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. |
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 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? IRWolfie- ( talk) 19:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
This is sort of cart-before-the-horse. A WikiProject is a group of people. It is not pages or subject matter. Do you have groups of people that actually want to merge? Merging WikiProjects is like merging groups of students who like to eat lunch together. You don't just shove a couple of pages (or lunch tables) together and have everyone suddenly working (or eating) together. The usual result is that most of them simply leave.
You should not create pages for a new group without having an actual group of people who want to use them. You may not merge any existing groups' pages into any other group without first consulting them and getting their agreement to participate in the new group. If you want to do this, then you need to go leave messages at all of the talk pages to propose a voluntary merge. No other type of merge is permitted (or feasible in practice, due to offended people simply leaving if you try to force them into a group that they don't want to join). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I would say that "astrology" TF should be "astrology and geomancy" ; and that cryptozoology, UFOlogy and paranormal can be one TF; and "Creationism" should be "Creationism and intelligent design"; and a "conspiracy theories" TF should exist (possibly for the secret societies WPP) -- 70.24.244.158 ( talk) 04:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
If these projects are merged, IRWolfie and others should probably work out a new scope. Dimadick ( talk) 00:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I oppose.. It seems like just shuffling around busy work. And just because I'm not on the Skepticism page making comments doesn't mean I'm not active. I do edits practically every day. Cap020570 ( talk) 11:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I Oppose the merger. I am a member of the Skepticism page. I'm not convinced that merging our project page with a handful of inactive projects under the heading of "fringe" will benefit anyone. Paranormal phenomena is just one part of the skeptic project. The project also covers philosophy, science, religion... Dustinlull ( talk) 13:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
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? –Mabeenot ( talk) 16:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Please note: Trying to attract additional input from uninvolved editors, I recast this conversation as an RfC, below. The comments there were inconclusive except to suggest little support for the initial proposal. The proposer graciously collapsed that part of the RfC. The remainder of the conversation was inconclusive, but can serve to inform further discussion. David in DC ( talk) 15:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I have read and digested the issues discussed above. I think what can be supported, and what is objected to can be addressed by the following:
Greg, I feel like I'm not getting this message through to you. A WikiProject is a group of people. It is not subject areas. WikiProject Skepticism is welcome to tag all of the articles currently tagged by these projects (or any articles they want, including articles found through Special:Random.
Nobody can take a group of people—not even an apparently quiet group of people—and say "All your people is now belong to me". I want you to imagine that we're not talking about "WikiProjects". I want you to imagine that we're talking about kids who hang out in different places around the school building. What you are proposing is that you should go over to several groups and say, "You are not going to hang out over here any longer. You are going to hang out over here with me now, and furthermore, I don't care whether you agree to this". Forcibly taking over a WikiProject is likely to be just as ineffective as forcibly taking over a group of friends at school.
This is not okay. This is rude to these people. You are not permitted to simply take over groups of people because you think that your interest relates to their interest. There are objections (including mine) at WT:ALTMED and other groups to this plan. You can support the articles, but you cannot takeover the people. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 25 for the discussion about a particular shortcut to a template, and the formatting it should use in general and in particular. -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 23:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The signpost wikiproject report published an unusually popular report on February 10 on the topic of Countering Systemic Bias. Editors are still commenting there. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 17:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I saw this statement posted here. Is this true? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
One of the chores I have taken upon myself at Wikipedia is putting appropriate project banners on article/category talkpages. This is an activity that gets very little attention, but few who noticed thanked me for it.
There are several reasons for placing project banners on talkpages. For example:
I just ran into an unusual situation where the banners I placed on a talk page have been removed. Are there any policies/guidelines about who should place/remove project banners? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
(Since WhatamIdoing said above that A WikiProject is a group of people I wonder added by Ottawahitech ( talk) 19:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC) ) what about large projects with sub-projects? As an exaple I recently tagged Death cap with Wikiproject Medicine banners, which were promptly removed with the edit summary not in scope of wp:MED despite having sections titled: Toxicity,Treatment and Symptoms . I then posted a question to the Toxicology taskforce but the only response I received was from someone who is not a project member. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 12:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, a WikiProject is a group of people; but generally the topics of interest to the folks of WPMED (aka scope of the project) are well-defined. Regarding the particular issue of Amanita phalloides, there is somewhat-related guidance at WP:MEDA#Is WPMED the correct WikiProject to support this article?. In the "Use judgment" section, you can somewhat compare it with:
Microbes, pathogens, and infectious diseases: Infectious diseases should be tagged with WPMED. Organisms should be tagged with {{ WikiProject Micro}} and, if applicable, {{ WikiProject Viruses}} or {{ WikiProject Fungi}} instead of WPMED. Exceptions include pathogens that cause various illnesses that do not have their own disease names and infections that are treated medically to prevent progression to disease."
For the most part, if an illness or disease has its own article, then just that and not the pathogen should be tagged. Maybe this line in WP:MEDA should be expanded to include toxins. The occasional exception is if there is a lot of clinical content within the pathogen article. In this case, yes - there is a lot of clinical content in the article...but should the clinical content be in the article about the species when there are more appropriate places for it? Amanita phalloides is a more developed article than Mushroom poisoning and alpha-Amanitin (which both definitely belong in WPMED/Tox). But since all of the toxicological/clinical information applies to any organism containing alpha-Amanitin, wouldn't that be a better place for the content? The amanita phalloides article has been bulked up to achieve FA status. However, a tenet of Wikipedia is to not have duplicate content between similar articles. If alpha-Amanitin is a more appropriate place, then should the Biochemistry/Symptoms/Treatment sections be moved there? In its current state, alpha-Amanitin looks like it was written just by chemists. But that doesn't mean there should not be a clinical component to the article. I'm not saying any of this definitely should be done, just something to think about. -- Scott Alter ( talk) 06:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thanks to wikipedia for giving good platform for knowledge sharing pratap puranik ,independent social worker rk community research foundation,ramkrushna krupa walmiki nagar barshi rd latur mh india working in field of malnutrition,human health,child health etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puranik01 ( talk • contribs) 09:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi hope some one can help I have lots of the Asian wild life cards series a mostly was thinking of selling them how would I do this any help thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnyjay69 ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on merger of two wikiprojects - Finance and Investing. Your input is welcome here.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 15:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I've been working with Category:Inactive WikiProjects and I'd like to expand the range of "types" that are used for categorizing WikiProjects. For example, there is only 1 WikiProject in the "anime" type but there are lots of science, species, religion, literature and Wikipedia-related WikiProjects. It would be very useful to create separate categories for related inactive WikiProjects so they can be easily brought to the attention of other WikiProjects that are active in these areas.
There are topical subcategories in Category:WikiProjects but they don't have the functionality of actually adding to the number of types which then sort WikiProjects. I've asked several editors about this but haven't gotten a response so I hope I can hear back from someone who might know how to do this. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
There has been a discussion concerning WikiProject Espionage to be renamed as WikiProject Espionage, Intelligence, Surveillance. In its current form (WP: Espionage), there is a number of articles. Unfortunately, countless articles that have been tagged "WikiProject Intelligence" becomes mixed up with the WikiProject Espionage. I have managed to correct quite a few of these mistakes and assess the WikiProject Espionage articles.
My concern if WP:Espionage does undergo a overhaul and incorporate other things (such as "Intelligence" and "Surveillance", that would be incroaching on WP:Mass Surveillance and WikiProject Intelligence, hence why "Espionage" is such a narrow part of society. I can only assume that why this WikiProject was setup was to fill a void of people who were either pending charges or have been charged for Espionage. They would be suited in this WikiProject.
I realise that WP:Espionage has only a handful of members. I do see a positive point of having this on Wikipedia. It would be ashame to have to close it. Adamdaley ( talk) 05:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I noticed this thing floating about, it is not linked to from the proposal page, nor is it descriptive enough to discern what it is. Speedy delete or MfD? -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 01:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I just visited Wikipedia:WikiProject United Kingdom and found to my surprise that it is marked inactive? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
70.50.151.11, here is a list of criteria for evaluating WikiProject status from Template:WikiProject status. Liz Read! Talk! 17:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Minor fiddling with formatting, automatic archiving, and unanswered messages to the WikiProject from outsiders ("Could someone with this project please help me with...") or from bots do not count as signs of project activity. Any editor may add this {{WikiProject status|Semi-active}} template to the top of any apparently semi-active WikiProject. Any member of the project may remove it if it is placed in error. Upon removal, please consider placing a message on the WikiProject's talk page to indicate that the group is still active. If almost no activity occurs in this WikiProject, consider replacing this tag with {{WikiProject status|Inactive}}.
Minor fiddling with formatting, automatic archiving, and unanswered messages to the WikiProject from outsiders ("Could someone with this project please help me with...") or from bots do not count as signs of project activity. Any editor may add this {{WikiProject status|Inactive}} template to the top of any apparently inactive WikiProject. Any member of the project may remove it if it is placed in error. Upon removal, please consider placing a message on the WikiProject's talk page to indicate that the group is still active. |
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Legal or Medical advice that may be of interest.
It concerns requests for legal or medical advice posted to one of the reference desks.
I am posting this here because of a potential conflict between the talk page guidelines and reference desk guidelines -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
medam assalamu alaikum apnar sate jojajoger kono line amar jana nei tai avabe apner kase liklam.amar mobil no 01722359280 email.ruhulkhan.dulu@gmail.com.ami 4 sonttaner pita amar stri akjon manosik varsammohin mohila se amar songser sere 4 bassake fele sylhet take nowgaon rajsahi te akti kharap loker barite giye utece ami onek kosto kore tar sonddan milaiya tahake anntte parcina tai amake sahajo korile ami amar pagol bow ke bassader nikot fire antte pari — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ruhulkhan.dulu (
talk •
contribs) 12:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic gender bias. Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 13:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm putting forward an IEG Project Proposal to investigate how the interaction of Wikipedia members at offline meetup events such as Hackatons or Wikimania may have an effect on the productivity of those members and their participation in Wikipedia. You can read the project proposal here and I'd appreciate the input of community members who have visited these events before. Do you think there is a specific area of these meetups that would better reveal how participation is impacted? How do you define participation in Wikipedia? Any comments would be welcome! OSUBrit ( talk) 21:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Just to let those interested know that I have initiated a BOT request to have wp:WikiProject African diaspora categories and articles added to the wikiproject. If anyone is interested I will try to remember to post updates here. Please notify me when you respond. Thanks in advance, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 18:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an 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) 05:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC).
What would be an awards of the intensified participants of wikiproject groups? ..... am Jesmion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.206.11.101 ( talk) 21:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I think that two somewhat inactive projects, Wikipedia:WikiProject Latinos, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexican-Americans should be merged, with mexam being a task force of latinos. (i took off inactive tags due to my editing). The project would continue to be supported by Wikipedia:WikiProject United States, as "latinos" should have been. The project should have its name changed to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Hispanic and Latino Americans, matching conventional use here of the terms. "Latinos" appeared to initially be for latino/hispanic americans, but was starting to cover all latin am peoples, but thats way too much overlap with Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin America, which presumably covers that adequately. I hope that the merge discussion might engender some more actual participation in the projects. I definitely dont want to be the only editor to try to merge the project pages, and i of course no idea how to program the change, but i would be willing to a make whole lot of manual changes if thats whats called for (i added the SF Bay Area task force to hundreds of articles). As a side note, i did revamp the Portal:Hispanic and Latino Americans, but i may not be able to continue to work on that. at least its not completely moribund and out of date now. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 04:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
See for a nice explanation by User: Rich Farmbrough here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Request_for_article_statistics_list_on_WP:Physiology X Ottawahitech ( talk) 19:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
03:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
See {{ WikiProject status/Active}} and {{ WikiProject status}} which have been nominated to be merged -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 22:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
There's an important request for comment regarding the possible merger of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailor Moon to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#RfC. Your comments and input on the situation would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 06:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I see that some projects have access to activity levels of contributors to articles tagged by the respective w-proj. Just wondering how they do this so it can be accomplished by other wikiprojects? Thanks in advance, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 14:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I say this because my proposal was made more than 2 months ago and hasn't gotten any feedback yet. Does anyone know how I could change that? Jinkinson talk to me 18:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The most certain way to guarantee that an idea will NOT be implemented is to propose it. Greg Bard ( talk) 19:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk) 14:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear Wikiproject council members: Now that the new Draft and Draft talk spaces are up and running, there has been some talk of the advisability of adding Wikiproject banners to the talk pages of drafts. The hope would be that members of the Wikiproject would become aware of drafts in their area of interest and perhaps improve them or advise the editors who had created the drafts. It has been pointed out that there may be ramifications outside the space, for example in gathering statistics, or in the workflow of groups who spend time placing the banners, etc. A discussion about this is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Adding Wikiproject banners to drafts, and someone from your group may wish to comment. — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Recent discussion regarding Wikinews indicated that there isn't really that much effort from that many people regarding the content of that WF entity. I can speak from some recent experience that at least a few other entities, like Wikisource, don't get that much attention or effort either. Yeah, the rules of each entity are different, but that difference would allow for inclusion of some material in those other entities which might be important, if not necessarily encyclopedic. Also, speaking from some review of the matters here myself, there are still a lot of articles of fairly obvious notability and significance which can be found even in some older reference sources but can't be found here yet.
Regarding specifically wikisource, over at wikisource:User:John Carter I have a rather longish list of several hundred well-regarded PD reference sources in all areas which are available as pdf files, and whose articles in many cases would be extremely useful for both providing at least some useful, readily-available content for some wikipedia articles, and providing sources to establish both the notability and an indicator of potential content for articles not yet created. Unfortunately, I can also say that it takes the better part of an hour to proofread a single page from Encyclopedia Britannica, at least for me, and the comparatively few editors such sister entities have clearly isn't enough for all the work available. Luckily, several other reference works, with the large print they used in ye olde dayes, take only about 15 minutes a page to proofread, because of the relatively small amount of text per page.
For those of you involved in trying to get WikiProjects to work, I was wondering what you might think of what ways, if any, we might be able to call attention to content of other entities, if we should even try to do so. All input is more than welcome. John Carter ( talk) 21:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
See the discussion here. RockMagnetist ( talk) 03:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Template:WPRedirect ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion; this is the project banner for WP:WikiProject Redirect -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 08:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi all! There is a growing interest in, and utilization of manual medicine in health care, primarily for neuromusculoskeletal disorders. Manual medicine is practiced by a wide variety of practitioners and has a long history as a therapeutic intervention. The sciences of manual medicine has exploded in the last 20 years, with tons of research and textbooks devoted to the subject [2], [3], [4], [5], and many others. Google Scholar list 2 650 000 hits [6] and over 4200 systematic reviews on PubMed [7]. There is tons of scientific research regarding manual medicine and I'd like to get the ball rolling for a new group to explore this aspect of health care. DVMt ( talk) 02:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, there's a discussion regarding the articles in WikiProject Somalia here about whether the categories should be "A-class Somalia articles" or "A-class WikiProject Somalia articles," etc. I'm appreciate any views from here. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 135#Help making a template -- Moxy ( talk) 22:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I have a dispute with another user who is dual=tagging articles tagged by WikiProject equine with WikiProject Mammals as well. I have always understood that rarely is there a need to double-tag "parent" and "child" wikiprojects. The other user feels differently. See conversation here. If I'm wrong on this, I'll back off, but my understanding is that double-tagging is a colossal waste of time. Please advise. Montanabw (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Have asked at Template talk:WPBannerMeta#Question. John Carter ( talk) 20:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
(outdent) - It would be easily possible to add optional "Mammals" parameters to the Cats banner or other banners with the Mammals project appearing in the "drop-down" section if that is what you are asking. Are there specific templates you would want to see it added to? John Carter ( talk) 19:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
|mammals=yes
) --
Redrose64 (
talk) 23:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
need what? help NOW NOW OR CUT YOU means life in life I CAN"T TELL YOU SORRY
How do you join wikiprojects? Do you just add the userbox to your user page, or is it more complicated than that? Also how do I fix the formatting of this text? User J Dalek 23:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
What is a wiki pedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.64.76.174 ( talk) 15:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Anyone who assesses articles very often knows how often the assessments get out of date, and how tedious it is to re-check them manually.
