it, you may wish to move it to project space, perhaps a redirect page Template:Label_WPCouncil or Template:Label_WikiProject_Council by placing {{db-move|Template:User label WPCouncil|[[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 6#Template:User_label]]}} above the redirect. Also see {{ user label}} for technical details. Feel free to review my planning page, User:PC-XT/KIS, and talk there if you have questions. PC-XT ( talk) 01:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
User talk:Smuconlaw#SMU Constitutional and Administrative Law Wikipedia Project. --
Trevj (
talk) 13:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC) --
Trevj (
talk) 13:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
A university course was recently started, with their "course" page set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket and Englishness. It has since been moved (once by me, then again by others) to end up at Wikipedia:Englishness and Cricket. During the discussion, where I expressed a view that the "Wikipedia:WikiProject" prefix should only be used by "full" or "offical" WikiProjects with a class/quality/importance article tracking system, not just any short-term ad-hoc grouping of people wanting to edit similar articles. The dissenting view quoted Wikipedia:WikiProject which states "A WikiProject is a group of editors that want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia" with no real mention about restricting it to any formal structure or style.
My question, is should the 'Wikipedia:WikiProject" prefix be restricted to the more "formal" WikiProjects, or should it remain as it is at the moment, where proposals to Council are recommended, but not essential, and any group can be created as a WikiProject? Given the many tools that are in some way WikiProject related (WP:1.0, Svick's cleanup lists, dabsolver etc), is there any benefit or cost to having adhoc "non-article tracking" projects in that prefix? Or are most of these tool "opt-in" anyway, so it doesn't matter? Having a dedicated "education" namespace might help for the university course pages, and it is in development at Wikipedia:Course pages and Wikipedia:Assignments for student editors, but it seems like a fairly complicated process, compared to just starting a page as a pseudo WikiProject. (Note, although this university course has also been involved in some ANI/BITE/OWN/NPOV/RS issues, this thread should ignore all of that and concentrate solely on the topic page naming, and whether is is acceptable or should be explicitly prevented. ANI is thataway) The-Pope ( talk) 03:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Per a request on my talk page and a discussion following Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-02-25/WikiProject report, I have created User:WP 1.0 bot/WikiWork, a subproject of the WP 1.0 bot and a new template that will output several WikiWork-related pieces of data for every WP 1.0 enabled WikiProject:
I'd love it if you took a look and let me know your thoughts. Still very much a beta product; just something I whipped together in an afternoon, so bug-hunters are welcome. Cheers, — Theopolisme ( talk) 05:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
A user at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States#Homosexuality_in_the_Batman_franchise suggested that there is a "limit" of 2 or 3 Wikiprojects per article. Is this true? WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I have proposed merging the two apparently moribund Occult and Parapsychology projects on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Occult#Merge discussion, and would welcome any input. Also, there is discussion regarding the deletion of the project banner of WikiProject Toronto at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 21#Template:WikiProject Toronto, which also might benefit from some editors experienced in the life cycle of WikiProjects. John Carter ( talk) 20:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, per WT:WikiProject Water supply and sanitation by country, it was decided to merge the project into WP: WikiProject Water as a workgroup/taskforce, could someone please carry this out? -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 05:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I am attempting to re-activate u2 project, and i am trying to ping some of the older members. Can someone help me on that? Miss Bono (zootalk) 18:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
What's the difference between a workgroup and a taskforce? Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 12:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'm not really sure of the protocols here. I am considering, basically, attempting to revise/revive the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit to turn it into something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, but with a slightly broader scope, specifically, to include at least basic article reference lists of all articles which are included in encyclopedias whose scope closely mirrors that of some of our WikiProjects, not just those that are to this point missing. I think having some clear ideas of what material is out there in generally highly reliable, generally more or less academic source, regardless of the stated subject of that encyclopedia, would probably make things a lot easier for all of us in determining what material we should have relating to those subjects. Maybe. But, honestly, I have no clear idea what sort of steps to take to make such fairly significant changes in this inactive project. Any ideas? John Carter ( talk) 18:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Mr.Z-bot's "Task 3" provides monthly statistics of pageviews for articles within the scope of a WikiProject. This example from WikiProject Medicine demonstrates what it does. I think this would be useful for many projects, but for the past couple of years Mr. Z has been busy and the code needs updating. Currently the request queue to include new WikiProjects is down.
There are some problems which are unlikely to be resolved by volunteers, and programming problems in seem especially prone to staying unresolved. I think that this might be a problem which could be resolved by paying someone to solve it. I have no one in particular in mind who can do this, but there is a grant-requesting process at meta:Grants:Index. Perhaps any of you saw this week in The Signpost that the Wikimedia Foundation just finished their first round of issuing grants and they are looking for further grant applications.
I was thinking of making a grant request to fix Mr. Z's bot's problem, and perhaps this could be among a set of outstanding program requests of interest to the WikiProject Council. If the grant were awarded, then the funds could sit until someone steps up to complete the task and takes the funds. How do others feel about this? Does anyone have any other ideas of outstanding tasks for WikiProjects which need automation and for which the software needs updating? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Related to developing infrastructure for WikiProjects is developing infrastructure for metrics. The original purpose of WikiProjects was to create a community space for collaboration, but in the course of doing that, people developed tools based on the WikiProject talk page templates which generate interesting metrics which are useful outside the context of community collaboration. I can imagine that someone might want to know something about a class of articles and want metrics from them, and for that same set of articles there might not be an active community to support a WikiProject. In fact, some very popular sets of articles are contained in some very dead WikiProjects, because for whatever reasons, people who develop those articles are not interested in meeting each other in a WikiProject.
Some of the useful tools include Mr.Z-bot's statistics tables and User:WP 1.0 bot's article quality and importance rankings. So far as I know, there is no way to access the benefits of those tools outside the context of applying WikiProject tags to articles, and it is improper to apply WikiProject tags without a WikiProject, and it is improper to set up a WikiProject without a community. I am stating this to follow up on the above proposal about infrastructure development for WikiProjects. Poor User:WP 1.0 bot even has an obsolete name now, because since 2007 when that bot was made for WP:WP 1.0, this bot has become useful and fundamental to the Wikipedia editing experience in ways not anticipated. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
How do you assess the rating of a page if it does not fall under the scope of any WikiProject? Numbermaniac - T - C 05:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
A few quick comments:
Is there any recommendations or guidelines regarding the ordering of wikiprojects on the talk page? It seems natural that they should be organized by importance. Within an importance level, there are several possible choices: alphabetical, "common sense", first-tagged, etc. Jason Quinn ( talk) 19:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Svick has kindly updated Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProject watchers to list the number of active users watching a WikiProject page, rather than just all accounts. This has a significant effect on a couple of the older projects' ranking. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
List of Wikipedia controversies includes a section about a controversy involving the Church of Scientology and Wikipedia. The article is clearly within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology, of which I am a long-standing member. Earlier today I added the WP Scientology project banner to the article talk page. However, two editors have edit-warred to remove the banner, without offering any explanation and posting aggressive messages in the process (e.g. [1]). I therefore seem to be in the situation, which I admit I've never come across before, of non-members of a WikiProject blocking that WikiProject from including the article in its scope, despite the FAQ at the top of this page. What do WikiProject Council members suggest? Prioryman ( talk) 20:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
See Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Tarc. Please read everyone's statement as there appears to be more going on here than what's been stated in this thread. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I have just noticed that WikiProject Disability, an active project established back in June 2010, is not listed in the Directory. I'm not confident of my ability to add it correctly so I would appreciate some help. It should be listed under "General topics" in the "History and society" section. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 19:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
the impact of billboard advertising on the marketing of gsm product — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.220.68.34 ( talk) 16:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Someone at WP:VG has just advertised a WP:PROPOSAL RFC for a "guideline" that is actually a mis-tagged WikiProject WP:Advice page, located in the project's namespace. Someone else has written a proposal at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Philosophy that he believes only WP:PHILO members are allowed to have any input into.
I believe that most of the pages these days are correctly categorized or tagged with one of the (fairly ugly) templates:
I just fixed a couple. Do you think it would be worth using a bot to send an educational note to any project that has a page named "WikiProject ___/Guideline" or the like, to let them know about this fairly obscure set of templates? Would it be better to add more information at WP:POLICY? Should we just not worry about it, since most of them are right and individual incidents can be handled as they come up? What do you think? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
An editor created a WikiProject page here on English Wikipedia because they couldn't find the resources at the Bengali Wikipedia. They're asking for help. Any ideas? –Mabeenot ( talk) 16:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
This may not be the right place to post this query, but I have recently encountered an incident where a new editor Eon The Sky ( talk · contribs · count) has created a WikiProject Archaeoastronomy in a flurry of edits on 5 May. He created a list of over 300 members for this WikiProject in a single edit. Since there was no sign that these editors had agreed to work on this WikiProject, I notified Eon the Sky on his talk page, and deleted the list of members.
Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with this incident. Thanks. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 01:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone. There's a row brewing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#RFC about whether the newly-formed WikiProject Hentai should be a part of WikiProject Anime and manga or not. I think this could do with the input of some people experienced in WikiProject-related goings-on, if any of you have a spare moment. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.
About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).
The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.
Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.
If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out.
I have just spammed this note to the three dozen WikiProjects with the highest number of active watchers. WikiProject members are often highly active people, so they need to know about this. If you're involved in a smaller group, please share this information with your team. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
An editor has asserted that WP:WikiProject Philosophy has "a consensus" that he should be permitted to post WP:External links to all philosophy-related categories. AFAICT, the alleged "consensus" at that project is just himself; no other WikiProject participants have discussed it there, much less supported it. It might be helpful to have other views (for or against) at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Continuing to add external links to cat pages. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I just came across Wikipedia:WikiProject Westerns. This project was created in August 2012, after a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Westerns.
However, as far as I can see the project was stillborn. There is no current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Westerns, and the only discussion that ever took place there was a brief chat about applying the project's banner.
I assume that the project was created in good faith, tho a reverted post on the talk page disagreed, calling it a "non-productive vanity (wiki)project".
Whatever the reasons, this project has never flown. Shouldn't it be deleted? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I have left a note at WikiProject Westerns, and also at WikiProject Film. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I've only been on Wikipedia two weeks (active weeks), and am visiting here for the first time - meaning I have no axe to grind. Nor have I a particular interest in westerns. But I do remember reading a rule that says something like "the spirit of the rule trumps the rule itself", and I like that a lot. I just joined a project that looks like it may have had scant attention for a while; I'm sure there are others. But having that project exist, already constructed, is a way (even an invitation) for me as a newcomer to get involved. I figure activity is bound to be sporadic sometimes in a volunteer-only environment, but having placeholders and points of contact that remain over time is still useful, binding together activities of people who aren't even actively engaged at the same time. In short, while projects were designed for groups, a "group" can still be "one at a time", and useful to the one. And if a currently-one-person project is not overloading the ordinary wiki mechanisms that support projects, I see no reason to question its existence or placement. Marcus doesn't want "Westerns" to reside under "Films". Fine, the group of one has spoken; it's the project's choice to make. I am also rather mystified why he hasn't had more overt joiners - seems a wide enough topic and specialty to generate some. But I also agree that "activity" has many ways of being represented, and project pages are just one of those. I also agree with the suggestion above that maybe five years is a reasonable time scale for taking a look at what "time has told"; but take a close look. Evenssteven ( talk) 22:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Elsewhere on this board I asked about the guidelines for applying WikiProject categories to Wikipedia articles for the purpose of collecting metrics about them. The precedent which I had seen was that WikiProjects tag article talk pages, and the tag comes with a category. Bots can look at all articles in a category and generate metrics. The category is what is important, not the WikiProject tag, but I was not aware of any WikiProject or project of any kind which applied hidden categories to articles for the purpose of generating metrics.