Nettrom and Aaron Halfaker have analyzed all 9,000+ plus of the WP:MED stubs and found about 750 that they figured had at least a 50% chance of not being a stub. The list has been posted at m:Research:Ideas/Screening WikiProject Medicine articles for quality/Prediction table. The next step is to manually re-screen the pages on the list, to see how accurate their algorithm is. If anyone's interested, please feel free to have a look. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Template:COTWs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion; this template interlinks wikiproject collaboration areas -- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 07:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm new but am interested in getting in on one of these projects. Does anyone know of a good place to read? Want to understand what I'm doing before diving in. Thanks! Jordanrolsen ( talk) 23:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal for the inclusion of the major digital music distributors, in regards to very specific music charts, which are not yet covered by Wikipedia. Input and the discussion can be found here. prokaryotes ( talk) 23:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm just a bit curious. Is it heard of to have admins listing their names in wikiprojects officially as a way of saying that they're "on call" for issues affecting articles in the project? Beyond this, is it heard of for projects to have lists of members who pledge to help with disputes that come up with articles in the project? Thanks for any thoughts. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Last month, Mercurywoodrose and I discussed on the possibility of merging WikiProjects Latinos and Mexican-Americans with WikiProject United States and turning the Mexican-American project into a task force for the Latinos project. This been brought on all three WikiProjects last month and there has been no discussion since then. Erick ( talk) 11:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on possibly making Draft-class one of the default assessment classes used by WikiProjects. Any comments welcome at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Widen usage of Draft-class. Thank you — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 13:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Even before working up infrustructure and deciding on priorities, Wikiproject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force already is having problem with disruption via some individuals. They have wikihounded women to the task force (causing two to quit already, leaving long disgruntled posts), imposing unwanted agendas through constant argumentation, and made repeated accusatory and nasty comments on anything they disagree with. One past and probably future poster already admitted elsewhere he wanted the task force gone.
At this point those actually interested in an effective project have been a bit reluctant to quickly remove/hat/close/archive disruptive comments/threads, though I think that will change. There already has been a warning that Men's Right's community sanctions could be invoked should individuals have a definitive history on men's rights-related articles. Some problems, should they continue, also may be dealt with via the sexology arbitration. But other issues are not yet covered by any general sanctions and aren't always dealt with well at ANI, though that may have to be the next step. (I assume WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard would not deal with them.)
Are there any other steps well-meaning members of the project can take to deal with chronic disruption? Thanks for your help. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 14:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Per discussion above, Here is an ANI posting regarding problems at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 19:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I know that some of you deal with new users, and I thought that you might like to look at the ideas posted here: Sixty ways to help new editors. It has a lot of ideas, and it would be easy for anyone to find one or two things to try out for a while. If your WikiProject wants to increase the number of good-faith editors working in your area, then trying to support and collaborate with new, good-faith editors is one of the most effective things that you can do. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Can I suggest that there is drive to improve 'articles on national and other archives' - too many are not present, or are one sentence (with no links to the relevant websites/other sources).
I am looking after/developing the Wikia archives wiki [8] - which can be made use of if appropriate. Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to suggest a feature. I have no idea of this is the right place, but it's the closest I could find. The Random Article funciton on wiki is very alluring, but it's always leading to people and places. It would be neat if there were a feature that allowed you include/exclude categories when loading a random wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.89.57 ( talk) 15:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I try to revive the inactive project WP:ECONOMICS, but I can't because some administrators that have never participated in the project take all sorts of offenses. Don't remove your project banner from my site, don't clean up the project page etc. What can I do so they just leave me alone? Recreate the project under a new name? NotYetAnotherEconomist ( talk) 20:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Please comment. Gryllida ( talk) 23:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
In this discussion, I basically have the idea of moving WP:WikiProject Emo, which is inactive, to WP:WikiProject Post-hardcore (possibly as a child project of WP:WikiProject Punk music). This is for a couple of reasons:
Hopefully this justifies the creation of a broader WikiProject that is also distinct from WikiProjects for punk and alternative rock music. It seems like I'm getting some ok consensus both on Wikipedia discussion and meat space discussion.
My questions and concerns: What are the steps I need to take to do this? Is this similar to merging two WikiProjects? What is the easiest way to move all subpages of WikiProject Emo to the new WikiProject's namespace?
ozhu ( talk· contribs) 01:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
What's the point of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals process if people just ignore it and go start projects that failed to gain support anyway? If this process doesn't become, through a WP:RFC or WP:PROPOSAL, tied directly to WP:MFD to remove projects that garnered little or no support, then shouldn't /Proposals itself just go away? I'd rather see the former, of course. We have way, way too many moribund, poorly-thought-out microprojects. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I am member of the Discography WikiProject and while I edit discography projects I always turn to this, however it has became dormant. I believe this should not by any means be dormant and should be an active guideline, discographies should be similar so as they are easily recognised from article to article. Can someone help me make this active again and also help me make it more of a guideline or standard for other discography pages? I have no idea how to make it active again and since hardly anyone patrols/watches this page I got no response there. SilentDan ( talk) 20:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Anyone willing to help me here? SilentDan ( talk) 21:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
hi everybody! The article on Sihanoukville has been created in 2005 or so - i presume without clear geographical definition - there used to be any sort of content in it, relating to both, the city and the province too....i went through the entire content around a month ago and did a general clean-up. The article is now explicitly subjected to the province, although content needs further sorting. I have by now relevant content to create the "city" article. Anyhow - I tried to move the existing article to: "Sihanoukville province" - didn't work. Creating an article "Sihanoukville province" or "Sihanoukville city" doesn't work either - because creator redirects to existing article.
Any suggestions? ...and thanks a lot for your attention!!! I am grateful for any reply! All the best!!! Wikirictor ( talk) 21:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I have submitted a proposal for a Wikimedia Foundation Individual Engagement Grant to study WikiProjects. The proposal is called WikiProject X and seeks to study editing communities within the English Wikipedia. View the proposal here and feel free to leave comments there! Harej ( talk) 23:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
When using this redirect (or section) as a guideline for explaining why a project banner can't be removed if the project insists on including it, it has the effect of seemingly accusing the remover of WP:OWN. I wish there could be a softer redirect and softer title for this section. I would recommend a section title like "WikiProjects hold sway over articles included in their projects". The section should include a discussion of WP:OWN but I think that sometimes people who don't necessarily demonstrate an article ownership problem will remove a project banner they don't think belongs. Thoughts? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 10:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
My suggestion has been unfortunately misinterpreted. Let me rephrase the title suggestion: "WikiProjects hold sway over which articles are included in their projects" -- this has nothing to do with control over content. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Even though a consensus wasn't sought for the changes to the section, I have read the changes to the section, and I can't say I disagree with any of them. They still underscore the point that projects pretty much have the say over which articles they include; that is, what their scope is. However, the reason I started this discussion is that linking to the section seems to accuse a project banner remover of WP:OWN, while that is not necessarily the problem in any particular case. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
There are major problems with the changes in this diff. Here is the important background:
So S McCandlish writes (without realizing it, I'm sure), in effect, "If I join a group of people because we all want to work on articles about widgets, then let's let "RFCs" and "other community processes" dominated by total outsiders, people who have no interest at all in widgets, decide which articles I and my teammates have to edit and support. Let's not let us mere WP:VOLUNTEERs decide which articles we'll edit and which ones we want to check at AFDs and which ones should have a note on the talk page saying, 'If you need help with this article, then our group's talk page is over here, and we're willing to support improvements to this article'. No, deciding for ourselves which articles we'll edit would be impermissible OWNership! Independent, voluntary choice of which articles to support is only for individuals, not for people who like collaborating with others. Once you form a little group that wants to support articles only about widgets, then other people should certainly be able to force you to deal with complaints about BLP violations in widget inventors biographies or AFDs about songs that mention widgets, too, because they're The Community™ and They Know Best what articles your little group of VOLUNTEERS should be working on."
See how that doesn't work? If you and three wikifriends get together and make a list of 200 articles that your little group wants to improve, then you should be permitted to do that. You should not have some outsider—not even a bunch of outsiders—show up and demand that your list of articles (your "scope") be changed to suit their POV about which articles ought to be editing.
This is the important point: WikiProjects have absolute, exclusive control over just this one thing: the list of pages they choose to support (including their choice not to support some pages). That's it: they control the list itself, which we call "their scope". They do not have any control over what goes into those articles. They do not have any control over the format of those articles. They do not have any control over any guidelines or policies related to those articles. They do not have any control over any other group's list. The only thing that they control is their own list.
I cannot imagine why anyone thinks it would be good, or useful, or wise, or effective, for people outside a group to force the people inside a group change the list of articles that the group has WP:VOLUNTEERed to work on. Other editors are never permitted to demand that the list of articles at User:SMcCandlish#What I'm working on now... be changed to include articles that The Community™ thinks SMcCandlish should work on, but that SMcCandlish does not want to work on. We all know that would be a perfectly unreasonable demand: he's a volunteer, and works on whatever he wants. Also, we all know that it wouldn't work, because he'd quit in protest, and then we'd lose a useful editor. So why on Earth would anyone believe that other editors should be permitted to demand exactly the same thing for a WikiProject composed of SMcCandlish and a couple of other editors?
Having said all of that, the usual reason for someone worrying about this section is because some representative of a WikiProject has forgotten that their group's control ends with their right to make the list of articles they want to support, and starts claiming that their group gets to control content, too, for anything on their list. This is nonsense; small groups of editors calling themselves a WikiProject get absolutely no extra rights compared to any other group of editors. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages for the guideline on that, and feel free to make it clearer and stronger whenever you find ways to improve it. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
PS: I slightly tweaked your version, of your changes after my WP:BOLD rewrite, to remove the "legacy histrionics" like huge swaths of boldfacing, and the odd "exclusive rights" legalistic stuff, also present in the old version. Maybe that's enough to arrive at a compromise text? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Part of why the page in question, WP:WikiProject Council/Guide, is so poorly understood, infrequently referenced by others, and POV-pushed in weird directions, is probably its location/name, and the fact that its talk page redirects here. WP:WikiProject Council is a wikiproject itself, an internal one like WP:WikiProject Inline templates. It might be better to have this at WP:WikiProjects guideline or something, and give it its own talk page. Regardless, we may need to check and make sure it's listed in all the categories, lists and templates of guidelines. I hazard a guess that 9 out of 10 experienced Wikipedians have no idea the page exists at all. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, where I can find recent changes in WikiProject Germany? There used to be tool for that but don't know what happened. -- Xoncha ( talk) 22:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Are there any statistics on which wikiproject is the most vandalised one? I need it for my research (I am a Ph.D. student). Srijankedia ( talk) 17:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Srijankedia. I have some datasets that you might find useful. You can find a dataset of reverted and reverting revisions in english wikipedia here: [9] Not all reverts are for vandalism, but most all vandalism gets reverted. This dataset should provide you with some signal. Here's a quick description of the fields in the datasets:
These files are complete for page_ids 0-43609236 and revision ids 0-622033840. Practically, that means these datasets represent complete data up to August 8th, 2014. -- EpochFail ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
That link works fine if you change "https" to "http". It looks like mediawiki is trying to be smart by having you connect via SSL (which is totally not necessary and won't work) Try copy-pasting this into your URL bar. http://datasets.wikimedia.org/public-datasets/enwiki/reverts/ -- EpochFail ( talk • contribs) 00:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Sure! You could do it with the API like this [12] or with Quarry like this [13]. -- EpochFail ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Great that works perfectly! Thanks! Srijankedia ( talk) 02:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, there seems to be some issues in the dataset that you gave the link to. For example: revision id 619251395 by Jacklikedick187 made at 06:08, 31 July 2014 was reverted by Bongwarrior at 07:26, 31 July 2014 [14]. However, the dataset does not mention that this edit was reverted. Any pointers in the direction or am I looking at things wrong? Thanks Srijankedia ( talk) 03:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I tag alot of biographies for inclusion within their countries sports sub-projects. For example, people from Australia, Canada, Russia and Hungary. Some of them use the parameter "|sports=yes" and others use "|sport=yes". Is there a way to standarize these? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
it is going on the co2 concetration in the extratosphere reducing low rate average to achive minor earth warming in short term with a hi- tech platform, decreasing the abnormal climate temperature and avoiding the effect of adverse phenomene world wide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.158.105.217 ( talk) 19:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The page above, and its related pages, are ones I am working on developing with material from the ALA Guide to Reference databank. On completion of adding all the relevant encyclopedias where it seems appropriate, I hope to add the other entries in that databank, along with other material from other sources, to a yet-to-be started similar Bibliography of reference works. FWIW, the Guide to Reference databank has over 3000 sources listed, and it looks like maybe 20% or so might be encyclopedic. So these lists are gonna get long. If anyone were to want to offer any help or suggestions in how to structure the pages for the optimum utility of their potential users, I would be more than grateful. John Carter ( talk) 16:22, 12 December 2014 (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.
In this CFD, we renamed the WikiProject Somalia articles as: Category:WikiProject Somalia articles by quality, Category:A-Class WikiProject Somalia articles, Category:B-Class WikiProject Somalia articles, etc. (because WikiProject Somalia does not necessarily only pertain to the country of Somalia). In contrast, something like Category:WikiProject Athletics articles goes by Category:Athletics articles by quality, Category:A-Class Athletics articles is inaccurate and somewhat confusing because these are identified by the WikiProject not because they necessarily are articles on Athletics (which are under Category:Athletics (sport)). I'd like to see if there's a broader consensus to support this naming convention in full. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 09:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a new project and I wonder if there is something missing. Tetra quark ( talk) 18:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Wikiroject should start to add assist stats in Footballer career statistics tables on footballer pages it would make their stat tables look a whole lot better because users who go on footballer wiki pages like to look at statistics. There is a very reliable website on http://www.espnfc.com/barclays-premier-league/23/statistics/assists that record assists. Some footballers stat tables look a bit bland on wiki because they don't score a huge amount such as players like Xavi Hernandez and Andres Iniesta but but they make a lot of assists another side to their game. ( http://www.espnfc.com/player/12907/xavi?season=2009 same website but has Spanish La Liga player recorded assists). Assists are just as important as goals. This is what an assist is an Assist was awarded to the player who had given the last pass to the goalscorer.. please will someone edit Frank Lampard's career statistics table and put in the stats table Lampard's premier league assists also his assists in all competitions for Chelsea because that is another important side to his game. The same for players like Paul Scholes, Ryan Giggs, Steven Gerrard. This will improve their statistics table. If you go on http://www.espnfc.com/player/8941/frank-lampard?season=2014 All of Lampard's assists for Chelsea and Manchester City have been recorded on that website. On that site the letter A in the table is for Assists and G is for Goals. It's a reliable site. On the site at top of the table on right side next to career click on 2014-15then all the years Lampard has played for Chelsea and his stats will open. Hope this helps you out.-- CescFabregas4CFC ( talk) 20:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I was looking for WP:Assessment and (as you can tell) ended up here.
Having asked around a bit over time, I still don't quite understand what we're doing, and how we're doing it, regarding article assessments for importance. Please note that it is not my intention to start a discussion about article assessments as concerns article quality, only about the importance aspect!
Couldn't Since the word "importance" be is considered problematic, especially for biographical articles assessed to be of "Importance: low", whereas "Priority: low" [etc.] could be seems better, with the couldn't stricter policy be the addition - right there! - of the name of the user giving h personal opinion ("assessment") in each case?
I may very well be underenlightened now in having an opinion which rather stongly objects to our regularly evaluating life stories, expecially those under WP:BLP, as of "high", "medium" or "low importance" - that (to boot!) being one of the the first things a reader sees very prominently displayed when visiting such an article's talk page, and that based solely on our own personal opinions, as far as I know, rather than on any other more substantial and neutrally reliable foundation. I don't see what gives us that right, nor why any such privilege or responsibility should exist for Wikipedia editors to exercise that kind of personal authority over other named individuals, living or dead, and their reputations.
Certainly other editors may also have questioned things like this (though Wikipower also may tend to corrupt us)?
Find a Grave is actually (for once) much more careful with something - the word "important" - than we are here, and they only deal with dead people. That's rather odd, I think. I'm absolutely not suggesting that we should use levels of fame for biography assessment, as they do, just that we look at something better than what we're doing now.
As with all my opinions, even the strongest ones, I am always open to clear, constructive, non-personalized, well-founded arguments aimed at changing them. Looking forward to such input, I remain sincerely -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 22:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
"what gives us that right". Importance ratings are about the article's importance and they say nothing about the subject. It's not a value judgement. If there's a specific case that's bothering you please take it up with WikiProject Biography. Don Quixote called and he wants his horse back. Chris Troutman ( talk) 00:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The priority level is not a matter of personal opinion. It is a matter of group opinion.
The main question to be answered is, "If you were making a fixed copy of Wikipedia (e.g., on paper or DVD), to put in a school or a library in a place without internet access, and you could not include everything, then what articles would you include in the first (smallest) copy, which ones in an expanded version, and which ones only if there were plenty of room to spare?"
Additionally, this forms the "priority" for a group that cares about each subject, so that the group will improve the articles that are more "important" to readers who want to learn about that subject.
This per-subject approach results in significant differences. For example, Leonardo da Vinci is on the WP:VITAL list, which means that if you are copying only ~1,000 articles—just 0.02% of our articles—then you should always include that one. But from the perspective of medicine-related articles—meaning, if you were making a list of the 1,000 most important medical articles to copy—he wouldn't be anywhere near the top of the list. You'd want articles like Common cold and Influenza and Sanitation and Antibiotics instead.
This isn't because da Vinci wasn't "important"; it's because there are more urgent "priorities" for a specifically medicine-related collection. This difference in focus creates differences in the ratings by project.
Frankly, there are hundreds of thousands of people whose bios will never rate inclusion in an offline copy with a general focus, just like there are billions of people whose bios will never rate inclusion in the English Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that they are less worthy as humans.