I found one. See Category talk:World Digital Library related. The project at Wikipedia:GLAM/World Digital Library - a page in Category:WikiProject World Digital Library - encourages users to add content from this organization to Wikipedia articles then apply their metrics tracking category to the article. The category is a hidden category. I posted some questions about usage for that category on its talk page. Does anyone know of any guidelines or precedent for such things? It seems great to me and I would like to replicate the model for health organizations which want to track Wikipedia article development and traffic. Bring discussion to Category talk:World Digital Library related. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
FYI, there's a lively discussion going on at Xiangju's talk page regarding the purpose, efficiency, communication, and outreach of WikiProjects. It's part of some research Xiangju is trying to conduct. Check it out. –Mabeenot ( talk) 16:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey all,
Female Name Dropping: I started this thread for the "Hip Hop" Talk Page, referencing names per decade. You can drop more names (and any info you know about them) in the talk thread I started. References to the musicians would be VERY helpful as well, but dropping names is good too - someone can always glean through the list and find links to some of these for addition to the articles later. Many of these artists have their own Wikipedia Page.
Adding Female Names Through-Out the Articles: You can also work on incorporating some of these names into the articles if you can provide resources/links for them & explain their relevance. There have been female hip hop artists from the 80s to today, but there is not adequate representation of these female hip hop artists and their relevance to both the music and their cultural relevance for each decade/subcategory. So please add more of these females. And start dropping more names on the talk page! Both mainstream and alternative, historically and today. See this talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hip_hop#toc, #27, #29, & #30
Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hip_hop#toc Sylvia Blossom ( talk) 20:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Comments are welcome at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#re alphabetizing categories on the article pages (version of
06:54, 8 June 2013).
—
Wavelength (
talk) 16:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
OK Go is one of the finest rock bands and it is a shame that since a while it had a crappy article and still do. I propose this article becomes primarily watched as it is repeatedly glutted with a lot of info (sourced) they say and the whole band is branded as a pop musical cultural revolutional fenomenon. If you wanna get the idea better come to the history page. I propose this article become watched semi-protected or locked to prevent further vandalism and revert wars! Regards: The Mad Hatter ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Social Artist in the 21st Century Current Artists: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialart1 ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I have been running WP:FOUR for about 4 years. I have suddenly encountered some conflict running the project. Does the WikiProject Council have any avenues through which to seek resolution.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ WP:FOUR/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:WAWARD) 22:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I'm trying to create an importance and quality scale for the WikiProject NCIS template but am having trouble getting the rating to show up on the talk pages. Can someone please tell me what needs to be done for this to work correctly? -- 1ST7 ( talk) 19:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Pls how do i get on diz group — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engr Dickdan ( talk • contribs) 08:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Greetings: The entry for Bejamin Wade is too brief and needs to be expanded. I propose to do this by making the outline and total length similar to the current entry for Thaddeus Stevens. Any suggestions would be appreciated. 98.92.153.86 ( talk) 17:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
When there are numerous projects interested in an article, are there any conventions governing the order in which these are presented? Cynwolfe ( talk) 19:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikiproject traditional medicine hopes to increase the coverage on traditional medicine topics, by culture, organisms used and by disease. The article for Aztec medicine is about 3 paragraphs right now; the only traditional medicine articles of any real note currently are traditional chinese medicine and ayuvedric medicine. This project would be mostly for anthropological reasons, which is what differentiates it from alternative medicine. When exactly will Septembers wiki project proposals be shown? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe ( talk • contribs) 14:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Why has not dead yet been removed and apparently nearly every reference to it ? Is Wikipedia ableist?
Ndy should at least be referenced in article on assisted suicide , as a US disability rights org. Etc. Disabed and proud ( talk) 14:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I've tried and as I'm on my mobile system I can't seem to find a way to join. Since I wrote the original article on ableism I do think it would be appropriate. Even if I do join the project, however it would not obviate the original question. What happened to Not Dead Yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disabed and proud ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
It is not good to lead people into projects that are inactive. It is also not good to remove semi-active WikiProjects from talkpages and hasten their demise. Can we come up with some metrics to help guide editors to a project of their choice? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
As a Belgian, I can't allow the example of Germans in WWII in France about the fries, because as everybody knows: fries were invented by Belgians. Why Englishmen called it "French" fries still remains a mystery to me... I dindn't removed it myself because people might think I'm a troll when I delete France and write Belgium...strange, but true... || Have a good day Bellepheron ( talk) 15:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to turn. I've tried numerous things in order to get our project Mind-Body listed under Multidisciplinary. I think I've crossed listed it under Health and Fitness and Medicine, but I'm new to this so I'm not sure I did it correctly. Any help would be appreciated. We proposed the project a long time ago, and now have a group of people who want to join, but I need it listed to make it easier for them to find it. CJ ( talk) 16:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
See this discussion where the subject of excessive tagging has come up. -- 70.24.244.158 ( talk) 12:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
As to whether the issue actually is anything to do with excessive bannering is another matter, which is in effect misrepresenting the issue sats 13:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
There is a proposal to create a joint Task Foce between WikiProject Disability and WikiProject Medicine, I would like to get some guidance here on how such a Task Force is structured so that it can be created if the proposal is accepted by both projects. The guideline page on Task Forces is totally silent on shared TFs. The first question that comes to mind - does the TF page exist under one of the projects with redirects from the other one or is it created in a separate space? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 08:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Could benefit from some more eyes on it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 02:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
One of the structural problems that we have is that anyone can create a WikiProject, or at least create some pages and a banner. A couple of years ago, I started looking at new WikiProjects in an effort to figure out what was likely to result in a successful project. I defined "successful" very loosely, like "some kind of reply to a message on the group's talk page three months after page creation". I never got very far, but the number of people formally pledging to participate before creation (at the /Proposals page) and the experience level of the proposer/creator seemed to be very promising.
My thought was that if we could add to the /Proposals page an informational statement like "Research shows that WikiProjects are almost never successful unless the person proposing it has already been editing for at least six months" or "Research shows that WikiProjects are almost never successful unless at least eight people pledge to support it", with instructions to then join a larger group first, then we might get both fewer proposals and fewer dead projects.
If someone would like to take over that work (actually, if you did it on a large scale, I think it would be publishable), then I'd be happy to figure out where I left my notes. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Template:Infobox task force has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.39 ( talk) 05:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a discussion on the talk page of the WikiProject Council about a proposal to merge a number of WikiProjects. It touches on the governance of WikiProjects in general. The discussion would benefit from much wider participation. The specific proposal, entitled "Merging projects - Fringe", and initial reactions to it, can be found here. An alternate proposal, entitled "Merging projects - Compromise", and reactions to it, can be found here.
Please read both threads carefully. Please comment, under the appropriate subheading of this RfC, on any or all of these three questions.
Do you support or oppose the initial proposal?
Do you support or oppose the alternate proposal?
If you do not support either proposal, should a second RfC be initiated to solicit alterative proposals for a merger of some or all of the projects listed in the initial merger proposal?
Both the role of WikiProjects in general and the specific topic of WP:FRINGE can engender passionate debate. If you choose to participate in this RfC, please try to do so in a manner that sheds more light than it generates heat. Scoring debating points at the risk of damaging the mutual trust necessary for successful collaborative editing is bad. We are not playing a zero-sum game. We are trying to build up a project that some random dude once described this way: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." David in DC ( talk) 03:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
There are a number of inactive or mostly inactive wikiprojects with overlapping areas, which are all related to fringe views. Since the projects are mostly inactive, messages only get responded to infrequently, and most of the projects are in disarray. My proposal is that they all be merged into one wikiproject with different task forces so that we can try and kick some life into a Wikiproject in this area.
Projects:
One way of doing this could be to create, say, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fringe and have 5 or 6 task forces (based on merging in the wikiprojects), such as:
Thoughts?
|
Rather than trying to cram all these into one project, perhaps the field just needs a little reorganization (let's call it community planning since WikiProjects are supposed to be groups of editors working together). From the discussion and the list of project scopes assembled above, it is clear that:
The ultimate goal of all these rearrangements is to make the projects in this field easier to navigate for new contributors, build stronger connections between the projects, consolidate banners for easier assessment, and ensure that editors have somewhere else to turn if they don't get a reply when they post on one project's page. What do you think?
The discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Why_do_the_Collaboration_areas_of_WikiProjects_always_fail? will probably interest most of the people watching this page. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikiproject New Zealand uses an attention parameter and I have suggested that it be deleted. In turn, it was suggested to me that this proposal be advertised here. Please contribute to the discussion if you wish. Schwede 66 07:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Just happened to see this: User:Casliber/Stub contest. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 05:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello all. Please see the idea I mention here which then does link to WT:MED sorry if that's too much. =) Maybe we can focus the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Growth (team)? Thanks all. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Who, exactly, is on this WikiProject Council? Who are the members? Is the Council handled like a WikiProject and anyone who wants to can sign up? Or is this an appointed or elected group? There is surprisingly no information on the Council itself on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. Additional information would be welcomed. Liz Read! Talk! 18:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone point me to an explanation (hopefully one that does not require a PhD :-) of how to construct a wproj banner. I am asking because I just added what I thought was a banner for Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicinal botany to Talk:Chinese_herbology but instead got this: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Chinese_herbology&oldid=580316034 Thanks in advance, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I frequently come across WikiProjects( example) that appear to want to set up article alerts but don't know how to go about it. Just wondering if the council has documentation somewhere about this tool? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
A) recently from Pawn Stars? - info that Studebacker and Packard joined in '52 to form the Stude-Packard company(?). It must not have lasted long, because... B) I am looking a buying a 1955 Packard Clipper - stunning car! Needs minimal restoration. And C) from your information, the company died by 1957.
I would love to find out how many of these things were built. From the seller I have learned that he's only found one other, restored, for sale. It had the first V-8 engine in production. Four wing windows - I'd buy it just for those! I miss them! A trunk large enough to bump off 4 or more bad guys and dump them in the desert! Lots of innovations that took a decade to take hold! Lap belts. He might have said disc brakes. My '63 Avanti has disc brakes all around. A dash along the lines of a ship, in perfect shape. Grew up in a '57 1/2 Ford Fairlane, also rare. Love the two-tone paint jobs of the day. It has the beginnings of fins. Two speed transmission.
This is going to be Fun! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.65.36 ( talk) 07:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I frequently come across WikiProjects( example) that appear to want to set up article alerts but don't know how to go about it. Just wondering if the council has documentation somewhere about this tool? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
A) recently from Pawn Stars? - info that Studebacker and Packard joined in '52 to form the Stude-Packard company(?). It must not have lasted long, because... B) I am looking a buying a 1955 Packard Clipper - stunning car! Needs minimal restoration. And C) from your information, the company died by 1957.
I would love to find out how many of these things were built. From the seller I have learned that he's only found one other, restored, for sale. It had the first V-8 engine in production. Four wing windows - I'd buy it just for those! I miss them! A trunk large enough to bump off 4 or more bad guys and dump them in the desert! Lots of innovations that took a decade to take hold! Lap belts. He might have said disc brakes. My '63 Avanti has disc brakes all around. A dash along the lines of a ship, in perfect shape. Grew up in a '57 1/2 Ford Fairlane, also rare. Love the two-tone paint jobs of the day. It has the beginnings of fins. Two speed transmission.