The question of the parameter label has come up multiple times before. The problem with fixing it is practical: To change just the label for WP:MED (where that change would be supported) requires editing 33,000 talk pages (and one template). That's a lot of work to do on the off-chance that someone might be unhappy with a parameter name that isn't even visible unless you edit the page.
(It's possible to change the text of the WikiProject banner without changing the actual parameter itself. If we did this at the main template, it would flood the job queue for a while, but that's not necessarily a blocker.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I'm part of the popular culture working group of Wikiproject Korea. As far as I can tell, the main WP has no admins, as there are none listed. The popular culture working group covers TV, movies, celebrities of all type, music, and such things. Right now, the few active members are trying to work intensively on a subset of these articles, the ones pertaining to Korean pop music. This includes biographical articles of people and groups, albums, EPs, songs, discographies, concert tours, etc. - they're spread out across a variety of different categories. One thing I'm struggling with is keeping track of all these articles, which are numerous. Wikipedia categories aren't too helpful because, again, the articles are split between many, many categories. And tracking them with the WP/working group's banner tag brings up all articles in the working group, which number in the thousands. I thought while we work on this little project, there might be some way to add another element to the WP tag, to allow tracking of just the articles we designate as fitting within the project. However, I'm not sure how to proceed either procedurally or from a technical point of view (I know zilch about templates or the like). Can you give me some advice? Thanks so much! Shinyang-i ( talk) 05:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
If you are curious to learn more about Article alerts here is a 2009 Signpost article about it. Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Council! I would like to recommend that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory be automated. There is no reason this needs to be maintained by human hands when it can be done automatically, plus the pages in the directory do not get edited enough for me to believe that any of it is up to date. The bot maintaining the directory would have two tasks: (1) scouring the categories of WikiProjects and generating lists on that basis; (2) updating WikiProject's classification as active/inactive. The former task would run more frequently, mostly to pick up on new WikiProjects, and the latter task would run less frequently. The bot lists would be tested in a sandbox before they replace the directory.
For this to work, especially the second part, we need to come up with objective definitions of active, semi-active, inactive, and defunct WikiProjects. If we are going to be labeling WikiProjects as such, we should at least standardize the terminology so we can get some proper metrics. First, I recommend collapsing the current four status categories into just "active" and "inactive." I don't see any practical difference between "inactive" and "defunct," and "semi-active" is ambiguous; does a semi-active project meet a basic minimum level of activity or not? In any case, I would recommend defining it according to the number of people editing (since WikiProjects are supposed to be collaborative after all). The number has to be the smallest that would suggest there is still a project going; I recommend at least three editors making at least two edits to all project pages (including WT pages and subpages) in a six month period. Three people indicates a group; the two edit requirement filters out most people dropping by to make random announcements (like yours truly). An inactive project is anything that falls below that.
Any thoughts? Harej ( talk) 04:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The one biggest reservation I can imagine would lie in addition and classification of new projects, or, specifically, figuring out exactly where to add them. I don't know that a bot would be able to do that, particularly if a given WikiProject would not unreasonably be included in more than one section of the directory. But I suppose it might be possible for a computer generated list to create a list of projects to be added which involved individuals could then use to update the directory. John Carter ( talk) 18:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I started doing some work with organizing Category:WikiProjects. I created a new parent category, Category:WikiProjects by area, where pretty much all projects will be sorted under. The main subcategories of the "WikiProjects" category are things like "WikiProjects by status," etc. In comparing the directory to the category tree, I find that they more or less resemble one another, but the category system is much sloppier. I would like to invest some effort in maintaining the category system, one because a well-maintained category system is typically a good thing, and because it will be necessary if we want to effectively automate the WikiProject directory.
I have a question regarding categorization best practices. WikiProjects often times have their own categories named after themselves. WikiProject Biography, for example, has a category Category:WikiProject Biography. In theory, the project could just belong to its self-named category, and then all applicable meta-categories (Culture WikiProjects, etc.) could apply to the project's category rather than the project's page. However, some projects are sorted in both their own self-named categories and the applicable meta-categories. There does not seem to be a consistent practice for these things. So should WikiProjects with their own categories also have their project pages sorted into additional categories, or should the additional categories apply to only the project category? Harej ( talk) 23:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for subscribing to the WikiProject X Newsletter. For our first issue...
Has WikiProject X changed the world yet? No.
We opened up shop last month and announced our existence to the world. Our first phase is the "research" phase, consisting mostly of reading and listening. We set up our landing page and started collecting stories. So far, 28 stories have been shared about WikiProjects, describing a variety of experiences across numerous WikiProjects. A recurring story involves a WikiProject that starts off strong but has trouble continuing to stay active. Most people describe using WikiProjects as a way to get feedback from other editors. Some quotes:
Of course, these are just anecdotes. While they demonstrate what is possible, they do not necessarily explain what is typical. We will be using this information in conjunction with a quantitative analysis of WikiProjects, as documented on Meta. Particularly, we are interested in the measurement of WikiProject activity as it relates to overall editing in that WikiProject's subject area.
We also have 50 people and projects signed up for pilot testing, which is an excellent start! (An important caveat: one person volunteering a WikiProject does not mean the WikiProject as a whole is interested; just that there is at least one person, which is a start.)
While carrying out our research, we are documenting the problems with WikiProjects and our ideas for making WikiProjects better. Some ideas include better integration of existing tools into WikiProjects, recommendations of WikiProjects for people to join, and improved coordination with Articles for Creation. These are just ideas that may or may not make it to the design phase; we will see. We are also working with WikiProject Council to improve the directory of WikiProjects, with the goal of a reliable, self-updating WikiProject directory. Stay tuned! If you have any ideas, you are welcome to leave a note on our talk page.
That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing!
– Harej 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
There's a discussion at
Template talk:WPBannerMeta#Very commendable guideline being virtually ignored which directly concerns
one of the pages for which this is a talk page. It also potentially affects every single WikiProject that recognises the |importance=
parameter (about 1000, I think), so deserves an audience that is wider than the 107 watchers of a template's talk page. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 21:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
|importance=
parameter, which is found on most WikiProject banners, but by no means all (for example, it's not recognised by {{
WikiProject Academic Journals}}
, {{
WikiProject Accessibility}}
, {{
WikiProject Disambiguation}}
, {{
WikiProject Elections and Referendums}}
, etc.). The discussion that I linked to concerns altering this from "importance" to "priority" in certain circumstances. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The subject in question is what you should type when you add a WikiProject banner. Most projects currently type something like this:
{{WikiProject Foo |class=Stub |importance=Mid}}
The question is whether "importance" should be changed to "priority". Then you would type this:
{{WikiProject Foo |class=Stub |priority=Mid}}
WikiProject Biographies has used "priority" because a lot of editors thought it would be really offensive to declare that some humans are unimportant. Most groups use "importance". WikiProject have been free to use whichever they want, but using "priority" usually requires extra work on their part, and most of them don't know how to do it. If you have an opinion on this, then please share your views at the other page. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry there was no template for this introduction. I have been to the teahouse and will park myself there. Would just like to get to know people that are interested in music and entertainment. Lbhiggin ( talk) 16:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Taylor Swift has her own WikiProject? Drmies ( talk) 20:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Just wondering if anyone else noticed? Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Which wp:wikiproject is the most popular on wikipedia? Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
WikiProject Biography}}
, with
over one-and-a-quarter million transclusions is way out in front. One of the most active is {{
WikiProject Military history}}
, with
"only" 173085 pages tagged. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 16:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)This
edit request to
Wikipedia:WikiProject has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete the "A" from the beginning of the following sentence: "A WikiProject's pages are not used for writing encyclopedia articles directly," because it is not grammatically correct, as the rest of the sentence is written in plural. Carly321 ( talk) 18:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
For this month's issue...
Making sense of a lot of data.
Work on our prototype will begin imminently. In the meantime, we have to understand what exactly we're working with. To this end, we generated a list of 71 WikiProjects, based on those brought up on our Stories page and those who had signed up for pilot testing. For those projects where people told stories, we coded statements within those stories to figure out what trends there were in these stories. This approach allowed us to figure out what Wikipedians thought of WikiProjects in a very organic way, with very little by way of a structure. (Compare this to a structured interview, where specific questions are asked and answered.) This analysis was done on 29 stories. Codes were generally classified as "benefits" (positive contributions made by a WikiProject to the editing experience) and "obstacles" (issues posed by WikiProjects, broadly speaking). Codes were generated as I went along, ensuring that codes were as close to the original data as possible. Duplicate appearances of a code for a given WikiProject were removed.
We found 52 "benefit" statements encoded and 34 "obstacle" statements. The most common benefit statement referring to the project's active discussion and participation, followed by statements referring to a project's capacity to guide editor activity, while the most common obstacles made reference to low participation and significant burdens on the part of the project maintainers and leaders. This gives us a sense of WikiProjects' big strength: they bring people together, and can be frustrating to editors when they fail to do so. Meanwhile, it is indeed very difficult to bring editors together on a common interest; in the absence of a highly motivated core of organizers, the technical infrastructure simply isn't there.
We wanted to pair this qualitative study with quantitative analysis of a WikiProject and its "universe" of pages, discussions, templates, and categories. To this end I wrote a script called ProjAnalysis which will, for a given WikiProject page (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek) and WikiProject talk-page tag (e.g. Template:WikiProject Star Trek), will give you a list of usernames of people who edited within the WikiProject's space (the project page itself, its talk page, and subpages), and within the WikiProject's scope (the pages tagged by that WikiProject, excluding the WikiProject space pages). The output is an exhaustive list of usernames. We ran the script to analyze our test batch of WikiProjects for edits between March 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015, and we subjected them to further analysis to only include those who made 10+ edits to pages in the projects' scope, those who made 4+ edits to the projects' space, and those who made 10+ edits to pages in scope but not 4+ edits to pages in the projects' space. This latter metric gives us an idea of who is active in a certain subject area of Wikipedia, yet who isn't actively engaging on the WikiProject's pages. This information will help us prioritize WikiProjects for pilot testing, and the ProjAnalysis script in general may have future life as an application that can be used by Wikipedians to learn about who is in their community.
Complementing the above two studies are a design analysis, which summarizes the structure of the different WikiProject spaces in our test batch, and the comprehensive census of bots and tools used to maintain WikiProjects, which will be finished soon. With all of this information, we will have a game plan in place! We hope to begin working with specific WikiProjects soon.
As a couple of asides...
That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing! If you have any questions or comments, please share them with us.
Harej ( talk) 01:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey guys, the toolserver.org links are dead/not working at the moment. Three of the last in a list of a bunch of links aren't working:
"List of WikiProjects List of uncategorized WikiProjects WikiProjects by number of articles (dynamically)"
I didn't want to delete them because maybe the links have just been moved. Skiingxmoose ( talk) 01:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Just wondering whether any projects around here might find it useful to have a bot generated list of articles related to the project which don't yet exist. It might be possible to create such lists based on a few pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Encyclopedic articles and just having the blue links as they are created removed from the list. I do think having such lists available for some of the projects might be one of the easier ways to get some editors involved in the projects. John Carter ( talk) 20:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to add WikiProject Motorcycling to the directory, without breaking hierarchy conventions. I see rail transport listed out on its own, but it has subprojects to list (Motorcycling does not). Advice? — Brianhe ( talk) 18:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Project | Active | Assessment | Peer review | Collaboration | Portal | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Motorcycling | yes | yes | yes | yes | Project founded 2006; 134 enrolled members; featured in Cycle World [16] | |
Motorcycle racing | yes | yes | Motorcycle racing | Project founded late 2008; 45 enrolled members |
I propose WikiProject tags are disallowed to transclude to-do lists unrelated to the article. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/to do is currently transcluded on around 14000 article talk pages with {{ WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)}}. Some disadvantages of this: Waste of server resources and bandwidth. Users of the mobile version or without Javascript see the full to-do lists on the talk pages and not just a "[show]" link. WhatLinksHere for a page linked in the to-do list gets thousands of irrelevant talk pages. Special:WantedPages (which is updated contrary to MediaWiki:Wantedpages-summary) becomes pretty useless when it mainly shows arbitrary pages on to-do lists. Other stats are probably also polluted. The only advantage of the system seems to be that readers of a tagged talk page can see the to-do list by clicking "show" instead of a link to the list itself. This search finds many WikiProject tags using transclusion. If we disallow it then a single central template change should be able to replace most or all transcluded to-do lists with a link to the list. Each WikiProject can then decide whether to remove/reword the link, redesign their to-do list for better direct viewing, or just leave things as they are. PrimeHunter ( talk) 23:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
{{
WikiProject Dance}}
- which shows either of two to-do lists (the
WikiProject Ballet To-do list or the
WikiProject Dance To-do list), depending on whether |Ballet-todolist=yes
is set or not. It's not even tied to the parameter |Ballet=yes
- they are independent, and can be set yes/no or no/yes. That's probably one to rationalise. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 00:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
<tr><td></td><td colspan="2">'''[[{{{TODO_LINK}}}|{{{TODO_TITLE|To-do list}}}]]'''</td></tr><noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>
. But when it's no longer a collapsible table, maybe the link should be placed elsewhere.
PrimeHunter (
talk) 02:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Waste of server resources and bandwidth: Don't worry about performance.
Users of the mobile version: Users who are browsing talk pages on mobile (heck, any pages) probably understand the implications that may have on their data plans or speed of loading.
Javascript: Similarly.
WhatLinksHere for a page linked in the to-do list gets thousands of irrelevant talk pages.: I'm not convinced that this is an issue. Users using WhatLinksHere understand the implications.
Special:WantedPages (which is updated contrary to MediaWiki:Wantedpages-summary) becomes pretty useless when it mainly shows arbitrary pages on to-do lists: Special:WantedPages is and has largely always been useless....
I do realize that many of the WikiProjects, other than those popular active ones, are either outdated, relatively unknown, or just simply abandoned. Why is that so? Are there any suggestions on how this situation can be improved? My suggestion would be to introduce newly registered users to WikiProjects, and show them how it works to coordinate contributions and also to replace inactive users. What are your thoughts on this?
Also, I do realize the WikiProject task forces links are not prominent enough. Sometimes articles are not clearly shown that they are a part of a WikiProject. Maybe putting something like, "This article is part of the XX WikiProject task force. You may, optionally, join as a member to help coordinate and improve this article" at the header or footer will help, perhaps? 115.66.106.201 ( talk) 19:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, there. I've submitted a grant proposal for the Inspire Project, and have been trying to figure out the best way to attract existing editors to the project and/or attract new editors. This is obviously a system-wide problem (reading the above discussions and the discussions they link to)
My questions for this group:
Thanks in advance!
Natalie Bueno Vasquez (
talk) 17:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to list this in the directory, but I created WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton as a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles related to Hillary Clinton, similar to the WikiProject for Barack Obama. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
It may not be a particularly good idea, but I am in the early stages of putting together a "Library" subpage for WikiProject Religion, which I hope will list all the PD sources included in the bibliographies of the individual articles in the most recent Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion. With some luck, if those sources are available at archive.org or elsewhere as PD entites, we might be able to add the .pdf files or .djvu files to commons, and, maybe, get some people involved in transcribing them for wikisource. It's actually because of their preference for .djvu files that I mentioned that format, even though I myself have yet to figure out how to get the damn plug-in to work to allow me to download and upload such files. It might be worthwhile for other rather broad projects to try something similar. Maybe, if it winds up being at all useful. John Carter ( talk) 18:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I have created a redesign for Template:WikiProject Footer in the style of a navbox.
If changed: see this revision.
Any comments at all? -- Mrjulesd (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Greetings! For this month's issue...
We have demos!
After a lengthy research and design process, we decided for WikiProject X to focus on two things:
We have a live demonstration of the new WikiProject workflow at WikiProject Women in Technology, a brand new WikiProject that was set up as an adjunct to a related edit-a-thon in Washington, DC. The goal is to surface action items for editors, and we intend on doing that through automatically updated working lists. We are looking into using SuggestBot to generate lists of outstanding tasks, and we are looking into additional options for automatic worklist generation. This takes the burden off of WikiProject editors to generate these worklists, though there is also a "requests" section for Wikipedians to make individual requests. (As of writing, these automated lists are not yet live, so you will see a blank space under "edit articles" on the demo WikiProject. Sorry about that!) I invite you to check out the WikiProject and leave feedback on WikiProject X's talk page.
Once the demo is sufficiently developed, we will be working on a limited deployment on our pilot WikiProjects. We have selected five for the first round of testing based on the highest potential for impact and will scale up from there.
While a re-designed WikiProject experience is much needed, that alone isn't enough. A WikiProject isn't any good if people have no way of discovering it. This is why we are also developing an automatically updated WikiProject directory. This directory will surface project-related metrics, including a count of active WikiProject participants and of active editors in that project's subject area. The purpose of these metrics is to highlight how active the WikiProject is at the given point of time, but also to highlight that project's potential for success. The directory is not yet live but there is a demonstration featuring a sampling of WikiProjects.