This is going to be Fun! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.65.36 ( talk) 07:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I wonder whether a true stub, by the traditional assessment criteria, could survive our modern standards for inclusion. On the other side of that coin, I wonder whether a true stub is still a useful thing for Wikipedia. We've definitely seen a trend of "stub extinction", and I can't imagine an actual stub making it through AfC approval. Many things marked as stubs were not stubs, but more start class. Wikipedia is evolving and I wonder if it's time to reassess the assessment criteria, especially with regard to stubs. Gigs ( talk) 17:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I don’t know if this had already been discussed here in the past, but I see that there are more than half a million un-assessed wikiproject articles out of over 4 million total. Since I suspect most of these are stubs, I was wondering if the assessment of wp:stub articles can be automated since the template:stub is already used to classify such articles? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 14:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The only wiki-projects that I have seen consistently assessing new articles assigned to them are WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Aviation.
WikiProject Canada has a dedicated editor who has been assessing articles for many years, but I have seen only one editor do this work in a project that has over 110 thousand articles.
Other wiki-projects seem to rely on editors who are not involved in their project, but do sweeping assessments for many wiki-projects assessing them all uniformly on the same talk page, but some wiki-projects articles are never assessed.
Just wondering if others see things the same way. Thanks in advance for sharing your experiences. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 01:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
HOW DO I MAKE A WIKIPROJECT? I READ THE ARTICLE, BUT IT DID NOT TELL ME HOW TO START! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Today's Xtra ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to propose and start up a new WikiProject called Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy about policy, but as you can see the name is already taken and used to refer as a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines. How do I go about this? I already have a sketch proposal on my user-page. Should I first start Wikipedia:WikiProject Policies? 20:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
In my Wiki-travels I just discovered WikiProject Bible for the first time. I was surprised, though, to see a Christianity-related talkpages banner on top of Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Bible. I had always assumed that the Bible was also important to Judaism. Was I wrong? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 06:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
This has never been a good article so far as I can see, always relying heavily on material from Writer's Digest. I may be the first person to have added an academic source after I removed a self-published source from a Writer's Digest affiliate company last night. Dougweller ( talk) 06:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
at1 one we use international link and your indian editer said no values of this though they uses unculture links like bollowood movie link article is Was there any romance about jodha Akbar.... how they r so cheap — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSA786 ( talk • contribs) 01:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
WPUSA was tagged with Semi-Active earlier today, but there's 12 threads on the talk page in the last 2 months, with over 15 participants. And there's a notice on the talk page, that if there's no response to the person posing a question, then the wikiproject must be inactive, and should so be tagged. What is the meaning of semi-active and inactive? -- 76.65.128.112 ( talk) 05:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
There was a discussion over whether the portals relevant to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film should be used in articles related to film. There are discussions about the case:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 21:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to make the List of notable people under FVEY surveillance a featured list before Feb 11 so that we can include it for our project ( Wikipedia:Surveillance awareness day). As time is running short, is someone willing to help me to do a peer review? That would be very much appreciated. Thanks!
- A1candidate ( talk) 22:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
There have been many controversies regarding the use of the UN geoscheme ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_Nations_geoscheme ), mainly because it is rather arbitrary, in some cases untraditional (UK in Northern Europe, Poland in Eastern Europe and Slovenia in Southern Europe), it makes more difficult to see the whole picture (continent) and the UN statistical division did not imply any universal use of it (if so-to the reverse): http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49.htm . Meanwhile, there are articles emerging on the basis of the United Nations geoscheme such as: /info/en/?search=Talk:List_of_political_parties_by_United_Nations_geoscheme. What is the stance of the Admins?-- 89.128.236.143 ( talk) 00:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 18:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC).
The Wikipedia Signpost is a wonderful reservoir of information about wikipedia. Of particular interest to this wiki-project is the weekly Signpost WikiProject report (currently written by the talented user:Mabeenot). This column has been running since 2007 and has since covered many wikipedia wikiprojects (some more than once). These articles serve as excellent introductions for those new to a project.
Since there are so many different kinds of wikiprojects all comprising different systems/tools/people/subjects/nationalities/etc I find this topic fascinating, and have been systematically trying to catalog all wikiprojects that have been featured in the Signpost alphabetically. So far I have managed to complete only projects covered in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and some of 2007 2011 and 2013. If you are as keen as I am to locate Signpost articles about a certain wikiproject try clicking:
Category:WikiProjects in The Signpost by name
I would apprciate any feedback – positive and negative. Thanks in advance, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 02:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Just a note: This category survived a category deletion nomination and is now facing a redirects deletion nomination. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Neutral Editors I'd like to invite this group to be apart of this discussion as I certainly feel this group could help. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 01:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
...with a wikiproject report covering WikiProject Russia. Too bad this report, which by the way was ready days ago, could not be published before the opening of the Olympic games. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm struggling to understand how to do this so please bear with me. I would like to contribute some, as yet, undisclosed knowledge about gambling as it relates to electromechanical slot machines made by Bally Mfr.
Myself, as well as a handful of other people were able to consistently win while playing a particular (model #1090) Bally machine. I would like to emphasize that we beat the machines legally, by using proper timing and technique as to when and how to pull the handle of the slot. Nothing about this technique was illegal and I managed to make a very good living playing dollar machines in Reno and Las Vegas for over four years, until the electromechanical machines were replaced by electronic machines with random number generators.
We called this technique "rhythm playing." So little is known about it that even what little has been published on the subject is full of misinformation. See: <Dwight and Louise Crevelt's book titled "Slot Machine Mania," Page 142, section titled "Rhythm Method.">
Since no mention of rhythm playing is made in your section on gambling or slot machines, I would like to provide some input on the subject but am totally overwhelmed by the process of doing so with Wikipedia. So, I ask if there might be someone who could guide me in the process. I'm not even sure how to see if anyone responds to this request so I ask that I be contacted through my email: poststump@yahoo.com DWPost 03:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwpost ( talk • contribs)
Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 110#Restrict A class usage. -- Izno ( talk) 14:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Given that the Draft namespace has been in use for a while I would like to propose that a Class rating of "Draft" be added to the default set of "class=" parameters for WikiProject banner templates.
One of the big advantages of the new Draft namespace is the ability to place WikiProject banners on the Talk pages of the Draft pages. This has the effect of notifying relevant Projects of the existence of the draft article. A class=Draft parameter would consequently enable WikiProjects to correctly handle such drafts in their article improvement systems. Another advantage of having a "class=Draft" parameter is that the successor to the current Articles for Creation system would be able to use it in it's systems and procedures. So far I have seen that WP:WikiProject U.S. Roads has already added such a parameter to their banner template, so a precedent already exists. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 12:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Since 27 December, the code at
Template:Class mask has supported Draft-class for any projects that want to use it. It is not added by default (this would require adding a huge number of new categories, and not all projects will want it anyway), but you can just add |draft=yes
to the custom class mask to enable it. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 14:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Dodger67: @ WhatamIdoing: I believe Roger is raising a legitimate point above. I know wikiprojects are discouraged from starting up without the blessing of the "council". But it is not clear to me who sits on the council, and what type of support they offer. Why for example, did I get only one editor offering feedback on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Alphabetical_list_of_WikiProjects_featured_in_the_Signpost ( thank you user:Bluerasberry!)? Is it a bad idea, bad implementation, other? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 01:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on merger of two wikiprojects - WikiProject Women scientists and WikiProject Women of psychology. Your input is welcome here. Djembayz ( talk) 20:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Check it out: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in The Signpost. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 12:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
It would be nice if Wikipedia added a "Forum" button next to the "talk" button on Wikipedia articles so that people can talk about the subject of the article without fear of thought police deleting something that was added to the Talk page and claiming it was under the guidelines that the Talk page is not a forum. I am entering this here because I can not begin to figure out how to properly propose that this feature of a FORUM button be added next to the TALK button on Wikipedia so I am hoping someone will do it for me. 2602:306:C518:6C40:5C5D:F920:659:AC04 ( talk) 02:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Should one create a talk page in order to place a {{WikiProject}} template on it? Or should it be created for certain WikiProjects but not for others (for example WikiProject Disambiguation and/or WikiProject Anthroponymy)? If so, how would one know which yes & which not? -- -- -- 01:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
On talk pages:
- {{ WikiProject Disambiguation}} - Project banner for talk pages with discussion. Please do not use to create talk pages that have no discussion.
![]() | 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. |
I've been an active Wikipedian for several months now, but I'm well rounded as I liked to be. One of my ongoing issues is the update of the quality list grading scale for selected WikiProject articles. They usually update by itself, but hasn't done that at all, and it's been almost a few weeks.
This was the page that I was referring to that being a problem with? Is there anyway that you can help me here? Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for reading! LeftAire ( talk) 18:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Whenever an article is rated as being list-class, that basically removes it from the usual process of assessment-driven quality improvements. And I hardly think the Featured List class remedies this dysfunctionality to any significant degree. The problem is furthermore exasperated by many articles being assessed as list-class when they really aren't primarily lists but merely contain one or more lists in addition to prose sections.
I would suggest that we get rid of the List and Featured List classes from the WP 1.0 assessment scheme altogether. Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists should be sufficient as a focus arena to work on lists improvement in particular. __ meco ( talk) 11:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Recently our category name was changed from Transcendental Meditation movement to Transcendental Meditation. Now we would like to make the same change in the name of our project at WP:TMMOVEMENT. Can anyone tell me how to do this? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Could we have the implementation of a comprehensive list of WikiProjects that ranks the activity / quality of projects by the different classes on the quality scale, possibly adding weighted measures by taking into account the total number of articles adopted by the projects? __ meco ( talk) 16:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Council, I would like a reassessment of WikiProject Mozilla. It was previously turned down, but I think it could benefit from its on WikiProject. There are dozens of Firefox articles and Mozilla articles that are impossible to coordinate on my own. What many people are unaware of is the giant scope of the Mozilla. It has lots of software, and tons of history. As an example, we would cover articles lesser known to general users. As an example, typing Mozilla into Wikipedia search gives back 3,686 results, and typing Firefox produces 8,353 results! Clearly most of the articles only contain one instance of the word Mozilla or Firefox, but there are enough articles that a WikiProject is needed. We also cover projects that only have semi-relevance to Mozilla, such as the Netscape browser (Firefox is based off of Netscape, and then later Netscape became based on Firefox). Anything semi-relevant to Mozilla would be covered. I believe that this Wikiproject could find hundreds of articles to cover - all in need of some sort of repair. Thank you! ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 20:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I have come across a strange Wikiproject proposal: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/The 39 Clues. I cannot tell what this one is supposed to be about. It almost seems to be that the guy wants 2 separate wiki projects: one completely on him/herself and one on a book series that does not have very many articles about it. I want to say something yet there is no "Discussion" area. Could someone please help me with this. Personally I would take down the proposition, yet I don't have the authority to. Bloope ( talk) 18:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
Are any Wikiprojects using Facebook to co-ordinate communication/communicate to others to get them interested to join the project? Are people free to start doing this? -- Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu ( talk) 22:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I am interested to create a Wikiproject "Share your Wikipedia experiences" if there is not one already. The idea came to my mind after this discussion. Surely many editors have many good/sad/delighting experiences in Wikipedia! -- Tito Dutta ✉ 17:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Just thought I'd let you guys know and deal with this. This WikiProject was created without discussion and only contains 44 articles in it. — Statυs ( talk) 03:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Template:Controversial-Class has been nominated for deletion. 70.24.251.208 ( talk) 06:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Category:D-Class articles has been nominated for deletion. However, Template:D-Class hasn't been nominated. 70.24.251.208 ( talk) 04:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I would like to draw attention to an interesting discussion on principles at Talk:Evolution, where a group of editors have seemigly taken offense at that article's having been added to the purview of WP:RELIGION. It raises the question of whether wikiprojects are allowed to decide their scope on their own or whether local concensus at a given page can remove or add specific pages from the projects domain of interest? Input is requested. I personally don't give a damn either way but I think the principle is interesting to clarify and I do find it quaint and slightly provicative that some editors feel so strongly about the page having any ties to the concept of religion or the related wikiproject. We've had similar issues with WP:CONSERVATISM and WP:USA in the past. Perhaps we should make a procedure for determining project scope in contested cases? ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 03:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I think that the templates in use don't really deal with a case like WPUS. To tag all of the US related articles would bring the project to several million articles. Not really a manageable number. Not to mention the number of pages to be flagged. It would seem a lot better to make this more like a super project that by default allows contents to be listed from other projects so that the sub projects do not appear to be children of the huge project. As long as one project in the US does not wish to be included as a child of WPUS, either a second banner would need to be added or these articles would not be included in the scope of WPUS. It would seem to be more efficient to just say WPABC should be included in WPUS and just not add or modify templates. Don't know how this would actually work, but can we say that a Wikiproject that has a scope of over 50% of the articles in the encyclopedia works (I think the US may be 50%, anyone know)? I'm not knocking the project, just questioning if there is a better way to deal with a project that large. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I've created a template to remind article authors to add assessment templates to the talk pages of their articles. See User:Piotrus/AT. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
FYI, there's an RFC proposal for what seems like a replacement for the WikiProject Council, see Wikipedia talk:The need for coordination.