Each directory entry will link to a WikiProject description page which automatically list the active WikiProject participants and subject-area article editors. This allows Wikipedians to find each other based on the areas they are interested in, and this information can be used to revive a WikiProject, start a new one, or even for some other purpose. These description pages are not online yet, but they will use this template, if you want to get a feel of what they will look like.
We need volunteers!
WikiProject X is a huge undertaking, and we need volunteers to support our efforts, including testers and coders. Check out our volunteer portal and see what you can do to help us!
As an aside...
Wouldn't it be cool if lists of requested articles could not only be integrated directly with WikiProjects, but also shared between WikiProjects? Well, we got the crazy idea of having experimental software feature Flow deployed (on a totally experimental basis) on the new Article Request Workshop, which seeks to be a place where editors can "workshop" article ideas before they get created. It uses Flow because Flow allows, essentially, section-level categorization, and in the future will allow "sections" (known as "topics" within Flow) to be included across different pages. What this means is that you have a recommendation for a new article tagged by multiple WikiProjects, allowing for the recommendation to appear on lists for each WikiProject. This will facilitate inter-WikiProject collaboration and will help to reduce duplicated work. The Article Request Workshop is not entirely ready yet due to some bugs with Flow, but we hope to integrate it into our pilot WikiProjects at some point.
Harej ( talk) 00:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
There's a discussion that may concern this project at WT:FILM#RfC: Do list items need their own WP article in order to be sourced in list articles?. More input is appreciated. Lapadite ( talk) 15:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I am a student in a class on modern and contemporary Japanese theatre, and I am going to be editing this page as part of a class project. Here is a list of sources I am going to use. Please let me know if you have any comments! Thank you. Secondabroad0909 ( talk) 08:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Dorsey, John T. "Reviewed Work: Between God and Man: A Judgment on War Crimes by Kinoshita Junji, Eric J. Gangloff." Comparative Literature Studies 18.2 (1981): 208-10. JSTOR. Web. 25 Apr. 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40246255. Kinoshita, Junji. Between God and Man: A Judgment on War Crimes: a Play in Two Parts. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1979. Print. Haley, John O. "Reviewed Works: Between God and Man: A Judgment on War Crimes by Kinoshita Junji; The Japanese on Trial: Allied War Crimes Operations in the East, 1945-1951 by Philip R. Piccigallo." Journal of Japanese Studies 8.1 (1982): 165-70. JSTOR. Web. 27 Apr. 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/132280. Kinoshita, Junji. Nihon No Minwa. Tokyo: Mainichi Shinbunsha, 1960. Print. Goodman, David G. "Reviewed Work: Junji Kinoshita, Requiem on the Great Meridian and Selected Essays by Brian Powell, Jason Daniel, Junji Kinoshita." Asian Theatre Journal 19.2 (2002): 362-64. JSTOR. Web. 25 Apr. 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1124320. Kinoshita, Junji, Susumu Ono, and Saiichi Maruya. Gikyoku No Nihongo. Tokyo: Chuo Koronsha, 1982. Print. |
.... Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Project advice for no movies in navboxes -- Moxy ( talk) 17:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The WikiProject Ageing and culture was created outside of the Proposals process, and I'm wondering if they should just go ahead or if any editors have any comments or objections about this. What I'm thinking is that it seems like a niche topic, and the founder is quite new here, and the other two members are completely new. Being new isn't a bad thing but I'm afraid they might not stay here long and the project will be abandoned soon. — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 17:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe "Ageing and society" would've been a better title? — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 10:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Please be aware that there is currently a deletion discussion regarding the above-named new Hillary Rodham Clinton WikiProject, which was previously announced at this talk page. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I would like to join this WikiProject. Please tell me if there is anything I need to know. Leave me messages on my talk page. Thanks! Writer freak Contributions 18:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed that a lot of WikiProject pages are formatted using tables. This causes unreadably narrow columns on any mobile device. It'd be useful if sections could be reflowed into vertical sections in mobile view (e.g. using {{ col-begin}}). I've done it in WP:MCB, although it took quite a bit of reformatting to get it to work. Perhaps there's a better way to do it than using columns, but it might be useful for other projects as a possible solution. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 12:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm looking for some comments over here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations#Are_you_kidding_me.3F. — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 08:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
This guideline says: "If your area fits neatly within an existing group with a larger scope (e.g., your favorite video game vs WP:WikiProject Video games), then please join that project, rather than starting yet another WikiProject." This makes no sense to me given that there seems to be no problem with WikiProject United States presidential elections being a sub-project of WikiProject United States. Can someone please explain? Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, maybe this is what we're aiming for:
“ | If your area fits neatly within an existing group with a larger scope (e.g., your favorite video game vs WP:WikiProject Video games), please consider joining that project rather than starting yet another WikiProject, and if that turns out not to work well then consider forming a separate discussion page or task force within that existing WikiProject before deciding to set up a new one. | ” |
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I think we are now here:
“ | There are costs in having too many WikiProjects, such as spreading interested editors too thin. If you have an idea for a new WikiProject, you should probably first participate in the existing active WikiProject whose scope includes your topic of interest. After a few months, the existing WikiProject's community can evaluate the pros and cons of creating a separate discussion area, task force, or WikiProject for your topic. | ” |
For me, that works fine, and is not too long. This would replace the current inflexible language:
“ | If your area fits neatly within an existing group with a larger scope (e.g., your favorite video game vs WP:WikiProject Video games), then please join that project, rather than starting yet another WikiProject. | ” |
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I have been working on a new WikiProject directory that (a) automatically updates itself via bot; (b) provides information on who is participating on projects and in those projects' subject area with opt-out for individuals; (c) lists related WikiProjects based on the number of pages in common. The draft directory is located here. Note that during this demonstration phase, only 500 WikiProjects are included in the index, out of the 2,600+ in existence, so the listings may look sparse in some places. Please review the draft and let me know what you think. Thanks, Harej ( talk) 02:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello friends! We have been hard at work these past two months. For this report:
For the first time, we are happy to bring you an exhaustive, comprehensive WikiProject Directory. This directory endeavors to list every single WikiProject on the English Wikipedia, including those that don't participate in article assessment. In constructing the broadest possible definition, we have come up with a list of approximately 2,600 WikiProjects. The directory tracks activity statistics on the WikiProject's pages, and, for where it's available, statistics on the number of articles tracked by the WikiProject and the number of editors active on those articles. Complementing the directory are description pages for each project, listing usernames of people active on the WikiProject pages and the articles in the WikiProject's scope. This will help Wikipedians interested in a subject find each other, whether to seek feedback on an article or to revive an old project. (There is an opt-out option.) We have also come up with listings of related WikiProjects, listing the ten most relevant WikiProjects based on what articles they have in common. We would like to promote WikiProjects as interconnected systems, rather than isolated silos.
A tremendous amount of work went into preparing this directory. WikiProjects do not consistently categorize their pages, meaning we had to develop our own index to match WikiProjects with the articles in their scope. We also had to make some adjustments to how WikiProjects were categorized; indeed, I personally have racked up a few hundred edits re-categorizing WikiProjects. There remains more work to be done to make the WikiProject directory truly useful. In the meantime, take a look and feel free to leave feedback at the WikiProject X talk page.
What have we been working on?
Want us to work on any other tools? Interested in volunteering? Leave a note on our talk page.
The database report which lists WikiProjects according to the number of watchers (i.e., people that have the project on their watchlist), is back! The report stopped being updated a year ago, following the deactivation of the Toolserver, but a replacement report has been generated.
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.-- Lucas559 ( talk) 22:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
I am a participant in WikiProject Organized Labour. Currently I am working on taking Americans for Prosperity to GA. Americans for Prosperity is included in Category:Labor relations in the United States. I added our project banner to Americans for Prosperity in March 2015. The article is bannered for WikiProject Conservatism, and the article content reflects that, but the subject has diverse stakeholders including Organized Labour and Environment/Climate Change.
I was reverted in June. I sought feedback from my fellow project members at our project talk page, at which time I discovered that the reverting editor had nominated the article for exclusion, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour#Americans for Prosperity. I nominated the article for inclusion, briefly summarizing the evidence for inclusion. A fellow project participant concurred for inclusion, as did a third editor, not a project participant. Subsequent to an explanation of WP:PROJSCOPE from another editor at article talk, please see Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Article Wikiprojects and rating.3F, and subsequent to a consensus for inclusion at project talk, in which both threads the reverting editor participated, the reverting editor reverted the project add five more times.
I filed with WP:EWN, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Onel5969_reported_by_User:HughD_.28Result:_Page_restriction_applied.29. I did not ask for a block, I was just hoping I could get someone to explain WP:PROJSCOPE and ask the reverting editor to please stop. The EWN report resulted in page edit restrictions, but no action regarding the reversion of the project banner, which was deemed out-of-scope and referred to WP:ANI.
I re-filed at WP:ANI, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Onel5969_repeated_removal_of_WikiProject_talk_page_banner. An admin at ANI told me I failed to invite article talk participants to project talk and told me to do an RfC at project talk.
Questions
1. An RfC is our mechanism for assessing community-wide consensus on a issue. A thread on project talk is our mechanism for assessing project-wide consensus. My humble read of WP:PROJSCOPE is that it is in effect us saying to each other, look, guys, adding a project banner to an article is way too trivial to edit war about, and it is way too trivial to RfC. WP:PROJSCOPE does specify a project's consensus mechanism but neither does it require an RfC. Is it appropriate to require an RfC for a project banner ad? Is this common? I could not find any such RfCs in the central archive. Might asking a project participant to RfC to add a project banner to an article conflict with the principle that scope is at the discretion of project participants? Does requiring an RfC for a project banner add imply that it is community, not project, purview?
2. What is the appropriate forum for reporting repeated reversion of a project banner add?
Sorry if this is a FAQ. Thank you for your time and attention and advice. Hugh ( talk) 21:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, The logo on the page /info/en/?search=Husqvarna_Group is unfortunately old (used between 1973 and 2012). Would it be possible for someone to change? I have added the correct logo in the logopedia, and of course I cans end it to you directly.
Best regards,
Cathrine Stjärnekull Corporate Communications, Husqvarna Group — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.126.81.100 ( talk) 11:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
People who hang out here may have some developed opinions on what constitutes a healthy online community. Please consider sharing your thoughts at m:Grants:Evaluation/Community Health learning campaign. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm looking to revive an inactive task-force, the Percy Jackson Task-force, and one of the ways I thought to do this was to change its scope and possibly rename/move it. I'm trying to get the project to include all the articles pertaining to Rick Riordan, the author of the book series it's currently focused on. The change-of-scope seems simple enough and perfectly "canon" (for lack of a better word), but I'm unsure about trying to change the name. I feel it would help attract more interested editors and eliminate some confusion about the project's "jurisdiction", but it also seems complex, and I can't find any examples of task-forces which have successfully done this. Any advice or other help would be greatly appreciated, either here or on my Talk page. 2ReinreB2 ( talk) 03:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I've created a user script to provide a nice user interface for adding WikiProject assessments to article talk pages and have proposed it as a gadget. To try it out, add ...
mw.loader.load( '//en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Kaldari/assessmentHelper.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' );
... to your common.js. If you have any feedback or want to support it being added as a gadget, please comment at the Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals discussion. Thanks! Kaldari ( talk) 18:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
FYI, several WikiProject Banners have come up for deletion because the projects that use them are marked as inactive. See WP:TFD for the discussions. -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 03:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
If a WikiProject is marked FFA, can I then make it class=A?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 13:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
WikiProjects are often sorted into categories of the variety "[Something] WikiProjects". WikiProjects also frequently have their own categories; for example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography has a corresponding Category:WikiProject Biography. I tend to refer to the former categories as "meta-categories" and the latter as "self-named categories". I have found that categorization of WikiProjects into appropriate meta-categories is inconsistent. Some projects have meta-categories on both the project page and the self-named categories; others have them just on the self-named categories, and some projects have different categories between the project pages and the self-named categories. It varies from project to project, and I apologize for contributing to this inconsistency.
I propose that for the WikiProjects that have their own categories, that meta-categories are only sorted into the category and not the project page itself. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, currently sorted under Category:WikiProject Biography and Category:Society WikiProjects, would only be sorted under Category:WikiProject Biography, and that category would be sorted under Category:Society WikiProjects. It makes the (much-needed) categorization effort easier, since categories will only need to be assigned in one place. I am volunteering to write a bot to enforce this.
I open this up for discussion. Harej ( talk) 03:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea (although some people argue that it's not worth time doing any category maintenance, since categories are rarely helpful). A few months ago, I cleaned up the WikiProject category structure a bit, but a bot would be nice. Generally, I think the WikiProject category structure should follow these rules:
Using this logic, there won't be any circular categorization, which has been a problem in the past. Also, it should make category navigation easier, as you don't have to look in any WikiProject's categories to find other projects that would otherwise be difficult to find. All projects are strictly categorized according to type. -- Scott Alter ( talk) 07:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Bot request for approval is here: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Harej bot. Harej ( talk) 22:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm more than open to the idea of changing the top-level categorization system. As Jeraphine pointed out, "Culture" and "Society" seem like such interchangeable categories (indeed, a lot of projects are sorted as both), and "Humanities" is fairly duplicative. The Council-maintained directory has:
as top-level categories. Compare to the current category system of:
I think the former is a clearer grouping. What does everyone else think? Harej ( talk) 22:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I have added Wikiproject tags to the talk page of a redirect. The tag shows:
Is there a way to get rid of the ???
Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech ( talk) 08:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to notify everyone here of this new WikiProject Wikipedia that Tortle has created. Eman235/ talk 21:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Tokyogirl79. I will probably continue the project under a new name at a later date and will gain more experience by then and/or get some help. Thanks Tortle ( talk) 07:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
There currently is a discussion about the future organization of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women and several other women-related Wikiprojects and taskforces at the above link. Some aspects may be of interests to editors of this project and your participation in the discussion would be appreciated. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
this looks like a great idea. feel free to keep me informed if you want. thanks! -- Sm8900 ( talk) 15:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Surely there is a wp:WikiProject here for Pet related articles? What is the best way to find projects on a specific topic? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech ( talk) 13:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I've WP:BOLDly worked on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages a bit. It seemed kind of diffusely critical, instead of providing more specific advice on what makes a great advice page, and how to avoid conflicts with both site-wide standards and other projects. It also gave an out-of-place example of an embedded advice section in a main wikiproject page without mentioning that WikiProject advice can be a separate page or not, so I explained and illustrated that it can be both. There were also a couple of redundantly worded bits that I tweaked. I don't believe I changed any sort of "do"/"don't" about project pages, just provided a more useful explication of what WikiProject advice material is and how it's useful. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
How do I get class=Future added to WikiProject Brazil? Articles for the 2015 Olympics include Talk:Cycling at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's cross-country and others.-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 19:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello there! Happy to be writing this newsletter once more. This month:
In July, we launched five pilot WikiProjects: WikiProjects Cannabis, Evolutionary Biology, Ghana, Hampshire, and Women's Health. We also use the new design, named "WPX UI," on WikiProject Women in Technology, Women in Red, WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health. We are currently looking for projects for the next round of testing. If you are interested, please sign up on the Pilots page.
Shortly after our launch we presented at Wikimania 2015. Our slides are on Wikimedia Commons.
Then after all that work, we went through the process of figuring out whether we accomplished our goal. We reached out to participants on the redesigned WikiProjects, and we asked them to complete a survey. (If you filled out your survey—thank you!) While there are still some issues with the WikiProject tools and the new design, there appears to be general satisfaction (at least among those who responded). The results of the survey and more are documented in our grant report filed with the Wikimedia Foundation.
There is more work that needs to be done, so we have applied for a renewal of our grant. Comments on the proposal are welcome. We would like to improve what we have already started on the English Wikipedia and to also expand to Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. Why those? Because they are multilingual projects and because there needs to be better coordination across Wikimedia projects. More details are available in the renewal proposal.
The Wikimedia Developer Summit will be held in San Francisco in January 2016. The recently established Community Tech team at the Wikimedia Foundation is interested in investigating what technical support they can provide for WikiProjects, i.e., support beyond just templates and bots. I have plenty of opinions myself, but I want to hear what you think. The session is being planned on Phabricator, the Wikimedia bug tracker. If you are not familiar with Phabricator, you can log in with your Wikipedia username and password through the "Login or Register: MediaWiki" button on the login page. Your feedback can help make editing Wikipedia a better experience.
Until next time,
I notice this earlier but there is a distinct Category:Unassessed-Class articles and Category:Unassessed articles (one redirects to the other at the moment). Most WikiProject have just Unassessed X articles but projects that do separate quality and importance subcategories have to have a separate Unassessed-Class articles I think. I presume it's a default from Template:Class or whichever template is doing that but I wanted to see if there's interest in renaming things like Category:Unassessed-Class India articles of High-importance to Category:Unassessed India articles of High-importance to match Category:Unassessed India articles where all unassessed articles are (therefore the child subcategory and the category are alined). -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Important discussions regarding the TAFI Wikiproject are happening atm. Please weigh in at discussions like: Should TAFI return to the main page?.-- Coin945 ( talk) 18:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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 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? IRWolfie- ( talk) 19:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
This is sort of cart-before-the-horse. A WikiProject is a group of people. It is not pages or subject matter. Do you have groups of people that actually want to merge? Merging WikiProjects is like merging groups of students who like to eat lunch together. You don't just shove a couple of pages (or lunch tables) together and have everyone suddenly working (or eating) together. The usual result is that most of them simply leave.