70.24.251.208 ( talk) 05:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The proposal above is dead, an updated version of the proposal can be found [[ User:Wer900/Community Council of Wikipedia|here]] and there is an ongoing Village Pump discussion here. I am the originator of both the original and the new proposals. Wer900 • talk • coordination consensus defined 04:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Write a static blog with the above title. Would excerpts from this be a suitable subject for a Wiki Project.
Hamish84 ( talk) 07:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
PS. Too old now to digest all the protocol.
A long time time ago I broached the idea of updating the links template and it appeared to reach a consensus to proceed. Hence I've modified the template to add a little more color and to include links into some of the other general sub-categories. I hope this design meets with your approval. Thanks. Regards, RJH ( talk) 17:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there a WikiProject where users can bring articles to verify if sources are being used correctly and users are not keeping true to WP:INTEGRITY? Any help would be appreciated. - B2project ( talk) 00:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
There's a new WikiProject: WikiProject Animals in media. Brambleberry of RiverClan Chat ♠ Watch 21:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
There are a growing number of projects for help using wikipedia as well as those that are a part of the Dispute Resolution that I strongly feel are a part of the Wikipedia Help sections to guide editors and keep them from leaving for many reasons. I feel Wikipedia needs to begin listing Wikipedia help more prominently and I would like to begin here on the WikiProjects Directory.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 06:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm pretty new here, and I have waded through quite a few pages trying to find the answer to this question. Q: If an article is tagged by multiple WikiProjects and is assessed as A Class by one, what is the process for the other WikiProjects to assess it? Do they just go along with the assessment, or do they all need to conduct their own processes to assess it? Help needed... Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( talk) 10:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I am requesting background information and discussion of a potential new WikiProject revolving around government, as a separate and disctinct topic from politics and law. To my dismay, the topics have merged, with government being subsumed under politics, and suffering because of it. And not to make the discussion too easy, the broad meaning (no, not exact meaning, but even a common understanding of the term) of " government" has 2 major understandings in English: the English meaning (see what I did there?) referring to the cabinet, or executive; and a broader meaning which includes other governmental topics such as judicial and legislative functions, geographical administrative units, sub-governments, and law. (Law is also a topic that has their own WikiProject, but is also a focus of Politics.)
These 2 problems have cause me in particular major headaches for articles that I have created or made substantial edits to, such as the federal government of Iraq, government of Kosovo, and the judiciary of Germany. These articles are good example of the difference between politics and government: government articles are way less controversial (I kinda wish more people would vandalize these pages so at I know people care; j/k please don't!), way less visible and edited, a major basis for understanding politics, and fundamental to understanding how law effects politics (instead of the major focus of WP:WikiProject Politics which is usually the reverse).
I cannot raise this topic at WikiProject Politics no more than I can start a conversation about C-SPAN at a Tea Party rally. It is just too crowded, with too much going on. (I will, of course, try and draw interested parties though.) WP:WikiProject Law is another related topic, but those participants probably consider both the broader issues and finer points of law as having little to do with things like the California Department of Motor Vehicles and the rest of the massive $100,000,000,000+/year California government (isn't that like 1/3 of the entire economic output of Greece?). People who write about such disgusting, revolting institutions (j/k DMV you're alright) and watch C-SPAN, IMHO, tend to stand apart from those who write about libertarianism and watch Fox News.
My main concern at this point is has this point been raised before, and what the consensus was. I do not want to just toss out a proposal. Int21h ( talk) 03:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Edit: Also, maybe a better place to raise the discussion. Int21h ( talk) 03:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
You can call on me to offer guidance on subjects related to chemistry, including as it applies to the life sciences. My current career focus is on chemical synthesis and medicinal chemistry as it applies to small molecule drug discovery, including structure-based drug discovery (involving macromolecular crystallography, small molecule enzymatic and biophysical screening, etc.). Training is through UChicago PhD, with major pharma experience. Currently a res prof at a major university. Prof D Meduban ( talk) 16:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Where do I go to if I want to convert a task force to a WikiProject? Also, how would I would get the banner, portal, and recognized content run by bots updated once it becomes a WikiProject? Erick ( talk) 08:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, if anyone wants it, I have gotten together the list of the various reference sources of a basically encyclopedic nature which have been reviewed in journals on JSTOR. I did not include some very focused sources, like for instance field guides to birds of California, because there were frankly way too many of them - these are almost all reference works of some sort of topical overview variety. The material is currently unsorted, in multiple e-mails to myself. If anyone wants them, they are, of course, free to drop me an e-mail and I will forward the e-mails to the editor. They could then go over them and add them to pages of individual WikiProjects, which I think might be very helpful to those projects. It could, if the books were reviewed, ultimately give them lists of articles we do and don't yet have, and reference sources which discuss them. I will be trying to get together the list for the various religion and philosophy projects, and then breaking it down into units for each project, but would definitely welcome anyone doing similar for other WikiProjects and groups. But be warned there are several thousand reviews to go through, so it might take some time, even for some of the smaller scope projects. John Carter ( talk) 00:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hugetim ( talk) 15:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Puntland says it is a pilot project not yet started. (The proposal to create has 3 supporters) Is there a flag for {{ WikiProject status}} to tag that? -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 06:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that a couple of WikiProjects have recently been talking about issuing newsletters to their members again, and that there are still a few who actively do so at present. I tend to think that maybe they might be among the better ways of getting interested individuals to maybe think about developing topics and articles that they might not think of otherwise.
As more or less the sole editor involved currently with the Christianity newsletter, I was thinking that, maybe, having an additional newsletter which might cover the broader fields of Religion/Philosophy/Mythology might also be useful, particularly in maybe drawing attention and input on subjects which are perhaps not getting a lot of attention. I think the Buddhism WikiProject, for all intents and purposes, seems rather dormant right now, for instance, and maybe getting together a broad newsletter on religion/philosophy/mythology which might include that in its coverage, and perhaps other religious and philosophical topics, might get a bit more attention and maybe interest in some of the perhaps important but also maybe neglected articles and topics involved. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, it might not be a bad idea to have other broad, topical-type newsletters for some of the other areas of wikipedia. Maybe, for instance, something along the lines of a newsletter for, basically, each of the "hundreds" of the Dewey decimal system, or each of the categories of WP:1.0. If there were interest in such, maybe, and this is just a maybe, we might be able to somehow integrate in some of the material which might be considered for the newsletters in the Signpost as well. Such specific topical updates might also function as a valuable supplement to the Community Portal as well.
Anyone interested in maybe helping develop some such newsletters? John Carter ( talk) 16:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I personally get a feeling that some of the "major" content gets neglected in a way, including a lot of the 1.0 material. Getting a bit more attention to the efforts here, and maybe in some of the WikiProjects which deal with content regarding the major topics, might help, maybe. I have made a proposal for maybe getting some possible regular coverage in the Signpost regarding what might be thought of as the major topical areas at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom#Proposals. One of the editors there responded that some sort of proposal might work, and seemed to agree that maybe it could fly if people would prepare the material. Would anyone here to maybe has helped work on some of the major topical areas be willing to maybe help with a few trial pieces for the Signpost, to see if it might be useful and worth the effort in the long run? John Carter ( talk) 16:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Good evening Wikipedians,
I was wondering if someone on this council page would be able to assist in a debate at Talk:ABU Song Festivals 2012, in which an ediotr is constantly trying to force Project Eurovision from removing the article from their project despite the article genre being within scope of the project. I and a couple of other editors have tried numerous times to explain that no person can decide whether or not an article should be tagged to a specific project, and that the decision on project tagging would be up to a team of members from an interested project (if the article could be within scope), or an active member from a project (if the article is within scope). regardless of how many times the user had been told, they still keep trying to force their way as if to try and proclaim ownership. Any assistance would be appreciated, just in case there are things that haven't already been explained to the user. Much regards, Wesley Mouse 19:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
There is an RFC at Talk:Tom Cruise#LGBT Project on whether the LGBT studies group is permitted to tag and track the article (the article says that Cruise has famously sued people for wrongly claiming that he is gay), or if we need special rules to discriminate against them, because a hypothetical reader glancing over the talk page might interpret the presence of their banner or their project categories as indicating that Cruise is gay.
There is also a related discussion at WT:BLP.
I know we had that RFC on this exact point a while ago, and that it turned up massively in favor of the WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN guideline, but it seems that we need to go through it all again. So anyone with an opinion about whether or not a group of editors should be permitted to track any article that they're interested in, even if it means that someone might get the idea that suing people for claiming that you're gay is the kind of thing that interests people who study gay rights and queer culture, should consider expressing their opinion, whether that opinion is yay or nay. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#No-importance?, and consider joining the discussion, on the relevance of "No" as an importance criteria. Thanks! Fortdj33 ( talk) 18:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
At the recent London Meetup, one topic of conversation was that projects frequently seem to be dormant and contain editors who don't appear to have contributed in years. Wikipedia:WikiProject Pink Floyd has a policy that if you don't edit a related article on the project for six months, you get taken off the list. I like this as a policy, as did several others at the meetup, as it's obvious then who active project members are and who's worth contacting, before you waste time trying to talk to someone who last edited in 2007. Do any other projects have this policy, and if not, why not? -- Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Côte d'Ivoire where WP:OWN has been brought up as a reason why wikiprojects cannot name themselves? -- 76.65.131.248 ( talk) 23:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party may interest some people here. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here, at WikiProject Conservatism. Feel free to comment. RGloucester ( talk) 20:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I created {{ WikiProject Images and Media}}. I get lost in setting up all of the features for article assessment and quality. Can I get one of the experts from WikiProject Council to do it? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 08:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA Fram ( talk) 09:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
What's the difference between a sister WikiProject and a related WikiProject? Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 11:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Looking back at the question that was asked in the previous thread, I think it would be interesting to have a special issue of the WikiProject Report dedicated to frequently asked questions about WikiProjects. The questions could be about proposing projects, creating templates, maintaining portals, interesting statistics about WikiProjects, how to overcome certain hurdles, or even lighthearted oddball questions that people have asked over the years. I'd be willing to try answering the questions or we could enlist volunteers from the WikiProject Council and other projects to provide answers. We could collect questions from editors here at the WikiProject Council or in one of the Signpost's sandboxes. What do you folks think? –Mabeenot ( talk) 05:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I posted the question below to Village pump (technical) and no one's answering. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Science I find quite a large number of WikiProjects listed, with a "yes" or "no" answer for each on the question of whether it is "active" or not. How that information was compiled I don't know. Can anyone here suggest anything?