You should not create pages for a new group without having an actual group of people who want to use them. You may not merge any existing groups' pages into any other group without first consulting them and getting their agreement to participate in the new group. If you want to do this, then you need to go leave messages at all of the talk pages to propose a voluntary merge. No other type of merge is permitted (or feasible in practice, due to offended people simply leaving if you try to force them into a group that they don't want to join). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I would say that "astrology" TF should be "astrology and geomancy" ; and that cryptozoology, UFOlogy and paranormal can be one TF; and "Creationism" should be "Creationism and intelligent design"; and a "conspiracy theories" TF should exist (possibly for the secret societies WPP) -- 70.24.244.158 ( talk) 04:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
If these projects are merged, IRWolfie and others should probably work out a new scope. Dimadick ( talk) 00:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I oppose.. It seems like just shuffling around busy work. And just because I'm not on the Skepticism page making comments doesn't mean I'm not active. I do edits practically every day. Cap020570 ( talk) 11:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I Oppose the merger. I am a member of the Skepticism page. I'm not convinced that merging our project page with a handful of inactive projects under the heading of "fringe" will benefit anyone. Paranormal phenomena is just one part of the skeptic project. The project also covers philosophy, science, religion... Dustinlull ( talk) 13:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
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? –Mabeenot ( talk) 16:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Please note: Trying to attract additional input from uninvolved editors, I recast this conversation as an RfC, below. The comments there were inconclusive except to suggest little support for the initial proposal. The proposer graciously collapsed that part of the RfC. The remainder of the conversation was inconclusive, but can serve to inform further discussion. David in DC ( talk) 15:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I have read and digested the issues discussed above. I think what can be supported, and what is objected to can be addressed by the following:
Greg, I feel like I'm not getting this message through to you. A WikiProject is a group of people. It is not subject areas. WikiProject Skepticism is welcome to tag all of the articles currently tagged by these projects (or any articles they want, including articles found through Special:Random.
Nobody can take a group of people—not even an apparently quiet group of people—and say "All your people is now belong to me". I want you to imagine that we're not talking about "WikiProjects". I want you to imagine that we're talking about kids who hang out in different places around the school building. What you are proposing is that you should go over to several groups and say, "You are not going to hang out over here any longer. You are going to hang out over here with me now, and furthermore, I don't care whether you agree to this". Forcibly taking over a WikiProject is likely to be just as ineffective as forcibly taking over a group of friends at school.
This is not okay. This is rude to these people. You are not permitted to simply take over groups of people because you think that your interest relates to their interest. There are objections (including mine) at WT:ALTMED and other groups to this plan. You can support the articles, but you cannot takeover the people. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 25 for the discussion about a particular shortcut to a template, and the formatting it should use in general and in particular. -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 23:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The signpost wikiproject report published an unusually popular report on February 10 on the topic of Countering Systemic Bias. Editors are still commenting there. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 17:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I saw this statement posted here. Is this true? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
One of the chores I have taken upon myself at Wikipedia is putting appropriate project banners on article/category talkpages. This is an activity that gets very little attention, but few who noticed thanked me for it.
There are several reasons for placing project banners on talkpages. For example:
I just ran into an unusual situation where the banners I placed on a talk page have been removed. Are there any policies/guidelines about who should place/remove project banners? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
(Since WhatamIdoing said above that A WikiProject is a group of people I wonder added by Ottawahitech ( talk) 19:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC) ) what about large projects with sub-projects? As an exaple I recently tagged Death cap with Wikiproject Medicine banners, which were promptly removed with the edit summary not in scope of wp:MED despite having sections titled: Toxicity,Treatment and Symptoms . I then posted a question to the Toxicology taskforce but the only response I received was from someone who is not a project member. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 12:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, a WikiProject is a group of people; but generally the topics of interest to the folks of WPMED (aka scope of the project) are well-defined. Regarding the particular issue of Amanita phalloides, there is somewhat-related guidance at WP:MEDA#Is WPMED the correct WikiProject to support this article?. In the "Use judgment" section, you can somewhat compare it with:
Microbes, pathogens, and infectious diseases: Infectious diseases should be tagged with WPMED. Organisms should be tagged with {{ WikiProject Micro}} and, if applicable, {{ WikiProject Viruses}} or {{ WikiProject Fungi}} instead of WPMED. Exceptions include pathogens that cause various illnesses that do not have their own disease names and infections that are treated medically to prevent progression to disease."
For the most part, if an illness or disease has its own article, then just that and not the pathogen should be tagged. Maybe this line in WP:MEDA should be expanded to include toxins. The occasional exception is if there is a lot of clinical content within the pathogen article. In this case, yes - there is a lot of clinical content in the article...but should the clinical content be in the article about the species when there are more appropriate places for it? Amanita phalloides is a more developed article than Mushroom poisoning and alpha-Amanitin (which both definitely belong in WPMED/Tox). But since all of the toxicological/clinical information applies to any organism containing alpha-Amanitin, wouldn't that be a better place for the content? The amanita phalloides article has been bulked up to achieve FA status. However, a tenet of Wikipedia is to not have duplicate content between similar articles. If alpha-Amanitin is a more appropriate place, then should the Biochemistry/Symptoms/Treatment sections be moved there? In its current state, alpha-Amanitin looks like it was written just by chemists. But that doesn't mean there should not be a clinical component to the article. I'm not saying any of this definitely should be done, just something to think about. -- Scott Alter ( talk) 06:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thanks to wikipedia for giving good platform for knowledge sharing pratap puranik ,independent social worker rk community research foundation,ramkrushna krupa walmiki nagar barshi rd latur mh india working in field of malnutrition,human health,child health etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puranik01 ( talk • contribs) 09:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi hope some one can help I have lots of the Asian wild life cards series a mostly was thinking of selling them how would I do this any help thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnyjay69 ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on merger of two wikiprojects - Finance and Investing. Your input is welcome here.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 15:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I've been working with Category:Inactive WikiProjects and I'd like to expand the range of "types" that are used for categorizing WikiProjects. For example, there is only 1 WikiProject in the "anime" type but there are lots of science, species, religion, literature and Wikipedia-related WikiProjects. It would be very useful to create separate categories for related inactive WikiProjects so they can be easily brought to the attention of other WikiProjects that are active in these areas.
There are topical subcategories in Category:WikiProjects but they don't have the functionality of actually adding to the number of types which then sort WikiProjects. I've asked several editors about this but haven't gotten a response so I hope I can hear back from someone who might know how to do this. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
There has been a discussion concerning WikiProject Espionage to be renamed as WikiProject Espionage, Intelligence, Surveillance. In its current form (WP: Espionage), there is a number of articles. Unfortunately, countless articles that have been tagged "WikiProject Intelligence" becomes mixed up with the WikiProject Espionage. I have managed to correct quite a few of these mistakes and assess the WikiProject Espionage articles.
My concern if WP:Espionage does undergo a overhaul and incorporate other things (such as "Intelligence" and "Surveillance", that would be incroaching on WP:Mass Surveillance and WikiProject Intelligence, hence why "Espionage" is such a narrow part of society. I can only assume that why this WikiProject was setup was to fill a void of people who were either pending charges or have been charged for Espionage. They would be suited in this WikiProject.
I realise that WP:Espionage has only a handful of members. I do see a positive point of having this on Wikipedia. It would be ashame to have to close it. Adamdaley ( talk) 05:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I noticed this thing floating about, it is not linked to from the proposal page, nor is it descriptive enough to discern what it is. Speedy delete or MfD? -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 01:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I just visited Wikipedia:WikiProject United Kingdom and found to my surprise that it is marked inactive? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
70.50.151.11, here is a list of criteria for evaluating WikiProject status from Template:WikiProject status. Liz Read! Talk! 17:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Minor fiddling with formatting, automatic archiving, and unanswered messages to the WikiProject from outsiders ("Could someone with this project please help me with...") or from bots do not count as signs of project activity. Any editor may add this {{WikiProject status|Semi-active}} template to the top of any apparently semi-active WikiProject. Any member of the project may remove it if it is placed in error. Upon removal, please consider placing a message on the WikiProject's talk page to indicate that the group is still active. If almost no activity occurs in this WikiProject, consider replacing this tag with {{WikiProject status|Inactive}}.
Minor fiddling with formatting, automatic archiving, and unanswered messages to the WikiProject from outsiders ("Could someone with this project please help me with...") or from bots do not count as signs of project activity. Any editor may add this {{WikiProject status|Inactive}} template to the top of any apparently inactive WikiProject. Any member of the project may remove it if it is placed in error. Upon removal, please consider placing a message on the WikiProject's talk page to indicate that the group is still active. |
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Legal or Medical advice that may be of interest.
It concerns requests for legal or medical advice posted to one of the reference desks.
I am posting this here because of a potential conflict between the talk page guidelines and reference desk guidelines -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
medam assalamu alaikum apnar sate jojajoger kono line amar jana nei tai avabe apner kase liklam.amar mobil no 01722359280 email.ruhulkhan.dulu@gmail.com.ami 4 sonttaner pita amar stri akjon manosik varsammohin mohila se amar songser sere 4 bassake fele sylhet take nowgaon rajsahi te akti kharap loker barite giye utece ami onek kosto kore tar sonddan milaiya tahake anntte parcina tai amake sahajo korile ami amar pagol bow ke bassader nikot fire antte pari — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ruhulkhan.dulu (
talk •
contribs) 12:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic gender bias. Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 13:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm putting forward an IEG Project Proposal to investigate how the interaction of Wikipedia members at offline meetup events such as Hackatons or Wikimania may have an effect on the productivity of those members and their participation in Wikipedia. You can read the project proposal here and I'd appreciate the input of community members who have visited these events before. Do you think there is a specific area of these meetups that would better reveal how participation is impacted? How do you define participation in Wikipedia? Any comments would be welcome! OSUBrit ( talk) 21:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Just to let those interested know that I have initiated a BOT request to have wp:WikiProject African diaspora categories and articles added to the wikiproject. If anyone is interested I will try to remember to post updates here. Please notify me when you respond. Thanks in advance, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 18:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an 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) 05:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC).
What would be an awards of the intensified participants of wikiproject groups? ..... am Jesmion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.206.11.101 ( talk) 21:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I think that two somewhat inactive projects, Wikipedia:WikiProject Latinos, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexican-Americans should be merged, with mexam being a task force of latinos. (i took off inactive tags due to my editing). The project would continue to be supported by Wikipedia:WikiProject United States, as "latinos" should have been. The project should have its name changed to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Hispanic and Latino Americans, matching conventional use here of the terms. "Latinos" appeared to initially be for latino/hispanic americans, but was starting to cover all latin am peoples, but thats way too much overlap with Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin America, which presumably covers that adequately. I hope that the merge discussion might engender some more actual participation in the projects. I definitely dont want to be the only editor to try to merge the project pages, and i of course no idea how to program the change, but i would be willing to a make whole lot of manual changes if thats whats called for (i added the SF Bay Area task force to hundreds of articles). As a side note, i did revamp the Portal:Hispanic and Latino Americans, but i may not be able to continue to work on that. at least its not completely moribund and out of date now. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 04:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
See for a nice explanation by User: Rich Farmbrough here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Request_for_article_statistics_list_on_WP:Physiology X Ottawahitech ( talk) 19:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
03:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
See {{ WikiProject status/Active}} and {{ WikiProject status}} which have been nominated to be merged -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 22:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
There's an important request for comment regarding the possible merger of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailor Moon to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#RfC. Your comments and input on the situation would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 06:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I see that some projects have access to activity levels of contributors to articles tagged by the respective w-proj. Just wondering how they do this so it can be accomplished by other wikiprojects? Thanks in advance, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 14:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I say this because my proposal was made more than 2 months ago and hasn't gotten any feedback yet. Does anyone know how I could change that? Jinkinson talk to me 18:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The most certain way to guarantee that an idea will NOT be implemented is to propose it. Greg Bard ( talk) 19:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk) 14:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear Wikiproject council members: Now that the new Draft and Draft talk spaces are up and running, there has been some talk of the advisability of adding Wikiproject banners to the talk pages of drafts. The hope would be that members of the Wikiproject would become aware of drafts in their area of interest and perhaps improve them or advise the editors who had created the drafts. It has been pointed out that there may be ramifications outside the space, for example in gathering statistics, or in the workflow of groups who spend time placing the banners, etc. A discussion about this is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Adding Wikiproject banners to drafts, and someone from your group may wish to comment. — Anne Delong ( talk) 04:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Recent discussion regarding Wikinews indicated that there isn't really that much effort from that many people regarding the content of that WF entity. I can speak from some recent experience that at least a few other entities, like Wikisource, don't get that much attention or effort either. Yeah, the rules of each entity are different, but that difference would allow for inclusion of some material in those other entities which might be important, if not necessarily encyclopedic. Also, speaking from some review of the matters here myself, there are still a lot of articles of fairly obvious notability and significance which can be found even in some older reference sources but can't be found here yet.
Regarding specifically wikisource, over at wikisource:User:John Carter I have a rather longish list of several hundred well-regarded PD reference sources in all areas which are available as pdf files, and whose articles in many cases would be extremely useful for both providing at least some useful, readily-available content for some wikipedia articles, and providing sources to establish both the notability and an indicator of potential content for articles not yet created. Unfortunately, I can also say that it takes the better part of an hour to proofread a single page from Encyclopedia Britannica, at least for me, and the comparatively few editors such sister entities have clearly isn't enough for all the work available. Luckily, several other reference works, with the large print they used in ye olde dayes, take only about 15 minutes a page to proofread, because of the relatively small amount of text per page.
For those of you involved in trying to get WikiProjects to work, I was wondering what you might think of what ways, if any, we might be able to call attention to content of other entities, if we should even try to do so. All input is more than welcome. John Carter ( talk) 21:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
See the discussion here. RockMagnetist ( talk) 03:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Template:WPRedirect ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion; this is the project banner for WP:WikiProject Redirect -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 08:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi all! There is a growing interest in, and utilization of manual medicine in health care, primarily for neuromusculoskeletal disorders. Manual medicine is practiced by a wide variety of practitioners and has a long history as a therapeutic intervention. The sciences of manual medicine has exploded in the last 20 years, with tons of research and textbooks devoted to the subject [2], [3], [4], [5], and many others. Google Scholar list 2 650 000 hits [6] and over 4200 systematic reviews on PubMed [7]. There is tons of scientific research regarding manual medicine and I'd like to get the ball rolling for a new group to explore this aspect of health care. DVMt ( talk) 02:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, there's a discussion regarding the articles in WikiProject Somalia here about whether the categories should be "A-class Somalia articles" or "A-class WikiProject Somalia articles," etc. I'm appreciate any views from here. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 135#Help making a template -- Moxy ( talk) 22:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I have a dispute with another user who is dual=tagging articles tagged by WikiProject equine with WikiProject Mammals as well. I have always understood that rarely is there a need to double-tag "parent" and "child" wikiprojects. The other user feels differently. See conversation here. If I'm wrong on this, I'll back off, but my understanding is that double-tagging is a colossal waste of time. Please advise. Montanabw (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Have asked at Template talk:WPBannerMeta#Question. John Carter ( talk) 20:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
(outdent) - It would be easily possible to add optional "Mammals" parameters to the Cats banner or other banners with the Mammals project appearing in the "drop-down" section if that is what you are asking. Are there specific templates you would want to see it added to? John Carter ( talk) 19:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
|mammals=yes
) --
Redrose64 (
talk) 23:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
need what? help NOW NOW OR CUT YOU means life in life I CAN"T TELL YOU SORRY
How do you join wikiprojects? Do you just add the userbox to your user page, or is it more complicated than that? Also how do I fix the formatting of this text? User J Dalek 23:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
What is a wiki pedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.64.76.174 ( talk) 15:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Anyone who assesses articles very often knows how often the assessments get out of date, and how tedious it is to re-check them manually.
Nettrom and Aaron Halfaker have analyzed all 9,000+ plus of the WP:MED stubs and found about 750 that they figured had at least a 50% chance of not being a stub. The list has been posted at m:Research:Ideas/Screening WikiProject Medicine articles for quality/Prediction table. The next step is to manually re-screen the pages on the list, to see how accurate their algorithm is. If anyone's interested, please feel free to have a look. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Template:COTWs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion; this template interlinks wikiproject collaboration areas -- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 07:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm new but am interested in getting in on one of these projects. Does anyone know of a good place to read? Want to understand what I'm doing before diving in. Thanks! Jordanrolsen ( talk) 23:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal for the inclusion of the major digital music distributors, in regards to very specific music charts, which are not yet covered by Wikipedia. Input and the discussion can be found here. prokaryotes ( talk) 23:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm just a bit curious. Is it heard of to have admins listing their names in wikiprojects officially as a way of saying that they're "on call" for issues affecting articles in the project? Beyond this, is it heard of for projects to have lists of members who pledge to help with disputes that come up with articles in the project? Thanks for any thoughts. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Last month, Mercurywoodrose and I discussed on the possibility of merging WikiProjects Latinos and Mexican-Americans with WikiProject United States and turning the Mexican-American project into a task force for the Latinos project. This been brought on all three WikiProjects last month and there has been no discussion since then. Erick ( talk) 11:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on possibly making Draft-class one of the default assessment classes used by WikiProjects. Any comments welcome at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Widen usage of Draft-class. Thank you — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 13:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Even before working up infrustructure and deciding on priorities, Wikiproject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force already is having problem with disruption via some individuals. They have wikihounded women to the task force (causing two to quit already, leaving long disgruntled posts), imposing unwanted agendas through constant argumentation, and made repeated accusatory and nasty comments on anything they disagree with. One past and probably future poster already admitted elsewhere he wanted the task force gone.
At this point those actually interested in an effective project have been a bit reluctant to quickly remove/hat/close/archive disruptive comments/threads, though I think that will change. There already has been a warning that Men's Right's community sanctions could be invoked should individuals have a definitive history on men's rights-related articles. Some problems, should they continue, also may be dealt with via the sexology arbitration. But other issues are not yet covered by any general sanctions and aren't always dealt with well at ANI, though that may have to be the next step. (I assume WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard would not deal with them.)
Are there any other steps well-meaning members of the project can take to deal with chronic disruption? Thanks for your help. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 14:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Per discussion above, Here is an ANI posting regarding problems at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 19:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I know that some of you deal with new users, and I thought that you might like to look at the ideas posted here: Sixty ways to help new editors. It has a lot of ideas, and it would be easy for anyone to find one or two things to try out for a while. If your WikiProject wants to increase the number of good-faith editors working in your area, then trying to support and collaborate with new, good-faith editors is one of the most effective things that you can do. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Can I suggest that there is drive to improve 'articles on national and other archives' - too many are not present, or are one sentence (with no links to the relevant websites/other sources).
I am looking after/developing the Wikia archives wiki [8] - which can be made use of if appropriate. Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to suggest a feature. I have no idea of this is the right place, but it's the closest I could find. The Random Article funciton on wiki is very alluring, but it's always leading to people and places. It would be neat if there were a feature that allowed you include/exclude categories when loading a random wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.89.57 ( talk) 15:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I try to revive the inactive project WP:ECONOMICS, but I can't because some administrators that have never participated in the project take all sorts of offenses. Don't remove your project banner from my site, don't clean up the project page etc. What can I do so they just leave me alone? Recreate the project under a new name? NotYetAnotherEconomist ( talk) 20:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Please comment. Gryllida ( talk) 23:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
In this discussion, I basically have the idea of moving WP:WikiProject Emo, which is inactive, to WP:WikiProject Post-hardcore (possibly as a child project of WP:WikiProject Punk music). This is for a couple of reasons:
Hopefully this justifies the creation of a broader WikiProject that is also distinct from WikiProjects for punk and alternative rock music. It seems like I'm getting some ok consensus both on Wikipedia discussion and meat space discussion.
My questions and concerns: What are the steps I need to take to do this? Is this similar to merging two WikiProjects? What is the easiest way to move all subpages of WikiProject Emo to the new WikiProject's namespace?
ozhu ( talk· contribs) 01:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
What's the point of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals process if people just ignore it and go start projects that failed to gain support anyway? If this process doesn't become, through a WP:RFC or WP:PROPOSAL, tied directly to WP:MFD to remove projects that garnered little or no support, then shouldn't /Proposals itself just go away? I'd rather see the former, of course. We have way, way too many moribund, poorly-thought-out microprojects. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I am member of the Discography WikiProject and while I edit discography projects I always turn to this, however it has became dormant. I believe this should not by any means be dormant and should be an active guideline, discographies should be similar so as they are easily recognised from article to article. Can someone help me make this active again and also help me make it more of a guideline or standard for other discography pages? I have no idea how to make it active again and since hardly anyone patrols/watches this page I got no response there. SilentDan ( talk) 20:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Anyone willing to help me here? SilentDan ( talk) 21:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
hi everybody! The article on Sihanoukville has been created in 2005 or so - i presume without clear geographical definition - there used to be any sort of content in it, relating to both, the city and the province too....i went through the entire content around a month ago and did a general clean-up. The article is now explicitly subjected to the province, although content needs further sorting. I have by now relevant content to create the "city" article. Anyhow - I tried to move the existing article to: "Sihanoukville province" - didn't work. Creating an article "Sihanoukville province" or "Sihanoukville city" doesn't work either - because creator redirects to existing article.
Any suggestions? ...and thanks a lot for your attention!!! I am grateful for any reply! All the best!!! Wikirictor ( talk) 21:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I have submitted a proposal for a Wikimedia Foundation Individual Engagement Grant to study WikiProjects. The proposal is called WikiProject X and seeks to study editing communities within the English Wikipedia. View the proposal here and feel free to leave comments there! Harej ( talk) 23:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
When using this redirect (or section) as a guideline for explaining why a project banner can't be removed if the project insists on including it, it has the effect of seemingly accusing the remover of WP:OWN. I wish there could be a softer redirect and softer title for this section. I would recommend a section title like "WikiProjects hold sway over articles included in their projects". The section should include a discussion of WP:OWN but I think that sometimes people who don't necessarily demonstrate an article ownership problem will remove a project banner they don't think belongs. Thoughts? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 10:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
My suggestion has been unfortunately misinterpreted. Let me rephrase the title suggestion: "WikiProjects hold sway over which articles are included in their projects" -- this has nothing to do with control over content. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Even though a consensus wasn't sought for the changes to the section, I have read the changes to the section, and I can't say I disagree with any of them. They still underscore the point that projects pretty much have the say over which articles they include; that is, what their scope is. However, the reason I started this discussion is that linking to the section seems to accuse a project banner remover of WP:OWN, while that is not necessarily the problem in any particular case. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
There are major problems with the changes in this diff. Here is the important background:
So S McCandlish writes (without realizing it, I'm sure), in effect, "If I join a group of people because we all want to work on articles about widgets, then let's let "RFCs" and "other community processes" dominated by total outsiders, people who have no interest at all in widgets, decide which articles I and my teammates have to edit and support. Let's not let us mere WP:VOLUNTEERs decide which articles we'll edit and which ones we want to check at AFDs and which ones should have a note on the talk page saying, 'If you need help with this article, then our group's talk page is over here, and we're willing to support improvements to this article'. No, deciding for ourselves which articles we'll edit would be impermissible OWNership! Independent, voluntary choice of which articles to support is only for individuals, not for people who like collaborating with others. Once you form a little group that wants to support articles only about widgets, then other people should certainly be able to force you to deal with complaints about BLP violations in widget inventors biographies or AFDs about songs that mention widgets, too, because they're The Community™ and They Know Best what articles your little group of VOLUNTEERS should be working on."
See how that doesn't work? If you and three wikifriends get together and make a list of 200 articles that your little group wants to improve, then you should be permitted to do that. You should not have some outsider—not even a bunch of outsiders—show up and demand that your list of articles (your "scope") be changed to suit their POV about which articles ought to be editing.
This is the important point: WikiProjects have absolute, exclusive control over just this one thing: the list of pages they choose to support (including their choice not to support some pages). That's it: they control the list itself, which we call "their scope". They do not have any control over what goes into those articles. They do not have any control over the format of those articles. They do not have any control over any guidelines or policies related to those articles. They do not have any control over any other group's list. The only thing that they control is their own list.
I cannot imagine why anyone thinks it would be good, or useful, or wise, or effective, for people outside a group to force the people inside a group change the list of articles that the group has WP:VOLUNTEERed to work on. Other editors are never permitted to demand that the list of articles at User:SMcCandlish#What I'm working on now... be changed to include articles that The Community™ thinks SMcCandlish should work on, but that SMcCandlish does not want to work on. We all know that would be a perfectly unreasonable demand: he's a volunteer, and works on whatever he wants. Also, we all know that it wouldn't work, because he'd quit in protest, and then we'd lose a useful editor. So why on Earth would anyone believe that other editors should be permitted to demand exactly the same thing for a WikiProject composed of SMcCandlish and a couple of other editors?
Having said all of that, the usual reason for someone worrying about this section is because some representative of a WikiProject has forgotten that their group's control ends with their right to make the list of articles they want to support, and starts claiming that their group gets to control content, too, for anything on their list. This is nonsense; small groups of editors calling themselves a WikiProject get absolutely no extra rights compared to any other group of editors. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages for the guideline on that, and feel free to make it clearer and stronger whenever you find ways to improve it. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
PS: I slightly tweaked your version, of your changes after my WP:BOLD rewrite, to remove the "legacy histrionics" like huge swaths of boldfacing, and the odd "exclusive rights" legalistic stuff, also present in the old version. Maybe that's enough to arrive at a compromise text? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Part of why the page in question, WP:WikiProject Council/Guide, is so poorly understood, infrequently referenced by others, and POV-pushed in weird directions, is probably its location/name, and the fact that its talk page redirects here. WP:WikiProject Council is a wikiproject itself, an internal one like WP:WikiProject Inline templates. It might be better to have this at WP:WikiProjects guideline or something, and give it its own talk page. Regardless, we may need to check and make sure it's listed in all the categories, lists and templates of guidelines. I hazard a guess that 9 out of 10 experienced Wikipedians have no idea the page exists at all. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, where I can find recent changes in WikiProject Germany? There used to be tool for that but don't know what happened. -- Xoncha ( talk) 22:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Are there any statistics on which wikiproject is the most vandalised one? I need it for my research (I am a Ph.D. student). Srijankedia ( talk) 17:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Srijankedia. I have some datasets that you might find useful. You can find a dataset of reverted and reverting revisions in english wikipedia here: [9] Not all reverts are for vandalism, but most all vandalism gets reverted. This dataset should provide you with some signal. Here's a quick description of the fields in the datasets:
These files are complete for page_ids 0-43609236 and revision ids 0-622033840. Practically, that means these datasets represent complete data up to August 8th, 2014. -- EpochFail ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
That link works fine if you change "https" to "http". It looks like mediawiki is trying to be smart by having you connect via SSL (which is totally not necessary and won't work) Try copy-pasting this into your URL bar. http://datasets.wikimedia.org/public-datasets/enwiki/reverts/ -- EpochFail ( talk • contribs) 00:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Sure! You could do it with the API like this [12] or with Quarry like this [13]. -- EpochFail ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Great that works perfectly! Thanks! Srijankedia ( talk) 02:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, there seems to be some issues in the dataset that you gave the link to. For example: revision id 619251395 by Jacklikedick187 made at 06:08, 31 July 2014 was reverted by Bongwarrior at 07:26, 31 July 2014 [14]. However, the dataset does not mention that this edit was reverted. Any pointers in the direction or am I looking at things wrong? Thanks Srijankedia ( talk) 03:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I tag alot of biographies for inclusion within their countries sports sub-projects. For example, people from Australia, Canada, Russia and Hungary. Some of them use the parameter "|sports=yes" and others use "|sport=yes". Is there a way to standarize these? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
it is going on the co2 concetration in the extratosphere reducing low rate average to achive minor earth warming in short term with a hi- tech platform, decreasing the abnormal climate temperature and avoiding the effect of adverse phenomene world wide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.158.105.217 ( talk) 19:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The page above, and its related pages, are ones I am working on developing with material from the ALA Guide to Reference databank. On completion of adding all the relevant encyclopedias where it seems appropriate, I hope to add the other entries in that databank, along with other material from other sources, to a yet-to-be started similar Bibliography of reference works. FWIW, the Guide to Reference databank has over 3000 sources listed, and it looks like maybe 20% or so might be encyclopedic. So these lists are gonna get long. If anyone were to want to offer any help or suggestions in how to structure the pages for the optimum utility of their potential users, I would be more than grateful. John Carter ( talk) 16:22, 12 December 2014 (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.
In this CFD, we renamed the WikiProject Somalia articles as: Category:WikiProject Somalia articles by quality, Category:A-Class WikiProject Somalia articles, Category:B-Class WikiProject Somalia articles, etc. (because WikiProject Somalia does not necessarily only pertain to the country of Somalia). In contrast, something like Category:WikiProject Athletics articles goes by Category:Athletics articles by quality, Category:A-Class Athletics articles is inaccurate and somewhat confusing because these are identified by the WikiProject not because they necessarily are articles on Athletics (which are under Category:Athletics (sport)). I'd like to see if there's a broader consensus to support this naming convention in full. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 09:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a new project and I wonder if there is something missing. Tetra quark ( talk) 18:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Wikiroject should start to add assist stats in Footballer career statistics tables on footballer pages it would make their stat tables look a whole lot better because users who go on footballer wiki pages like to look at statistics. There is a very reliable website on http://www.espnfc.com/barclays-premier-league/23/statistics/assists that record assists. Some footballers stat tables look a bit bland on wiki because they don't score a huge amount such as players like Xavi Hernandez and Andres Iniesta but but they make a lot of assists another side to their game. ( http://www.espnfc.com/player/12907/xavi?season=2009 same website but has Spanish La Liga player recorded assists). Assists are just as important as goals. This is what an assist is an Assist was awarded to the player who had given the last pass to the goalscorer.. please will someone edit Frank Lampard's career statistics table and put in the stats table Lampard's premier league assists also his assists in all competitions for Chelsea because that is another important side to his game. The same for players like Paul Scholes, Ryan Giggs, Steven Gerrard. This will improve their statistics table. If you go on http://www.espnfc.com/player/8941/frank-lampard?season=2014 All of Lampard's assists for Chelsea and Manchester City have been recorded on that website. On that site the letter A in the table is for Assists and G is for Goals. It's a reliable site. On the site at top of the table on right side next to career click on 2014-15then all the years Lampard has played for Chelsea and his stats will open. Hope this helps you out.-- CescFabregas4CFC ( talk) 20:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I was looking for WP:Assessment and (as you can tell) ended up here.
Having asked around a bit over time, I still don't quite understand what we're doing, and how we're doing it, regarding article assessments for importance. Please note that it is not my intention to start a discussion about article assessments as concerns article quality, only about the importance aspect!
Couldn't Since the word "importance" be is considered problematic, especially for biographical articles assessed to be of "Importance: low", whereas "Priority: low" [etc.] could be seems better, with the couldn't stricter policy be the addition - right there! - of the name of the user giving h personal opinion ("assessment") in each case?
I may very well be underenlightened now in having an opinion which rather stongly objects to our regularly evaluating life stories, expecially those under WP:BLP, as of "high", "medium" or "low importance" - that (to boot!) being one of the the first things a reader sees very prominently displayed when visiting such an article's talk page, and that based solely on our own personal opinions, as far as I know, rather than on any other more substantial and neutrally reliable foundation. I don't see what gives us that right, nor why any such privilege or responsibility should exist for Wikipedia editors to exercise that kind of personal authority over other named individuals, living or dead, and their reputations.
Certainly other editors may also have questioned things like this (though Wikipower also may tend to corrupt us)?
Find a Grave is actually (for once) much more careful with something - the word "important" - than we are here, and they only deal with dead people. That's rather odd, I think. I'm absolutely not suggesting that we should use levels of fame for biography assessment, as they do, just that we look at something better than what we're doing now.
As with all my opinions, even the strongest ones, I am always open to clear, constructive, non-personalized, well-founded arguments aimed at changing them. Looking forward to such input, I remain sincerely -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 22:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
"what gives us that right". Importance ratings are about the article's importance and they say nothing about the subject. It's not a value judgement. If there's a specific case that's bothering you please take it up with WikiProject Biography. Don Quixote called and he wants his horse back. Chris Troutman ( talk) 00:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The priority level is not a matter of personal opinion. It is a matter of group opinion.
The main question to be answered is, "If you were making a fixed copy of Wikipedia (e.g., on paper or DVD), to put in a school or a library in a place without internet access, and you could not include everything, then what articles would you include in the first (smallest) copy, which ones in an expanded version, and which ones only if there were plenty of room to spare?"
Additionally, this forms the "priority" for a group that cares about each subject, so that the group will improve the articles that are more "important" to readers who want to learn about that subject.
This per-subject approach results in significant differences. For example, Leonardo da Vinci is on the WP:VITAL list, which means that if you are copying only ~1,000 articles—just 0.02% of our articles—then you should always include that one. But from the perspective of medicine-related articles—meaning, if you were making a list of the 1,000 most important medical articles to copy—he wouldn't be anywhere near the top of the list. You'd want articles like Common cold and Influenza and Sanitation and Antibiotics instead.
This isn't because da Vinci wasn't "important"; it's because there are more urgent "priorities" for a specifically medicine-related collection. This difference in focus creates differences in the ratings by project.
Frankly, there are hundreds of thousands of people whose bios will never rate inclusion in an offline copy with a general focus, just like there are billions of people whose bios will never rate inclusion in the English Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that they are less worthy as humans.