How would I get a list of discussion pages of WikiProjects (so I'm talking about pages called "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Whatever") ranked by the frequency with which they are edited---in effect the most active WikiProjects listed first?
Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
A proposal is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Proposal for a de facto merger between WP:DYK and WP:GAN, with the former's Main Page space being used to showcase the latter. It is being strongly opposed by many DYK regulars, and questions have been raised at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Alternate GA proposal about whether it is compatible with the WikiProject Council guide. Some input from WikiProject Council contributors would be helpful. Prioryman ( talk) 01:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Why are projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_England and other wikiprojects concerned with specific places not listed here? ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 15:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
There are similar wikiprojects that look at the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 15:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Template:Maths rating has been put to WP:TFD over whether a WikiProject can control their own banner coding or not. -- 65.92.181.190 ( talk) 14:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I've proposed that WP:WikiProject Water supply and sanitation by country and WP:WikiProject Water supply and sanitation be merged. See WT:WikiProject Water supply and sanitation by country. -- 65.92.181.190 ( talk) 08:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Going through articles tagged for clean-up, for example Orphaned articles, I notice that a large number have no wikiproject tag or even a talk page. It occurs to me that adding a WikiPoject template would bring these articles to the attention of people who could clean them up. Are there any tools to list articles in a category that do not belong to a WikiProject? Has a message box been considered for talk pages, like {{ Infobox requested}}, that marks and categories articles that have no Wikiproject tagging? -- Traveler100 ( talk) 05:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I've started WikiProject Squatting to address our coverage of squatting-related topics. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
There's a WP:WikiProject Intelligence that was created by repurposing a redirect, but only appears to ever had two members, and no activity on the talk page except people saying that it replicated WP:WikiProject Espionage. Seems like this should be nominated for deletion? -- 70.24.250.26 ( talk) 13:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Has anyone tried to measure the effectiveness of WikiProjects? By this, I mean whether a given WikiProject actually made a significant difference to the quality of articles compared to not having a WikiProject. For example, I recently found out about WikiProject Banksia, which seems almost freakishly effective - 21 featured articles out of 348 total! But is that the WikiProject, or is it a handful of dedicated individuals who would have worked on those articles anyway? RockMagnetist ( talk) 15:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Guys,i saw some of your work on categorization and wandered if you could help me
i have created a media wiki and used categorization to organize it. the front page is broken into four rows looking like this
also at the bottom is the link to the popular pages, however these are all the pages on the wiki using <TopTenPages offset=1/> the offset is the main page
what i would like to do is have each of these four rows containing the popular pages within that category. I have looked everywhere but cant find any syntax that will allow me to use popular pages within another if that makes sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.60.98.134 ( talk) 11:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I've just discovered Wikipedia:WikiProject Marketing, which looks to my inexperienced eye like a still-born attempt by a single user to create a WikiProject. There also exists the inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Advertising that would seem to be covering the same sort of ground.
I don't know what is the correct thing to do here (if anything)? Thryduulf ( talk) 15:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Gentlemen,
I need help in establishing a collaborative and independent sub-project regarding the finances of the government of Puerto Rico (see Puerto Rico government budget balance and public debt of Puerto Rico). Unfortunately, I'm not an expert on these matters and I need help digging into the references available in English and expanding these two articles onto a Wikipedia:Good article.
I believe this should be a project spearheaded by the WikiProject Business/Accountancy Taskforce with help from:
What needs to be done?
Background. In a recent referendum the people of Puerto Rico opted to change their current political status. This is exposing Puerto Rico in international news. One subject of interest are its finances, in specific the public debt of Puerto Rico and its ongoing Puerto Rico government budget balance that has experienced a deficit in 12 consecutive years. I beleive that it's in the best interests of Wikipedia, the Puerto Rican people, and the international community to have Wikipedia:Good articles on these two subjects.
— Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 13:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to drum-up some interest in Wikipedia:WikiProject Skateboarding. The WikiProject has been inactive for quite some time and I am working on getting it active again. But it's pretty clear this is going to require a team effort...
I have left talk page messages for previously active member editors who are still active on WP but there's not many of them. I'm creative, but not nearly creative enough to create a Wikipedia ad.
Short of leaving a 600 x 600 ad at WP:ANI (sure, I'd get banned, but it might be worth it, long-term) or vandalising the Main Page, what are my options? Stalwart 111 01:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnkitBot
Should this bot tag talk pages (on WikiProject-by-WikiProject basis or without) with a message that a deadlink has been found in that particular article. According to me (and only me), I think it should help because in most of the cases it's only the page creator who actually gives any attention to his/her own article (not always). Then, it's even usual for a passerby to see and fix it. I (i.e. my bot) could work on a project-by-project basis (on request) and tag the articles with the deadlink notification. But then as it always does, consensus is required. -- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 12:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
One question, please. Can we tag talk pages in articles of Serbian Ortodox churches with {{ WPSERBIA}} if those are not located in Republic of Serbia, but some other neighboring countries? Thanks! -- WhiteWriter speaks 11:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Greetings folks, I have been involved with several WikiProjects. In fact I set up the Philosophy task forces after seeing the value in it from the Military History project. I am wondering about a few issues.... Should we even have WikiProjects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Parapsychology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Creationism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicine? How about Wikipedia:WikiProject Anarchism, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism? Don't get me wrong, the Anarchist task force has produced some stellar work, and I'm a big socialist myself. My point is that we shouldn't segregate based on like-mindedness. These should be task forces of larger projects (as Anarchism is) for the sake of bringing in academic experts. For instance, I think that WikiProjects should only be organized under the name of academic departments like universities. In this view, Anarchism, and Socialism would be task forces of WikiProject Politics, and there just wouldn't be a Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicine. I see that as totally harmful of Wikipedia's purpose. There should be a Pseudoscience task force of WikiProject Science instead. Could a proposal to abolish special, ideologically based WikiProjects and make them task forces of academically based projects work? There are all kinds of changes I would make if I could do it unilaterally, but what is the political environment here? Greg Bard ( talk) 09:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Pls see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikiproject notes in articles - The issues may be much bigger then just the note on the pages - However I believe the viability of the note its self is what we should talk about at this time. Moxy ( talk) 23:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Maybe this is just a personal opinion, but I think one of the difficulties we might be having in a lot of areas is that the almost incredible number of articles we have, over 4 million?!, and comparatively few editors and active groups of editors that exist to deal with them, makes it harder for individual editors, or groups of editors, to focus much attention on some of the articles which would presumably be the most significant, important, or whatever word you might want to use to an encyclopedia. Maybe, I don't know, one thing that might help the groups have a bit more "direction" (and also, presumably, maybe cooperation, collaboration, and other things which might help stimulate Project-related activity) is to set some good, but reasonably achievable, goals for the next year. And, of course, the more people who help develop a more central article now, the less likely that article will be to need long-term continued attention in the same area, which would make it more likely that some of the these "central" articles might get more attention as well later. I have made a few proposals to that effect at the talk page of the Religion Project, and think that, in some cases, the increased focus on some of these more central articles might be a real and significant improvement to the effectiveness of such projects. Maybe, if several did have lists of articles they considered of primary importance to the project having a really "encyclopedic", or encompassing, treatment of a topic, either those articles might be tagged as "Core" importance or something similar, and project banners might even go so far as to point out the "core" articles needing most attention and/or ones that haven't been created yet. Maybe.
Anyway, I think it might be worth considering something along these lines for some groups, and would appreciate any input any of the rest of you might have regarding this topic, like whether it is really likely to be useful and/or, maybe, other steps which might be taken to further the goals of maybe increasing the effectiveness of WikiProjects. John Carter ( talk) 19:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The shortcut, WP:QXZ, which redirects to Template:Wikipedia ads (the talk page of which references this one) has been nominated for deletion. Your comments in the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 8#Wikipedia:QXZ would be most welcome - doubly so if you can explain the origin of the "QXZ" acronym (if that is what it is). Thryduulf ( talk) 00:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:CANADA is requiring the replacement of the banners of other projects without the consultation of the members of those projects. Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Assessment says that WPTORONTO, WPMONTERAL, WPVANCOUVER, WPOTTAWA banners should be removed and replaced. There has never been such an agreement. Indeed when the WPCANADA banner was expanded with the city projects as a flagged additional project there was not supposed to be a replacement drive, as seen in the old page version. Why can't projects use their own banners, why are we forced to use WPCANADA's banner? When WPCANADA added these projects to their banner, it was without the consent of the projects in question, or even informing them. Now, WPCANADA seek to replace these banners without the consent or even informing them that this is even happening. -- 70.24.247.127 ( talk) 05:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I apologize if this is the wrong place for this but, I will try to keep it brief in comparison to the resulting problems of a missing MOS. I made an attempt on the talkpage for the specific needed MOS here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Dutch_and_German_surnames_van_.26_von The resulting problem without this seemingly minor guideline has left an opening for a particular editor to WP:hound my edits based on their misinterpretation of a guideline. I get it - when it comes to making little difference between upper and lower case "V" in a Dutch surname. In fact I totally agree with the other editor that stated "it is no big deal". The problem starts when after I either start an article or work within one and I use the proper lower case "v" that very same editor follows my tracks and contributes only by capping the "V" or changing namespaces the same way. Basically saying the proper way is in their mind "wrong" so they change it unilaterally to fit their mis-interpretation. The editor has repeatedly claimed that surname is "Anglicized" but has fallen short when asked for references to support their theory.... JGVR ( talk) 23:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_16#Empty_A-class_categories for a proposal to delete about a thousand empty A-class categories. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:WPBannerMeta/hooks#Project task force to do lists. --
Trevj (
talk) 11:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC) --
Trevj (
talk) 11:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I recommend that all watchers of this page also watch
Wikipedia:Database reports/New WikiProjects.
—
Wavelength (
talk) 17:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Consumer Reports calls itself a wikiproject, but it does not manage any articles. Should it be reclassified? RockMagnetist ( talk) 19:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment does not have the importance parameter activated. A number of editors have express surprise about it. See Template talk:WikiProject Environment and Template_talk:WikiProject_Environment#Display_importance for the !voting. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 07:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Done --
Alan Liefting (
talk -
contribs) 02:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I think the wiki project Wikipedia:WikiProject Kingdom of Hungary, that was created a couple of days ago, is unnecesary. We already have a wiki project named Wikipedia:WikiProject Hungary and I don't see why we would create a wiki project for each form of government of a country.
Even now Wikipedia:WikiProject Hungary is kind of inactive, I don't think we should split it TransylvaniaRomania ( talk) 16:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
To clarify the usage of physical determinism, I have posted a request for comment. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Spurred by recent discussion about how to categorize the eponymous WikiProject categories ( Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science#Parentage and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 24#Category:WikiProject Medicine descendant projects), I'd like to propose an improvement to the WikiProject categorization within Category:WikiProjects. Currently, WikiProjects are categorized by a combination of "type/descriptive" (as in Category:Science WikiProjects) and parentage. Some projects can be found within a descriptive category, while others require searching through categories of other WikiProjects to look for your target project. I believe that an eponymous category for a project should only contain content that a project would like to manage...a completely separate project should not necessarily be within a different project's category hierarchy. Not all projects claim to have "parents" or "children", but "related" projects. Often, when a project's category needs to be categorized, it is just dumped in the main category of another project.
Rather than forcing a project to have parents and children to facilitate categorization, why not make categories for the headings in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. Essentially, the Directory is a categorization of projects by topic, so why not have the categorization parallel this? We already have many of the topic categories in use ( Category:Art WikiProjects, Category:Culture WikiProjects, Category:Environment WikiProjects, Category:Geographical WikiProjects, Category:History WikiProjects, Category:Humanities WikiProjects, to name a few). This way, all of the projects categories can be easily found by category, no guessing is required as to parentage, and every project can have control of all content within their project's eponymous category. I realize this would be a large undertaking, but as the projects are poorly categorized now, it is something that can be slowly phased in, one topic area at a time. -- Scott Alter ( talk) 04:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
If there is a "parent" WikiProject with a category (e.g. Category:WikiProject Fauna), the new category should be made a subcategory of that as well.
I just gave this a shot with Category:Health WikiProjects, which has a parent of Category:Science WikiProjects. If you look at Category:Science WikiProjects, to separate the subcategories from projects, I made the sort key for subcategories start with " ", while the main project for the category starts with a "*". Any comments? -- Scott Alter ( talk) 05:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. I've been engaging in discussion with the WikiProject Medicine community and have a couple questions that pertain to the logistical landscape and ability to intercommunicate with specific WikiProjects in different languages within Wikipedia. I'm posing the question here because I'm assuming the Council has a broad view of the community landscape and you may have gotten these sort questions before.
But before that, here is some background on my experiment, which I hope to build-out with community buy-in. The project is intended to collaborate with others to surface and generate knowledge as it relates to Regional Variations in Standards of Care; regions are intended to be country-specific and standards of care means how disease states are tackled and treated in different regions. Many countries view and tackle disease states differently (whether it be due to cultural, societal, economic or other reasons, and this type of information is not readily available for all to view in one standardized place). One can think of this looking something similar to the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care, but on a global scale. I've created mock-up articles that model the inclusion of Regional information and have vetted it past the community in WikiProject Medicine. Here are the mock-up articles I created: Epidemiology of Hypertension, Diagnosis of Hypertension, Management of Hypertension. In doing so, articles could potentially build out to discern the variations in health care that exist by country and by disease state. The questions below will help me better understand the constructs within Wikipedia that would allow one to connect Wikipedians from different countries on one specific effort.
1. Is
WikiProject Medicine specific to the English Version of Wikipedia?
2. Or put another way, does each language have its own version of WikiProject Medicine?
3. Or does WikiProject Medicine span across all Wikipedia language domains?
4. Is there a tagging method that allows for people within those languages to partake in a regionally specific, yet globally collective project?
My assumption, in the above, is that most Wikipeidans supporting a certain Wikipedia language domain currently reside, or at least better understand the variations, within that specific region of the world, respective of language.
I appreciate your any feedback and guidance I can get to move forward. Thanks. GT67 ( talk) 17:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Dear editors: I have been looking at a lot of articles about Bluegrass music and musicians, and there are a large number with few or no references. I am thinking of organizing a Wikiproject for Bluegrass music to improve some of these articles and encourage the creation of some obvious missing ones. There are currently about 500 articles linked to the Bluegrass music article.
I have put messages on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Country Music and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Roots music talk pages to see if the folks at these related projects have any objections or suggestions. I've also collected some information about Bluegrass topics on a user page at User talk:Anne Delong/Bluegrass Topics. Is there anything else that I should do before I put in a project proposal to see if other editors are interested? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. Are there any women editors from Louisiana? Please contact me if you can! SarahStierch ( talk) 13:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Your WP:Keep It Simple label, {{ User label WPCouncil}} is in danger of being deleted. See ( Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 6#Template:User_label.) If you still want it, you may wish to move it to project space, perhaps a redirect page Template:Label_WPCouncil or Template:Label_WikiProject_Council by placing {{db-move|Template:User label WPCouncil|[[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 6#Template:User_label]]}} above the redirect. Also see {{ user label}} for technical details. Feel free to review my planning page, User:PC-XT/KIS, and talk there if you have questions. PC-XT ( talk) 01:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
User talk:Smuconlaw#SMU Constitutional and Administrative Law Wikipedia Project. --
Trevj (
talk) 13:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC) --
Trevj (
talk) 13:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
A university course was recently started, with their "course" page set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket and Englishness. It has since been moved (once by me, then again by others) to end up at Wikipedia:Englishness and Cricket. During the discussion, where I expressed a view that the "Wikipedia:WikiProject" prefix should only be used by "full" or "offical" WikiProjects with a class/quality/importance article tracking system, not just any short-term ad-hoc grouping of people wanting to edit similar articles. The dissenting view quoted Wikipedia:WikiProject which states "A WikiProject is a group of editors that want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia" with no real mention about restricting it to any formal structure or style.
My question, is should the 'Wikipedia:WikiProject" prefix be restricted to the more "formal" WikiProjects, or should it remain as it is at the moment, where proposals to Council are recommended, but not essential, and any group can be created as a WikiProject? Given the many tools that are in some way WikiProject related (WP:1.0, Svick's cleanup lists, dabsolver etc), is there any benefit or cost to having adhoc "non-article tracking" projects in that prefix? Or are most of these tool "opt-in" anyway, so it doesn't matter? Having a dedicated "education" namespace might help for the university course pages, and it is in development at Wikipedia:Course pages and Wikipedia:Assignments for student editors, but it seems like a fairly complicated process, compared to just starting a page as a pseudo WikiProject. (Note, although this university course has also been involved in some ANI/BITE/OWN/NPOV/RS issues, this thread should ignore all of that and concentrate solely on the topic page naming, and whether is is acceptable or should be explicitly prevented. ANI is thataway) The-Pope ( talk) 03:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Per a request on my talk page and a discussion following Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-02-25/WikiProject report, I have created User:WP 1.0 bot/WikiWork, a subproject of the WP 1.0 bot and a new template that will output several WikiWork-related pieces of data for every WP 1.0 enabled WikiProject:
I'd love it if you took a look and let me know your thoughts. Still very much a beta product; just something I whipped together in an afternoon, so bug-hunters are welcome. Cheers, — Theopolisme ( talk) 05:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
A user at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States#Homosexuality_in_the_Batman_franchise suggested that there is a "limit" of 2 or 3 Wikiprojects per article. Is this true? WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I have proposed merging the two apparently moribund Occult and Parapsychology projects on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Occult#Merge discussion, and would welcome any input. Also, there is discussion regarding the deletion of the project banner of WikiProject Toronto at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 21#Template:WikiProject Toronto, which also might benefit from some editors experienced in the life cycle of WikiProjects. John Carter ( talk) 20:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, per WT:WikiProject Water supply and sanitation by country, it was decided to merge the project into WP: WikiProject Water as a workgroup/taskforce, could someone please carry this out? -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 05:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I am attempting to re-activate u2 project, and i am trying to ping some of the older members. Can someone help me on that? Miss Bono (zootalk) 18:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
What's the difference between a workgroup and a taskforce? Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 12:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'm not really sure of the protocols here. I am considering, basically, attempting to revise/revive the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit to turn it into something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, but with a slightly broader scope, specifically, to include at least basic article reference lists of all articles which are included in encyclopedias whose scope closely mirrors that of some of our WikiProjects, not just those that are to this point missing. I think having some clear ideas of what material is out there in generally highly reliable, generally more or less academic source, regardless of the stated subject of that encyclopedia, would probably make things a lot easier for all of us in determining what material we should have relating to those subjects. Maybe. But, honestly, I have no clear idea what sort of steps to take to make such fairly significant changes in this inactive project. Any ideas? John Carter ( talk) 18:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Mr.Z-bot's "Task 3" provides monthly statistics of pageviews for articles within the scope of a WikiProject. This example from WikiProject Medicine demonstrates what it does. I think this would be useful for many projects, but for the past couple of years Mr. Z has been busy and the code needs updating. Currently the request queue to include new WikiProjects is down.
There are some problems which are unlikely to be resolved by volunteers, and programming problems in seem especially prone to staying unresolved. I think that this might be a problem which could be resolved by paying someone to solve it. I have no one in particular in mind who can do this, but there is a grant-requesting process at meta:Grants:Index. Perhaps any of you saw this week in The Signpost that the Wikimedia Foundation just finished their first round of issuing grants and they are looking for further grant applications.
I was thinking of making a grant request to fix Mr. Z's bot's problem, and perhaps this could be among a set of outstanding program requests of interest to the WikiProject Council. If the grant were awarded, then the funds could sit until someone steps up to complete the task and takes the funds. How do others feel about this? Does anyone have any other ideas of outstanding tasks for WikiProjects which need automation and for which the software needs updating? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Related to developing infrastructure for WikiProjects is developing infrastructure for metrics. The original purpose of WikiProjects was to create a community space for collaboration, but in the course of doing that, people developed tools based on the WikiProject talk page templates which generate interesting metrics which are useful outside the context of community collaboration. I can imagine that someone might want to know something about a class of articles and want metrics from them, and for that same set of articles there might not be an active community to support a WikiProject. In fact, some very popular sets of articles are contained in some very dead WikiProjects, because for whatever reasons, people who develop those articles are not interested in meeting each other in a WikiProject.
Some of the useful tools include Mr.Z-bot's statistics tables and User:WP 1.0 bot's article quality and importance rankings. So far as I know, there is no way to access the benefits of those tools outside the context of applying WikiProject tags to articles, and it is improper to apply WikiProject tags without a WikiProject, and it is improper to set up a WikiProject without a community. I am stating this to follow up on the above proposal about infrastructure development for WikiProjects. Poor User:WP 1.0 bot even has an obsolete name now, because since 2007 when that bot was made for WP:WP 1.0, this bot has become useful and fundamental to the Wikipedia editing experience in ways not anticipated. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
How do you assess the rating of a page if it does not fall under the scope of any WikiProject? Numbermaniac - T - C 05:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
A few quick comments:
Is there any recommendations or guidelines regarding the ordering of wikiprojects on the talk page? It seems natural that they should be organized by importance. Within an importance level, there are several possible choices: alphabetical, "common sense", first-tagged, etc. Jason Quinn ( talk) 19:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Svick has kindly updated Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProject watchers to list the number of active users watching a WikiProject page, rather than just all accounts. This has a significant effect on a couple of the older projects' ranking. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
List of Wikipedia controversies includes a section about a controversy involving the Church of Scientology and Wikipedia. The article is clearly within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology, of which I am a long-standing member. Earlier today I added the WP Scientology project banner to the article talk page. However, two editors have edit-warred to remove the banner, without offering any explanation and posting aggressive messages in the process (e.g. [1]). I therefore seem to be in the situation, which I admit I've never come across before, of non-members of a WikiProject blocking that WikiProject from including the article in its scope, despite the FAQ at the top of this page. What do WikiProject Council members suggest? Prioryman ( talk) 20:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
See Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Tarc. Please read everyone's statement as there appears to be more going on here than what's been stated in this thread. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I have just noticed that WikiProject Disability, an active project established back in June 2010, is not listed in the Directory. I'm not confident of my ability to add it correctly so I would appreciate some help. It should be listed under "General topics" in the "History and society" section. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 19:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
the impact of billboard advertising on the marketing of gsm product — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.220.68.34 ( talk) 16:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Someone at WP:VG has just advertised a WP:PROPOSAL RFC for a "guideline" that is actually a mis-tagged WikiProject WP:Advice page, located in the project's namespace. Someone else has written a proposal at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Philosophy that he believes only WP:PHILO members are allowed to have any input into.