The question of the parameter label has come up multiple times before. The problem with fixing it is practical: To change just the label for WP:MED (where that change would be supported) requires editing 33,000 talk pages (and one template). That's a lot of work to do on the off-chance that someone might be unhappy with a parameter name that isn't even visible unless you edit the page.
(It's possible to change the text of the WikiProject banner without changing the actual parameter itself. If we did this at the main template, it would flood the job queue for a while, but that's not necessarily a blocker.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I'm part of the popular culture working group of Wikiproject Korea. As far as I can tell, the main WP has no admins, as there are none listed. The popular culture working group covers TV, movies, celebrities of all type, music, and such things. Right now, the few active members are trying to work intensively on a subset of these articles, the ones pertaining to Korean pop music. This includes biographical articles of people and groups, albums, EPs, songs, discographies, concert tours, etc. - they're spread out across a variety of different categories. One thing I'm struggling with is keeping track of all these articles, which are numerous. Wikipedia categories aren't too helpful because, again, the articles are split between many, many categories. And tracking them with the WP/working group's banner tag brings up all articles in the working group, which number in the thousands. I thought while we work on this little project, there might be some way to add another element to the WP tag, to allow tracking of just the articles we designate as fitting within the project. However, I'm not sure how to proceed either procedurally or from a technical point of view (I know zilch about templates or the like). Can you give me some advice? Thanks so much! Shinyang-i ( talk) 05:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
If you are curious to learn more about Article alerts here is a 2009 Signpost article about it. Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Council! I would like to recommend that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory be automated. There is no reason this needs to be maintained by human hands when it can be done automatically, plus the pages in the directory do not get edited enough for me to believe that any of it is up to date. The bot maintaining the directory would have two tasks: (1) scouring the categories of WikiProjects and generating lists on that basis; (2) updating WikiProject's classification as active/inactive. The former task would run more frequently, mostly to pick up on new WikiProjects, and the latter task would run less frequently. The bot lists would be tested in a sandbox before they replace the directory.
For this to work, especially the second part, we need to come up with objective definitions of active, semi-active, inactive, and defunct WikiProjects. If we are going to be labeling WikiProjects as such, we should at least standardize the terminology so we can get some proper metrics. First, I recommend collapsing the current four status categories into just "active" and "inactive." I don't see any practical difference between "inactive" and "defunct," and "semi-active" is ambiguous; does a semi-active project meet a basic minimum level of activity or not? In any case, I would recommend defining it according to the number of people editing (since WikiProjects are supposed to be collaborative after all). The number has to be the smallest that would suggest there is still a project going; I recommend at least three editors making at least two edits to all project pages (including WT pages and subpages) in a six month period. Three people indicates a group; the two edit requirement filters out most people dropping by to make random announcements (like yours truly). An inactive project is anything that falls below that.
Any thoughts? Harej ( talk) 04:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The one biggest reservation I can imagine would lie in addition and classification of new projects, or, specifically, figuring out exactly where to add them. I don't know that a bot would be able to do that, particularly if a given WikiProject would not unreasonably be included in more than one section of the directory. But I suppose it might be possible for a computer generated list to create a list of projects to be added which involved individuals could then use to update the directory. John Carter ( talk) 18:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I started doing some work with organizing Category:WikiProjects. I created a new parent category, Category:WikiProjects by area, where pretty much all projects will be sorted under. The main subcategories of the "WikiProjects" category are things like "WikiProjects by status," etc. In comparing the directory to the category tree, I find that they more or less resemble one another, but the category system is much sloppier. I would like to invest some effort in maintaining the category system, one because a well-maintained category system is typically a good thing, and because it will be necessary if we want to effectively automate the WikiProject directory.
I have a question regarding categorization best practices. WikiProjects often times have their own categories named after themselves. WikiProject Biography, for example, has a category Category:WikiProject Biography. In theory, the project could just belong to its self-named category, and then all applicable meta-categories (Culture WikiProjects, etc.) could apply to the project's category rather than the project's page. However, some projects are sorted in both their own self-named categories and the applicable meta-categories. There does not seem to be a consistent practice for these things. So should WikiProjects with their own categories also have their project pages sorted into additional categories, or should the additional categories apply to only the project category? Harej ( talk) 23:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for subscribing to the WikiProject X Newsletter. For our first issue...
Has WikiProject X changed the world yet? No.
We opened up shop last month and announced our existence to the world. Our first phase is the "research" phase, consisting mostly of reading and listening. We set up our landing page and started collecting stories. So far, 28 stories have been shared about WikiProjects, describing a variety of experiences across numerous WikiProjects. A recurring story involves a WikiProject that starts off strong but has trouble continuing to stay active. Most people describe using WikiProjects as a way to get feedback from other editors. Some quotes:
Of course, these are just anecdotes. While they demonstrate what is possible, they do not necessarily explain what is typical. We will be using this information in conjunction with a quantitative analysis of WikiProjects, as documented on Meta. Particularly, we are interested in the measurement of WikiProject activity as it relates to overall editing in that WikiProject's subject area.
We also have 50 people and projects signed up for pilot testing, which is an excellent start! (An important caveat: one person volunteering a WikiProject does not mean the WikiProject as a whole is interested; just that there is at least one person, which is a start.)
While carrying out our research, we are documenting the problems with WikiProjects and our ideas for making WikiProjects better. Some ideas include better integration of existing tools into WikiProjects, recommendations of WikiProjects for people to join, and improved coordination with Articles for Creation. These are just ideas that may or may not make it to the design phase; we will see. We are also working with WikiProject Council to improve the directory of WikiProjects, with the goal of a reliable, self-updating WikiProject directory. Stay tuned! If you have any ideas, you are welcome to leave a note on our talk page.
That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing!
– Harej 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
There's a discussion at
Template talk:WPBannerMeta#Very commendable guideline being virtually ignored which directly concerns
one of the pages for which this is a talk page. It also potentially affects every single WikiProject that recognises the |importance=
parameter (about 1000, I think), so deserves an audience that is wider than the 107 watchers of a template's talk page. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 21:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
|importance=
parameter, which is found on most WikiProject banners, but by no means all (for example, it's not recognised by {{
WikiProject Academic Journals}}
, {{
WikiProject Accessibility}}
, {{
WikiProject Disambiguation}}
, {{
WikiProject Elections and Referendums}}
, etc.). The discussion that I linked to concerns altering this from "importance" to "priority" in certain circumstances. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 15:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The subject in question is what you should type when you add a WikiProject banner. Most projects currently type something like this:
{{WikiProject Foo |class=Stub |importance=Mid}}
The question is whether "importance" should be changed to "priority". Then you would type this:
{{WikiProject Foo |class=Stub |priority=Mid}}
WikiProject Biographies has used "priority" because a lot of editors thought it would be really offensive to declare that some humans are unimportant. Most groups use "importance". WikiProject have been free to use whichever they want, but using "priority" usually requires extra work on their part, and most of them don't know how to do it. If you have an opinion on this, then please share your views at the other page. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry there was no template for this introduction. I have been to the teahouse and will park myself there. Would just like to get to know people that are interested in music and entertainment. Lbhiggin ( talk) 16:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Taylor Swift has her own WikiProject? Drmies ( talk) 20:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Just wondering if anyone else noticed? Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Which wp:wikiproject is the most popular on wikipedia? Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
WikiProject Biography}}
, with
over one-and-a-quarter million transclusions is way out in front. One of the most active is {{
WikiProject Military history}}
, with
"only" 173085 pages tagged. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 16:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)This
edit request to
Wikipedia:WikiProject has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete the "A" from the beginning of the following sentence: "A WikiProject's pages are not used for writing encyclopedia articles directly," because it is not grammatically correct, as the rest of the sentence is written in plural. Carly321 ( talk) 18:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
For this month's issue...
Making sense of a lot of data.
Work on our prototype will begin imminently. In the meantime, we have to understand what exactly we're working with. To this end, we generated a list of 71 WikiProjects, based on those brought up on our Stories page and those who had signed up for pilot testing. For those projects where people told stories, we coded statements within those stories to figure out what trends there were in these stories. This approach allowed us to figure out what Wikipedians thought of WikiProjects in a very organic way, with very little by way of a structure. (Compare this to a structured interview, where specific questions are asked and answered.) This analysis was done on 29 stories. Codes were generally classified as "benefits" (positive contributions made by a WikiProject to the editing experience) and "obstacles" (issues posed by WikiProjects, broadly speaking). Codes were generated as I went along, ensuring that codes were as close to the original data as possible. Duplicate appearances of a code for a given WikiProject were removed.
We found 52 "benefit" statements encoded and 34 "obstacle" statements. The most common benefit statement referring to the project's active discussion and participation, followed by statements referring to a project's capacity to guide editor activity, while the most common obstacles made reference to low participation and significant burdens on the part of the project maintainers and leaders. This gives us a sense of WikiProjects' big strength: they bring people together, and can be frustrating to editors when they fail to do so. Meanwhile, it is indeed very difficult to bring editors together on a common interest; in the absence of a highly motivated core of organizers, the technical infrastructure simply isn't there.
We wanted to pair this qualitative study with quantitative analysis of a WikiProject and its "universe" of pages, discussions, templates, and categories. To this end I wrote a script called ProjAnalysis which will, for a given WikiProject page (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek) and WikiProject talk-page tag (e.g. Template:WikiProject Star Trek), will give you a list of usernames of people who edited within the WikiProject's space (the project page itself, its talk page, and subpages), and within the WikiProject's scope (the pages tagged by that WikiProject, excluding the WikiProject space pages). The output is an exhaustive list of usernames. We ran the script to analyze our test batch of WikiProjects for edits between March 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015, and we subjected them to further analysis to only include those who made 10+ edits to pages in the projects' scope, those who made 4+ edits to the projects' space, and those who made 10+ edits to pages in scope but not 4+ edits to pages in the projects' space. This latter metric gives us an idea of who is active in a certain subject area of Wikipedia, yet who isn't actively engaging on the WikiProject's pages. This information will help us prioritize WikiProjects for pilot testing, and the ProjAnalysis script in general may have future life as an application that can be used by Wikipedians to learn about who is in their community.
Complementing the above two studies are a design analysis, which summarizes the structure of the different WikiProject spaces in our test batch, and the comprehensive census of bots and tools used to maintain WikiProjects, which will be finished soon. With all of this information, we will have a game plan in place! We hope to begin working with specific WikiProjects soon.
As a couple of asides...
That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing! If you have any questions or comments, please share them with us.
Harej ( talk) 01:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey guys, the toolserver.org links are dead/not working at the moment. Three of the last in a list of a bunch of links aren't working:
"List of WikiProjects List of uncategorized WikiProjects WikiProjects by number of articles (dynamically)"
I didn't want to delete them because maybe the links have just been moved. Skiingxmoose ( talk) 01:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Just wondering whether any projects around here might find it useful to have a bot generated list of articles related to the project which don't yet exist. It might be possible to create such lists based on a few pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Encyclopedic articles and just having the blue links as they are created removed from the list. I do think having such lists available for some of the projects might be one of the easier ways to get some editors involved in the projects. John Carter ( talk) 20:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to add WikiProject Motorcycling to the directory, without breaking hierarchy conventions. I see rail transport listed out on its own, but it has subprojects to list (Motorcycling does not). Advice? — Brianhe ( talk) 18:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Project | Active | Assessment | Peer review | Collaboration | Portal | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Motorcycling | yes | yes | yes | yes | Project founded 2006; 134 enrolled members; featured in Cycle World [16] | |
Motorcycle racing | yes | yes | Motorcycle racing | Project founded late 2008; 45 enrolled members |
I propose WikiProject tags are disallowed to transclude to-do lists unrelated to the article. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/to do is currently transcluded on around 14000 article talk pages with {{ WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)}}. Some disadvantages of this: Waste of server resources and bandwidth. Users of the mobile version or without Javascript see the full to-do lists on the talk pages and not just a "[show]" link. WhatLinksHere for a page linked in the to-do list gets thousands of irrelevant talk pages. Special:WantedPages (which is updated contrary to MediaWiki:Wantedpages-summary) becomes pretty useless when it mainly shows arbitrary pages on to-do lists. Other stats are probably also polluted. The only advantage of the system seems to be that readers of a tagged talk page can see the to-do list by clicking "show" instead of a link to the list itself. This search finds many WikiProject tags using transclusion. If we disallow it then a single central template change should be able to replace most or all transcluded to-do lists with a link to the list. Each WikiProject can then decide whether to remove/reword the link, redesign their to-do list for better direct viewing, or just leave things as they are. PrimeHunter ( talk) 23:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
{{
WikiProject Dance}}
- which shows either of two to-do lists (the
WikiProject Ballet To-do list or the
WikiProject Dance To-do list), depending on whether |Ballet-todolist=yes
is set or not. It's not even tied to the parameter |Ballet=yes
- they are independent, and can be set yes/no or no/yes. That's probably one to rationalise. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 00:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
<tr><td></td><td colspan="2">'''[[{{{TODO_LINK}}}|{{{TODO_TITLE|To-do list}}}]]'''</td></tr><noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>
. But when it's no longer a collapsible table, maybe the link should be placed elsewhere.
PrimeHunter (
talk) 02:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Waste of server resources and bandwidth: Don't worry about performance.
Users of the mobile version: Users who are browsing talk pages on mobile (heck, any pages) probably understand the implications that may have on their data plans or speed of loading.
Javascript: Similarly.
WhatLinksHere for a page linked in the to-do list gets thousands of irrelevant talk pages.: I'm not convinced that this is an issue. Users using WhatLinksHere understand the implications.
Special:WantedPages (which is updated contrary to MediaWiki:Wantedpages-summary) becomes pretty useless when it mainly shows arbitrary pages on to-do lists: Special:WantedPages is and has largely always been useless....
I do realize that many of the WikiProjects, other than those popular active ones, are either outdated, relatively unknown, or just simply abandoned. Why is that so? Are there any suggestions on how this situation can be improved? My suggestion would be to introduce newly registered users to WikiProjects, and show them how it works to coordinate contributions and also to replace inactive users. What are your thoughts on this?
Also, I do realize the WikiProject task forces links are not prominent enough. Sometimes articles are not clearly shown that they are a part of a WikiProject. Maybe putting something like, "This article is part of the XX WikiProject task force. You may, optionally, join as a member to help coordinate and improve this article" at the header or footer will help, perhaps? 115.66.106.201 ( talk) 19:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, there. I've submitted a grant proposal for the Inspire Project, and have been trying to figure out the best way to attract existing editors to the project and/or attract new editors. This is obviously a system-wide problem (reading the above discussions and the discussions they link to)
My questions for this group:
Thanks in advance!
Natalie Bueno Vasquez (
talk) 17:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to list this in the directory, but I created WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton as a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles related to Hillary Clinton, similar to the WikiProject for Barack Obama. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
It may not be a particularly good idea, but I am in the early stages of putting together a "Library" subpage for WikiProject Religion, which I hope will list all the PD sources included in the bibliographies of the individual articles in the most recent Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion. With some luck, if those sources are available at archive.org or elsewhere as PD entites, we might be able to add the .pdf files or .djvu files to commons, and, maybe, get some people involved in transcribing them for wikisource. It's actually because of their preference for .djvu files that I mentioned that format, even though I myself have yet to figure out how to get the damn plug-in to work to allow me to download and upload such files. It might be worthwhile for other rather broad projects to try something similar. Maybe, if it winds up being at all useful. John Carter ( talk) 18:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I have created a redesign for Template:WikiProject Footer in the style of a navbox.
If changed: see this revision.
Any comments at all? -- Mrjulesd (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Greetings! For this month's issue...
We have demos!
After a lengthy research and design process, we decided for WikiProject X to focus on two things:
We have a live demonstration of the new WikiProject workflow at WikiProject Women in Technology, a brand new WikiProject that was set up as an adjunct to a related edit-a-thon in Washington, DC. The goal is to surface action items for editors, and we intend on doing that through automatically updated working lists. We are looking into using SuggestBot to generate lists of outstanding tasks, and we are looking into additional options for automatic worklist generation. This takes the burden off of WikiProject editors to generate these worklists, though there is also a "requests" section for Wikipedians to make individual requests. (As of writing, these automated lists are not yet live, so you will see a blank space under "edit articles" on the demo WikiProject. Sorry about that!) I invite you to check out the WikiProject and leave feedback on WikiProject X's talk page.
Once the demo is sufficiently developed, we will be working on a limited deployment on our pilot WikiProjects. We have selected five for the first round of testing based on the highest potential for impact and will scale up from there.
While a re-designed WikiProject experience is much needed, that alone isn't enough. A WikiProject isn't any good if people have no way of discovering it. This is why we are also developing an automatically updated WikiProject directory. This directory will surface project-related metrics, including a count of active WikiProject participants and of active editors in that project's subject area. The purpose of these metrics is to highlight how active the WikiProject is at the given point of time, but also to highlight that project's potential for success. The directory is not yet live but there is a demonstration featuring a sampling of WikiProjects.