I believe that most of the pages these days are correctly categorized or tagged with one of the (fairly ugly) templates:
I just fixed a couple. Do you think it would be worth using a bot to send an educational note to any project that has a page named "WikiProject ___/Guideline" or the like, to let them know about this fairly obscure set of templates? Would it be better to add more information at WP:POLICY? Should we just not worry about it, since most of them are right and individual incidents can be handled as they come up? What do you think? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
An editor created a WikiProject page here on English Wikipedia because they couldn't find the resources at the Bengali Wikipedia. They're asking for help. Any ideas? –Mabeenot ( talk) 16:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
This may not be the right place to post this query, but I have recently encountered an incident where a new editor Eon The Sky ( talk · contribs · count) has created a WikiProject Archaeoastronomy in a flurry of edits on 5 May. He created a list of over 300 members for this WikiProject in a single edit. Since there was no sign that these editors had agreed to work on this WikiProject, I notified Eon the Sky on his talk page, and deleted the list of members.
Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with this incident. Thanks. -- SteveMcCluskey ( talk) 01:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone. There's a row brewing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#RFC about whether the newly-formed WikiProject Hentai should be a part of WikiProject Anime and manga or not. I think this could do with the input of some people experienced in WikiProject-related goings-on, if any of you have a spare moment. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.
About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).
The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.
Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.
If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out.
I have just spammed this note to the three dozen WikiProjects with the highest number of active watchers. WikiProject members are often highly active people, so they need to know about this. If you're involved in a smaller group, please share this information with your team. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
An editor has asserted that WP:WikiProject Philosophy has "a consensus" that he should be permitted to post WP:External links to all philosophy-related categories. AFAICT, the alleged "consensus" at that project is just himself; no other WikiProject participants have discussed it there, much less supported it. It might be helpful to have other views (for or against) at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Continuing to add external links to cat pages. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I just came across Wikipedia:WikiProject Westerns. This project was created in August 2012, after a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Westerns.
However, as far as I can see the project was stillborn. There is no current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Westerns, and the only discussion that ever took place there was a brief chat about applying the project's banner.
I assume that the project was created in good faith, tho a reverted post on the talk page disagreed, calling it a "non-productive vanity (wiki)project".
Whatever the reasons, this project has never flown. Shouldn't it be deleted? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I have left a note at WikiProject Westerns, and also at WikiProject Film. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I've only been on Wikipedia two weeks (active weeks), and am visiting here for the first time - meaning I have no axe to grind. Nor have I a particular interest in westerns. But I do remember reading a rule that says something like "the spirit of the rule trumps the rule itself", and I like that a lot. I just joined a project that looks like it may have had scant attention for a while; I'm sure there are others. But having that project exist, already constructed, is a way (even an invitation) for me as a newcomer to get involved. I figure activity is bound to be sporadic sometimes in a volunteer-only environment, but having placeholders and points of contact that remain over time is still useful, binding together activities of people who aren't even actively engaged at the same time. In short, while projects were designed for groups, a "group" can still be "one at a time", and useful to the one. And if a currently-one-person project is not overloading the ordinary wiki mechanisms that support projects, I see no reason to question its existence or placement. Marcus doesn't want "Westerns" to reside under "Films". Fine, the group of one has spoken; it's the project's choice to make. I am also rather mystified why he hasn't had more overt joiners - seems a wide enough topic and specialty to generate some. But I also agree that "activity" has many ways of being represented, and project pages are just one of those. I also agree with the suggestion above that maybe five years is a reasonable time scale for taking a look at what "time has told"; but take a close look. Evenssteven ( talk) 22:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Elsewhere on this board I asked about the guidelines for applying WikiProject categories to Wikipedia articles for the purpose of collecting metrics about them. The precedent which I had seen was that WikiProjects tag article talk pages, and the tag comes with a category. Bots can look at all articles in a category and generate metrics. The category is what is important, not the WikiProject tag, but I was not aware of any WikiProject or project of any kind which applied hidden categories to articles for the purpose of generating metrics.
I found one. See Category talk:World Digital Library related. The project at Wikipedia:GLAM/World Digital Library - a page in Category:WikiProject World Digital Library - encourages users to add content from this organization to Wikipedia articles then apply their metrics tracking category to the article. The category is a hidden category. I posted some questions about usage for that category on its talk page. Does anyone know of any guidelines or precedent for such things? It seems great to me and I would like to replicate the model for health organizations which want to track Wikipedia article development and traffic. Bring discussion to Category talk:World Digital Library related. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
FYI, there's a lively discussion going on at Xiangju's talk page regarding the purpose, efficiency, communication, and outreach of WikiProjects. It's part of some research Xiangju is trying to conduct. Check it out. –Mabeenot ( talk) 16:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey all,
Female Name Dropping: I started this thread for the "Hip Hop" Talk Page, referencing names per decade. You can drop more names (and any info you know about them) in the talk thread I started. References to the musicians would be VERY helpful as well, but dropping names is good too - someone can always glean through the list and find links to some of these for addition to the articles later. Many of these artists have their own Wikipedia Page.
Adding Female Names Through-Out the Articles: You can also work on incorporating some of these names into the articles if you can provide resources/links for them & explain their relevance. There have been female hip hop artists from the 80s to today, but there is not adequate representation of these female hip hop artists and their relevance to both the music and their cultural relevance for each decade/subcategory. So please add more of these females. And start dropping more names on the talk page! Both mainstream and alternative, historically and today. See this talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hip_hop#toc, #27, #29, & #30
Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hip_hop#toc Sylvia Blossom ( talk) 20:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Comments are welcome at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#re alphabetizing categories on the article pages (version of
06:54, 8 June 2013).
—
Wavelength (
talk) 16:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
OK Go is one of the finest rock bands and it is a shame that since a while it had a crappy article and still do. I propose this article becomes primarily watched as it is repeatedly glutted with a lot of info (sourced) they say and the whole band is branded as a pop musical cultural revolutional fenomenon. If you wanna get the idea better come to the history page. I propose this article become watched semi-protected or locked to prevent further vandalism and revert wars! Regards: The Mad Hatter ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Social Artist in the 21st Century Current Artists: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialart1 ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I have been running WP:FOUR for about 4 years. I have suddenly encountered some conflict running the project. Does the WikiProject Council have any avenues through which to seek resolution.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ WP:FOUR/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:WAWARD) 22:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I'm trying to create an importance and quality scale for the WikiProject NCIS template but am having trouble getting the rating to show up on the talk pages. Can someone please tell me what needs to be done for this to work correctly? -- 1ST7 ( talk) 19:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Pls how do i get on diz group — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engr Dickdan ( talk • contribs) 08:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Greetings: The entry for Bejamin Wade is too brief and needs to be expanded. I propose to do this by making the outline and total length similar to the current entry for Thaddeus Stevens. Any suggestions would be appreciated. 98.92.153.86 ( talk) 17:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
When there are numerous projects interested in an article, are there any conventions governing the order in which these are presented? Cynwolfe ( talk) 19:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikiproject traditional medicine hopes to increase the coverage on traditional medicine topics, by culture, organisms used and by disease. The article for Aztec medicine is about 3 paragraphs right now; the only traditional medicine articles of any real note currently are traditional chinese medicine and ayuvedric medicine. This project would be mostly for anthropological reasons, which is what differentiates it from alternative medicine. When exactly will Septembers wiki project proposals be shown? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe ( talk • contribs) 14:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Why has not dead yet been removed and apparently nearly every reference to it ? Is Wikipedia ableist?
Ndy should at least be referenced in article on assisted suicide , as a US disability rights org. Etc. Disabed and proud ( talk) 14:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I've tried and as I'm on my mobile system I can't seem to find a way to join. Since I wrote the original article on ableism I do think it would be appropriate. Even if I do join the project, however it would not obviate the original question. What happened to Not Dead Yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disabed and proud ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
It is not good to lead people into projects that are inactive. It is also not good to remove semi-active WikiProjects from talkpages and hasten their demise. Can we come up with some metrics to help guide editors to a project of their choice? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
As a Belgian, I can't allow the example of Germans in WWII in France about the fries, because as everybody knows: fries were invented by Belgians. Why Englishmen called it "French" fries still remains a mystery to me... I dindn't removed it myself because people might think I'm a troll when I delete France and write Belgium...strange, but true... || Have a good day Bellepheron ( talk) 15:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to turn. I've tried numerous things in order to get our project Mind-Body listed under Multidisciplinary. I think I've crossed listed it under Health and Fitness and Medicine, but I'm new to this so I'm not sure I did it correctly. Any help would be appreciated. We proposed the project a long time ago, and now have a group of people who want to join, but I need it listed to make it easier for them to find it. CJ ( talk) 16:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
See this discussion where the subject of excessive tagging has come up. -- 70.24.244.158 ( talk) 12:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
As to whether the issue actually is anything to do with excessive bannering is another matter, which is in effect misrepresenting the issue sats 13:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
There is a proposal to create a joint Task Foce between WikiProject Disability and WikiProject Medicine, I would like to get some guidance here on how such a Task Force is structured so that it can be created if the proposal is accepted by both projects. The guideline page on Task Forces is totally silent on shared TFs. The first question that comes to mind - does the TF page exist under one of the projects with redirects from the other one or is it created in a separate space? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 08:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Could benefit from some more eyes on it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 02:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
One of the structural problems that we have is that anyone can create a WikiProject, or at least create some pages and a banner. A couple of years ago, I started looking at new WikiProjects in an effort to figure out what was likely to result in a successful project. I defined "successful" very loosely, like "some kind of reply to a message on the group's talk page three months after page creation". I never got very far, but the number of people formally pledging to participate before creation (at the /Proposals page) and the experience level of the proposer/creator seemed to be very promising.
My thought was that if we could add to the /Proposals page an informational statement like "Research shows that WikiProjects are almost never successful unless the person proposing it has already been editing for at least six months" or "Research shows that WikiProjects are almost never successful unless at least eight people pledge to support it", with instructions to then join a larger group first, then we might get both fewer proposals and fewer dead projects.
If someone would like to take over that work (actually, if you did it on a large scale, I think it would be publishable), then I'd be happy to figure out where I left my notes. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Template:Infobox task force has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.39 ( talk) 05:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a discussion on the talk page of the WikiProject Council about a proposal to merge a number of WikiProjects. It touches on the governance of WikiProjects in general. The discussion would benefit from much wider participation. The specific proposal, entitled "Merging projects - Fringe", and initial reactions to it, can be found here. An alternate proposal, entitled "Merging projects - Compromise", and reactions to it, can be found here.
Please read both threads carefully. Please comment, under the appropriate subheading of this RfC, on any or all of these three questions.
Do you support or oppose the initial proposal?
Do you support or oppose the alternate proposal?
If you do not support either proposal, should a second RfC be initiated to solicit alterative proposals for a merger of some or all of the projects listed in the initial merger proposal?
Both the role of WikiProjects in general and the specific topic of WP:FRINGE can engender passionate debate. If you choose to participate in this RfC, please try to do so in a manner that sheds more light than it generates heat. Scoring debating points at the risk of damaging the mutual trust necessary for successful collaborative editing is bad. We are not playing a zero-sum game. We are trying to build up a project that some random dude once described this way: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." David in DC ( talk) 03:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
There are a number of inactive or mostly inactive wikiprojects with overlapping areas, which are all related to fringe views. Since the projects are mostly inactive, messages only get responded to infrequently, and most of the projects are in disarray. My proposal is that they all be merged into one wikiproject with different task forces so that we can try and kick some life into a Wikiproject in this area.
Projects:
One way of doing this could be to create, say, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fringe and have 5 or 6 task forces (based on merging in the wikiprojects), such as:
Thoughts?
|
Rather than trying to cram all these into one project, perhaps the field just needs a little reorganization (let's call it community planning since WikiProjects are supposed to be groups of editors working together). From the discussion and the list of project scopes assembled above, it is clear that:
The ultimate goal of all these rearrangements is to make the projects in this field easier to navigate for new contributors, build stronger connections between the projects, consolidate banners for easier assessment, and ensure that editors have somewhere else to turn if they don't get a reply when they post on one project's page. What do you think?
The discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Why_do_the_Collaboration_areas_of_WikiProjects_always_fail? will probably interest most of the people watching this page. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikiproject New Zealand uses an attention parameter and I have suggested that it be deleted. In turn, it was suggested to me that this proposal be advertised here. Please contribute to the discussion if you wish. Schwede 66 07:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Just happened to see this: User:Casliber/Stub contest. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 05:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello all. Please see the idea I mention here which then does link to WT:MED sorry if that's too much. =) Maybe we can focus the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Growth (team)? Thanks all. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Who, exactly, is on this WikiProject Council? Who are the members? Is the Council handled like a WikiProject and anyone who wants to can sign up? Or is this an appointed or elected group? There is surprisingly no information on the Council itself on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. Additional information would be welcomed. Liz Read! Talk! 18:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone point me to an explanation (hopefully one that does not require a PhD :-) of how to construct a wproj banner. I am asking because I just added what I thought was a banner for Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicinal botany to Talk:Chinese_herbology but instead got this: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Chinese_herbology&oldid=580316034 Thanks in advance, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I frequently come across WikiProjects( example) that appear to want to set up article alerts but don't know how to go about it. Just wondering if the council has documentation somewhere about this tool? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
A) recently from Pawn Stars? - info that Studebacker and Packard joined in '52 to form the Stude-Packard company(?). It must not have lasted long, because... B) I am looking a buying a 1955 Packard Clipper - stunning car! Needs minimal restoration. And C) from your information, the company died by 1957.
I would love to find out how many of these things were built. From the seller I have learned that he's only found one other, restored, for sale. It had the first V-8 engine in production. Four wing windows - I'd buy it just for those! I miss them! A trunk large enough to bump off 4 or more bad guys and dump them in the desert! Lots of innovations that took a decade to take hold! Lap belts. He might have said disc brakes. My '63 Avanti has disc brakes all around. A dash along the lines of a ship, in perfect shape. Grew up in a '57 1/2 Ford Fairlane, also rare. Love the two-tone paint jobs of the day. It has the beginnings of fins. Two speed transmission.
This is going to be Fun! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.65.36 ( talk) 07:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I frequently come across WikiProjects( example) that appear to want to set up article alerts but don't know how to go about it. Just wondering if the council has documentation somewhere about this tool? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
A) recently from Pawn Stars? - info that Studebacker and Packard joined in '52 to form the Stude-Packard company(?). It must not have lasted long, because... B) I am looking a buying a 1955 Packard Clipper - stunning car! Needs minimal restoration. And C) from your information, the company died by 1957.
I would love to find out how many of these things were built. From the seller I have learned that he's only found one other, restored, for sale. It had the first V-8 engine in production. Four wing windows - I'd buy it just for those! I miss them! A trunk large enough to bump off 4 or more bad guys and dump them in the desert! Lots of innovations that took a decade to take hold! Lap belts. He might have said disc brakes. My '63 Avanti has disc brakes all around. A dash along the lines of a ship, in perfect shape. Grew up in a '57 1/2 Ford Fairlane, also rare. Love the two-tone paint jobs of the day. It has the beginnings of fins. Two speed transmission.
This is going to be Fun! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.65.36 ( talk) 07:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I wonder whether a true stub, by the traditional assessment criteria, could survive our modern standards for inclusion. On the other side of that coin, I wonder whether a true stub is still a useful thing for Wikipedia. We've definitely seen a trend of "stub extinction", and I can't imagine an actual stub making it through AfC approval. Many things marked as stubs were not stubs, but more start class. Wikipedia is evolving and I wonder if it's time to reassess the assessment criteria, especially with regard to stubs. Gigs ( talk) 17:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I don’t know if this had already been discussed here in the past, but I see that there are more than half a million un-assessed wikiproject articles out of over 4 million total. Since I suspect most of these are stubs, I was wondering if the assessment of wp:stub articles can be automated since the template:stub is already used to classify such articles? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 14:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The only wiki-projects that I have seen consistently assessing new articles assigned to them are WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Aviation.
WikiProject Canada has a dedicated editor who has been assessing articles for many years, but I have seen only one editor do this work in a project that has over 110 thousand articles.
Other wiki-projects seem to rely on editors who are not involved in their project, but do sweeping assessments for many wiki-projects assessing them all uniformly on the same talk page, but some wiki-projects articles are never assessed.
Just wondering if others see things the same way. Thanks in advance for sharing your experiences. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 01:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
HOW DO I MAKE A WIKIPROJECT? I READ THE ARTICLE, BUT IT DID NOT TELL ME HOW TO START! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Today's Xtra ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to propose and start up a new WikiProject called Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy about policy, but as you can see the name is already taken and used to refer as a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines. How do I go about this? I already have a sketch proposal on my user-page. Should I first start Wikipedia:WikiProject Policies? 20:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
In my Wiki-travels I just discovered WikiProject Bible for the first time. I was surprised, though, to see a Christianity-related talkpages banner on top of Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Bible. I had always assumed that the Bible was also important to Judaism. Was I wrong? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 06:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
This has never been a good article so far as I can see, always relying heavily on material from Writer's Digest. I may be the first person to have added an academic source after I removed a self-published source from a Writer's Digest affiliate company last night. Dougweller ( talk) 06:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
at1 one we use international link and your indian editer said no values of this though they uses unculture links like bollowood movie link article is Was there any romance about jodha Akbar.... how they r so cheap — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSA786 ( talk • contribs) 01:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
WPUSA was tagged with Semi-Active earlier today, but there's 12 threads on the talk page in the last 2 months, with over 15 participants. And there's a notice on the talk page, that if there's no response to the person posing a question, then the wikiproject must be inactive, and should so be tagged. What is the meaning of semi-active and inactive? -- 76.65.128.112 ( talk) 05:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
There was a discussion over whether the portals relevant to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film should be used in articles related to film. There are discussions about the case:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 21:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to make the List of notable people under FVEY surveillance a featured list before Feb 11 so that we can include it for our project ( Wikipedia:Surveillance awareness day). As time is running short, is someone willing to help me to do a peer review? That would be very much appreciated. Thanks!
- A1candidate ( talk) 22:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
There have been many controversies regarding the use of the UN geoscheme ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_Nations_geoscheme ), mainly because it is rather arbitrary, in some cases untraditional (UK in Northern Europe, Poland in Eastern Europe and Slovenia in Southern Europe), it makes more difficult to see the whole picture (continent) and the UN statistical division did not imply any universal use of it (if so-to the reverse): http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49.htm . Meanwhile, there are articles emerging on the basis of the United Nations geoscheme such as: /info/en/?search=Talk:List_of_political_parties_by_United_Nations_geoscheme. What is the stance of the Admins?-- 89.128.236.143 ( talk) 00:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 18:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC).
The Wikipedia Signpost is a wonderful reservoir of information about wikipedia. Of particular interest to this wiki-project is the weekly Signpost WikiProject report (currently written by the talented user:Mabeenot). This column has been running since 2007 and has since covered many wikipedia wikiprojects (some more than once). These articles serve as excellent introductions for those new to a project.
Since there are so many different kinds of wikiprojects all comprising different systems/tools/people/subjects/nationalities/etc I find this topic fascinating, and have been systematically trying to catalog all wikiprojects that have been featured in the Signpost alphabetically. So far I have managed to complete only projects covered in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and some of 2007 2011 and 2013. If you are as keen as I am to locate Signpost articles about a certain wikiproject try clicking:
Category:WikiProjects in The Signpost by name
I would apprciate any feedback – positive and negative. Thanks in advance, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 02:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Just a note: This category survived a category deletion nomination and is now facing a redirects deletion nomination. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Neutral Editors I'd like to invite this group to be apart of this discussion as I certainly feel this group could help. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 01:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
...with a wikiproject report covering WikiProject Russia. Too bad this report, which by the way was ready days ago, could not be published before the opening of the Olympic games. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm struggling to understand how to do this so please bear with me. I would like to contribute some, as yet, undisclosed knowledge about gambling as it relates to electromechanical slot machines made by Bally Mfr.
Myself, as well as a handful of other people were able to consistently win while playing a particular (model #1090) Bally machine. I would like to emphasize that we beat the machines legally, by using proper timing and technique as to when and how to pull the handle of the slot. Nothing about this technique was illegal and I managed to make a very good living playing dollar machines in Reno and Las Vegas for over four years, until the electromechanical machines were replaced by electronic machines with random number generators.
We called this technique "rhythm playing." So little is known about it that even what little has been published on the subject is full of misinformation. See: <Dwight and Louise Crevelt's book titled "Slot Machine Mania," Page 142, section titled "Rhythm Method.">
Since no mention of rhythm playing is made in your section on gambling or slot machines, I would like to provide some input on the subject but am totally overwhelmed by the process of doing so with Wikipedia. So, I ask if there might be someone who could guide me in the process. I'm not even sure how to see if anyone responds to this request so I ask that I be contacted through my email: poststump@yahoo.com DWPost 03:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwpost ( talk • contribs)
Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 110#Restrict A class usage. -- Izno ( talk) 14:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Given that the Draft namespace has been in use for a while I would like to propose that a Class rating of "Draft" be added to the default set of "class=" parameters for WikiProject banner templates.
One of the big advantages of the new Draft namespace is the ability to place WikiProject banners on the Talk pages of the Draft pages. This has the effect of notifying relevant Projects of the existence of the draft article. A class=Draft parameter would consequently enable WikiProjects to correctly handle such drafts in their article improvement systems. Another advantage of having a "class=Draft" parameter is that the successor to the current Articles for Creation system would be able to use it in it's systems and procedures. So far I have seen that WP:WikiProject U.S. Roads has already added such a parameter to their banner template, so a precedent already exists. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 12:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Since 27 December, the code at
Template:Class mask has supported Draft-class for any projects that want to use it. It is not added by default (this would require adding a huge number of new categories, and not all projects will want it anyway), but you can just add |draft=yes
to the custom class mask to enable it. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 14:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Dodger67: @ WhatamIdoing: I believe Roger is raising a legitimate point above. I know wikiprojects are discouraged from starting up without the blessing of the "council". But it is not clear to me who sits on the council, and what type of support they offer. Why for example, did I get only one editor offering feedback on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Alphabetical_list_of_WikiProjects_featured_in_the_Signpost ( thank you user:Bluerasberry!)? Is it a bad idea, bad implementation, other? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 01:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on merger of two wikiprojects - WikiProject Women scientists and WikiProject Women of psychology. Your input is welcome here. Djembayz ( talk) 20:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Check it out: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in The Signpost. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 12:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
It would be nice if Wikipedia added a "Forum" button next to the "talk" button on Wikipedia articles so that people can talk about the subject of the article without fear of thought police deleting something that was added to the Talk page and claiming it was under the guidelines that the Talk page is not a forum. I am entering this here because I can not begin to figure out how to properly propose that this feature of a FORUM button be added next to the TALK button on Wikipedia so I am hoping someone will do it for me. 2602:306:C518:6C40:5C5D:F920:659:AC04 ( talk) 02:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Should one create a talk page in order to place a {{WikiProject}} template on it? Or should it be created for certain WikiProjects but not for others (for example WikiProject Disambiguation and/or WikiProject Anthroponymy)? If so, how would one know which yes & which not? -- -- -- 01:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
On talk pages:
- {{ WikiProject Disambiguation}} - Project banner for talk pages with discussion. Please do not use to create talk pages that have no discussion.