Each directory entry will link to a WikiProject description page which automatically list the active WikiProject participants and subject-area article editors. This allows Wikipedians to find each other based on the areas they are interested in, and this information can be used to revive a WikiProject, start a new one, or even for some other purpose. These description pages are not online yet, but they will use this template, if you want to get a feel of what they will look like.
We need volunteers!
WikiProject X is a huge undertaking, and we need volunteers to support our efforts, including testers and coders. Check out our volunteer portal and see what you can do to help us!
As an aside...
Wouldn't it be cool if lists of requested articles could not only be integrated directly with WikiProjects, but also shared between WikiProjects? Well, we got the crazy idea of having experimental software feature Flow deployed (on a totally experimental basis) on the new Article Request Workshop, which seeks to be a place where editors can "workshop" article ideas before they get created. It uses Flow because Flow allows, essentially, section-level categorization, and in the future will allow "sections" (known as "topics" within Flow) to be included across different pages. What this means is that you have a recommendation for a new article tagged by multiple WikiProjects, allowing for the recommendation to appear on lists for each WikiProject. This will facilitate inter-WikiProject collaboration and will help to reduce duplicated work. The Article Request Workshop is not entirely ready yet due to some bugs with Flow, but we hope to integrate it into our pilot WikiProjects at some point.
Harej ( talk) 00:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
There's a discussion that may concern this project at WT:FILM#RfC: Do list items need their own WP article in order to be sourced in list articles?. More input is appreciated. Lapadite ( talk) 15:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I am a student in a class on modern and contemporary Japanese theatre, and I am going to be editing this page as part of a class project. Here is a list of sources I am going to use. Please let me know if you have any comments! Thank you. Secondabroad0909 ( talk) 08:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Dorsey, John T. "Reviewed Work: Between God and Man: A Judgment on War Crimes by Kinoshita Junji, Eric J. Gangloff." Comparative Literature Studies 18.2 (1981): 208-10. JSTOR. Web. 25 Apr. 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40246255. Kinoshita, Junji. Between God and Man: A Judgment on War Crimes: a Play in Two Parts. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1979. Print. Haley, John O. "Reviewed Works: Between God and Man: A Judgment on War Crimes by Kinoshita Junji; The Japanese on Trial: Allied War Crimes Operations in the East, 1945-1951 by Philip R. Piccigallo." Journal of Japanese Studies 8.1 (1982): 165-70. JSTOR. Web. 27 Apr. 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/132280. Kinoshita, Junji. Nihon No Minwa. Tokyo: Mainichi Shinbunsha, 1960. Print. Goodman, David G. "Reviewed Work: Junji Kinoshita, Requiem on the Great Meridian and Selected Essays by Brian Powell, Jason Daniel, Junji Kinoshita." Asian Theatre Journal 19.2 (2002): 362-64. JSTOR. Web. 25 Apr. 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1124320. Kinoshita, Junji, Susumu Ono, and Saiichi Maruya. Gikyoku No Nihongo. Tokyo: Chuo Koronsha, 1982. Print. |
.... Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Project advice for no movies in navboxes -- Moxy ( talk) 17:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The WikiProject Ageing and culture was created outside of the Proposals process, and I'm wondering if they should just go ahead or if any editors have any comments or objections about this. What I'm thinking is that it seems like a niche topic, and the founder is quite new here, and the other two members are completely new. Being new isn't a bad thing but I'm afraid they might not stay here long and the project will be abandoned soon. — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 17:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe "Ageing and society" would've been a better title? — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 10:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Please be aware that there is currently a deletion discussion regarding the above-named new Hillary Rodham Clinton WikiProject, which was previously announced at this talk page. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I would like to join this WikiProject. Please tell me if there is anything I need to know. Leave me messages on my talk page. Thanks! Writer freak Contributions 18:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed that a lot of WikiProject pages are formatted using tables. This causes unreadably narrow columns on any mobile device. It'd be useful if sections could be reflowed into vertical sections in mobile view (e.g. using {{ col-begin}}). I've done it in WP:MCB, although it took quite a bit of reformatting to get it to work. Perhaps there's a better way to do it than using columns, but it might be useful for other projects as a possible solution. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 12:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm looking for some comments over here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations#Are_you_kidding_me.3F. — Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 08:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
This guideline says: "If your area fits neatly within an existing group with a larger scope (e.g., your favorite video game vs WP:WikiProject Video games), then please join that project, rather than starting yet another WikiProject." This makes no sense to me given that there seems to be no problem with WikiProject United States presidential elections being a sub-project of WikiProject United States. Can someone please explain? Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, maybe this is what we're aiming for:
“ | If your area fits neatly within an existing group with a larger scope (e.g., your favorite video game vs WP:WikiProject Video games), please consider joining that project rather than starting yet another WikiProject, and if that turns out not to work well then consider forming a separate discussion page or task force within that existing WikiProject before deciding to set up a new one. | ” |
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I think we are now here:
“ | There are costs in having too many WikiProjects, such as spreading interested editors too thin. If you have an idea for a new WikiProject, you should probably first participate in the existing active WikiProject whose scope includes your topic of interest. After a few months, the existing WikiProject's community can evaluate the pros and cons of creating a separate discussion area, task force, or WikiProject for your topic. | ” |
For me, that works fine, and is not too long. This would replace the current inflexible language:
“ | If your area fits neatly within an existing group with a larger scope (e.g., your favorite video game vs WP:WikiProject Video games), then please join that project, rather than starting yet another WikiProject. | ” |
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I have been working on a new WikiProject directory that (a) automatically updates itself via bot; (b) provides information on who is participating on projects and in those projects' subject area with opt-out for individuals; (c) lists related WikiProjects based on the number of pages in common. The draft directory is located here. Note that during this demonstration phase, only 500 WikiProjects are included in the index, out of the 2,600+ in existence, so the listings may look sparse in some places. Please review the draft and let me know what you think. Thanks, Harej ( talk) 02:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello friends! We have been hard at work these past two months. For this report:
For the first time, we are happy to bring you an exhaustive, comprehensive WikiProject Directory. This directory endeavors to list every single WikiProject on the English Wikipedia, including those that don't participate in article assessment. In constructing the broadest possible definition, we have come up with a list of approximately 2,600 WikiProjects. The directory tracks activity statistics on the WikiProject's pages, and, for where it's available, statistics on the number of articles tracked by the WikiProject and the number of editors active on those articles. Complementing the directory are description pages for each project, listing usernames of people active on the WikiProject pages and the articles in the WikiProject's scope. This will help Wikipedians interested in a subject find each other, whether to seek feedback on an article or to revive an old project. (There is an opt-out option.) We have also come up with listings of related WikiProjects, listing the ten most relevant WikiProjects based on what articles they have in common. We would like to promote WikiProjects as interconnected systems, rather than isolated silos.
A tremendous amount of work went into preparing this directory. WikiProjects do not consistently categorize their pages, meaning we had to develop our own index to match WikiProjects with the articles in their scope. We also had to make some adjustments to how WikiProjects were categorized; indeed, I personally have racked up a few hundred edits re-categorizing WikiProjects. There remains more work to be done to make the WikiProject directory truly useful. In the meantime, take a look and feel free to leave feedback at the WikiProject X talk page.
What have we been working on?
Want us to work on any other tools? Interested in volunteering? Leave a note on our talk page.
The database report which lists WikiProjects according to the number of watchers (i.e., people that have the project on their watchlist), is back! The report stopped being updated a year ago, following the deactivation of the Toolserver, but a replacement report has been generated.
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.-- Lucas559 ( talk) 22:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
I am a participant in WikiProject Organized Labour. Currently I am working on taking Americans for Prosperity to GA. Americans for Prosperity is included in Category:Labor relations in the United States. I added our project banner to Americans for Prosperity in March 2015. The article is bannered for WikiProject Conservatism, and the article content reflects that, but the subject has diverse stakeholders including Organized Labour and Environment/Climate Change.
I was reverted in June. I sought feedback from my fellow project members at our project talk page, at which time I discovered that the reverting editor had nominated the article for exclusion, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour#Americans for Prosperity. I nominated the article for inclusion, briefly summarizing the evidence for inclusion. A fellow project participant concurred for inclusion, as did a third editor, not a project participant. Subsequent to an explanation of WP:PROJSCOPE from another editor at article talk, please see Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Article Wikiprojects and rating.3F, and subsequent to a consensus for inclusion at project talk, in which both threads the reverting editor participated, the reverting editor reverted the project add five more times.
I filed with WP:EWN, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Onel5969_reported_by_User:HughD_.28Result:_Page_restriction_applied.29. I did not ask for a block, I was just hoping I could get someone to explain WP:PROJSCOPE and ask the reverting editor to please stop. The EWN report resulted in page edit restrictions, but no action regarding the reversion of the project banner, which was deemed out-of-scope and referred to WP:ANI.
I re-filed at WP:ANI, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Onel5969_repeated_removal_of_WikiProject_talk_page_banner. An admin at ANI told me I failed to invite article talk participants to project talk and told me to do an RfC at project talk.
Questions
1. An RfC is our mechanism for assessing community-wide consensus on a issue. A thread on project talk is our mechanism for assessing project-wide consensus. My humble read of WP:PROJSCOPE is that it is in effect us saying to each other, look, guys, adding a project banner to an article is way too trivial to edit war about, and it is way too trivial to RfC. WP:PROJSCOPE does specify a project's consensus mechanism but neither does it require an RfC. Is it appropriate to require an RfC for a project banner ad? Is this common? I could not find any such RfCs in the central archive. Might asking a project participant to RfC to add a project banner to an article conflict with the principle that scope is at the discretion of project participants? Does requiring an RfC for a project banner add imply that it is community, not project, purview?
2. What is the appropriate forum for reporting repeated reversion of a project banner add?
Sorry if this is a FAQ. Thank you for your time and attention and advice. Hugh ( talk) 21:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, The logo on the page /info/en/?search=Husqvarna_Group is unfortunately old (used between 1973 and 2012). Would it be possible for someone to change? I have added the correct logo in the logopedia, and of course I cans end it to you directly.
Best regards,
Cathrine Stjärnekull Corporate Communications, Husqvarna Group — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.126.81.100 ( talk) 11:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
People who hang out here may have some developed opinions on what constitutes a healthy online community. Please consider sharing your thoughts at m:Grants:Evaluation/Community Health learning campaign. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm looking to revive an inactive task-force, the Percy Jackson Task-force, and one of the ways I thought to do this was to change its scope and possibly rename/move it. I'm trying to get the project to include all the articles pertaining to Rick Riordan, the author of the book series it's currently focused on. The change-of-scope seems simple enough and perfectly "canon" (for lack of a better word), but I'm unsure about trying to change the name. I feel it would help attract more interested editors and eliminate some confusion about the project's "jurisdiction", but it also seems complex, and I can't find any examples of task-forces which have successfully done this. Any advice or other help would be greatly appreciated, either here or on my Talk page. 2ReinreB2 ( talk) 03:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I've created a user script to provide a nice user interface for adding WikiProject assessments to article talk pages and have proposed it as a gadget. To try it out, add ...
mw.loader.load( '//en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Kaldari/assessmentHelper.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' );
... to your common.js. If you have any feedback or want to support it being added as a gadget, please comment at the Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals discussion. Thanks! Kaldari ( talk) 18:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
FYI, several WikiProject Banners have come up for deletion because the projects that use them are marked as inactive. See WP:TFD for the discussions. -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 03:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
If a WikiProject is marked FFA, can I then make it class=A?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 13:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
WikiProjects are often sorted into categories of the variety "[Something] WikiProjects". WikiProjects also frequently have their own categories; for example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography has a corresponding Category:WikiProject Biography. I tend to refer to the former categories as "meta-categories" and the latter as "self-named categories". I have found that categorization of WikiProjects into appropriate meta-categories is inconsistent. Some projects have meta-categories on both the project page and the self-named categories; others have them just on the self-named categories, and some projects have different categories between the project pages and the self-named categories. It varies from project to project, and I apologize for contributing to this inconsistency.
I propose that for the WikiProjects that have their own categories, that meta-categories are only sorted into the category and not the project page itself. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, currently sorted under Category:WikiProject Biography and Category:Society WikiProjects, would only be sorted under Category:WikiProject Biography, and that category would be sorted under Category:Society WikiProjects. It makes the (much-needed) categorization effort easier, since categories will only need to be assigned in one place. I am volunteering to write a bot to enforce this.
I open this up for discussion. Harej ( talk) 03:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea (although some people argue that it's not worth time doing any category maintenance, since categories are rarely helpful). A few months ago, I cleaned up the WikiProject category structure a bit, but a bot would be nice. Generally, I think the WikiProject category structure should follow these rules:
Using this logic, there won't be any circular categorization, which has been a problem in the past. Also, it should make category navigation easier, as you don't have to look in any WikiProject's categories to find other projects that would otherwise be difficult to find. All projects are strictly categorized according to type. -- Scott Alter ( talk) 07:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Bot request for approval is here: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Harej bot. Harej ( talk) 22:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm more than open to the idea of changing the top-level categorization system. As Jeraphine pointed out, "Culture" and "Society" seem like such interchangeable categories (indeed, a lot of projects are sorted as both), and "Humanities" is fairly duplicative. The Council-maintained directory has:
as top-level categories. Compare to the current category system of:
I think the former is a clearer grouping. What does everyone else think? Harej ( talk) 22:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I have added Wikiproject tags to the talk page of a redirect. The tag shows:
Is there a way to get rid of the ???
Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech ( talk) 08:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to notify everyone here of this new WikiProject Wikipedia that Tortle has created. Eman235/ talk 21:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Tokyogirl79. I will probably continue the project under a new name at a later date and will gain more experience by then and/or get some help. Thanks Tortle ( talk) 07:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
There currently is a discussion about the future organization of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women and several other women-related Wikiprojects and taskforces at the above link. Some aspects may be of interests to editors of this project and your participation in the discussion would be appreciated. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
this looks like a great idea. feel free to keep me informed if you want. thanks! -- Sm8900 ( talk) 15:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Surely there is a wp:WikiProject here for Pet related articles? What is the best way to find projects on a specific topic? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech ( talk) 13:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I've WP:BOLDly worked on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages a bit. It seemed kind of diffusely critical, instead of providing more specific advice on what makes a great advice page, and how to avoid conflicts with both site-wide standards and other projects. It also gave an out-of-place example of an embedded advice section in a main wikiproject page without mentioning that WikiProject advice can be a separate page or not, so I explained and illustrated that it can be both. There were also a couple of redundantly worded bits that I tweaked. I don't believe I changed any sort of "do"/"don't" about project pages, just provided a more useful explication of what WikiProject advice material is and how it's useful. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
How do I get class=Future added to WikiProject Brazil? Articles for the 2015 Olympics include Talk:Cycling at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's cross-country and others.-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 19:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello there! Happy to be writing this newsletter once more. This month:
In July, we launched five pilot WikiProjects: WikiProjects Cannabis, Evolutionary Biology, Ghana, Hampshire, and Women's Health. We also use the new design, named "WPX UI," on WikiProject Women in Technology, Women in Red, WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health. We are currently looking for projects for the next round of testing. If you are interested, please sign up on the Pilots page.
Shortly after our launch we presented at Wikimania 2015. Our slides are on Wikimedia Commons.
Then after all that work, we went through the process of figuring out whether we accomplished our goal. We reached out to participants on the redesigned WikiProjects, and we asked them to complete a survey. (If you filled out your survey—thank you!) While there are still some issues with the WikiProject tools and the new design, there appears to be general satisfaction (at least among those who responded). The results of the survey and more are documented in our grant report filed with the Wikimedia Foundation.
There is more work that needs to be done, so we have applied for a renewal of our grant. Comments on the proposal are welcome. We would like to improve what we have already started on the English Wikipedia and to also expand to Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. Why those? Because they are multilingual projects and because there needs to be better coordination across Wikimedia projects. More details are available in the renewal proposal.
The Wikimedia Developer Summit will be held in San Francisco in January 2016. The recently established Community Tech team at the Wikimedia Foundation is interested in investigating what technical support they can provide for WikiProjects, i.e., support beyond just templates and bots. I have plenty of opinions myself, but I want to hear what you think. The session is being planned on Phabricator, the Wikimedia bug tracker. If you are not familiar with Phabricator, you can log in with your Wikipedia username and password through the "Login or Register: MediaWiki" button on the login page. Your feedback can help make editing Wikipedia a better experience.
Until next time,
I notice this earlier but there is a distinct Category:Unassessed-Class articles and Category:Unassessed articles (one redirects to the other at the moment). Most WikiProject have just Unassessed X articles but projects that do separate quality and importance subcategories have to have a separate Unassessed-Class articles I think. I presume it's a default from Template:Class or whichever template is doing that but I wanted to see if there's interest in renaming things like Category:Unassessed-Class India articles of High-importance to Category:Unassessed India articles of High-importance to match Category:Unassessed India articles where all unassessed articles are (therefore the child subcategory and the category are alined). -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Important discussions regarding the TAFI Wikiproject are happening atm. Please weigh in at discussions like: Should TAFI return to the main page?.-- Coin945 ( talk) 18:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)