This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I know that this is an idea which has probably been beaten to death repeatedly, but I'm going to raise it anyway. Right now, we have about 1.2 million articles with banners, leaving around 1.0 million without any banners yet. I think it might well be the case that the month of December, particularly late December, might be one of the quietest times for wikipedia. There will doubtless be a lot of complaints if this were to be done, but what would the rest of you think of perhaps asking a bot to place banners on as many articles that haven't yet been tagged as it finds. Also, if we do get many/most of the articles tagged, do the rest of you think that it might be an acceptable idea to try to tag newer articles (created in the last X hours), regularly thereafter? The advantage of the former is that it would make it substantially easier for projects to know which articles they have to deal with, and would with luck result in more assessments, and attention to those articles. The advantage of the latter, if that bot were to not engage in assessments, is that it would allow the relevant projects to know which new articles have been created, by their appearing in the unassessed articles category. I know that this could potentially take a very long time, and that several of the banners might be contested, even sometimes by the project itself. But at this point I think it might be the only way to really get assessment going for a lot of projects. Anyway, I welcome any responses, positive or negative. John Carter ( talk) 20:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The consensus in the math project has been to avoid mass tagging articles; we'd rather see the class= and importance= parameters filled in when the tags are placed, since we already have a list of mathematics articles. This requires warm bodies to read the articles before placing the tags. I think this consensus could change, but it would take strong reasons in favor of the tagging. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 23:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This is why I think that my concept of general top-level "holding pen" tags/assessments is perhaps easier and more feasible. The main purpose is merely to bring all possible articles into the assessment scheme through simple means, and allow the articles to be "claimed" by their respective projects and more appropriately tagged later. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 00:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been running rampant through the infrastructure of the League of Copyeditors and, having made a new set of templates for the listing mechanism, turned my attention to the woefully out-of-date members list. On the talk page, I've outlined a skeleton system I've created and tested to improve the project members list. It adds enhanced functionality to flag up users that haven't "checked in" for more than an arbitrary time period. The relevant code is included at Template:LOCE/T, Template:User LOCE and the members list. The point is that this system could be fairly easily ported to become a standard set of templates that could be used by any WikiProject to enhance their members list. I'd be interested to hear from members of the council whether this system would be useful, and if there are any improvements/additions to suggest to it. Probably the best way to respond is on the LOCE members list talk page. Happy‑ melon 17:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me why the WP:PROJDIR now has an "active" column? It looks silly, at least to me, and I thought we had already decided that only the active projects would be listed on the directory anyway, so it's redundant as well. Also, I seriously have to question why the Basic topic lists, Topic lists, Glossaries, Portals, and Category projects are listed separately in the directory template. Are those individual projects really so important to each be listed separately? John Carter ( talk) 21:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
At one point, it was all the vogue. Have your WikiProject have a "Collaboration of the week". Then as inactivity sets in, rename it to Collaboration of the Month, then as further inactivity sets in, the pages just "sit there".
In my experience, collaboration happens in "spurts", and usually is more likely to happen due to a talk page discussion than some "collab of the week/month/year".
(I think a list of those which are actually "active" would be interesting.)
Along with the main page, there are often nomination pages, related categories, and a myriad of templates.
And all this just to note that a single article should be worked on?
Not to be too cliche, but Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and the related Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep would seem to apply here?
Most projects have noticeboards, and a note on the noticeboard (either as a result of being bold, or WikiProject talk page consensus) should be enough.
I've noticed that inactive projects have been listed at MfD lately. Perhaps these should be as well? (A project could be active, with an inactive CotW/M.)
I welcome more information about these, as well as others' opinions. - jc37 02:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week has even been marked historical... - jc37 14:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Why are project tags generally placed on the talk page? Is it so people working on the article can contact the project for help, or is it so the project can keep track of how well it's doing with improving articles? -- NE2 05:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The issue here far transcends wikiwork or stubs or any statistic. The issue is that one editor, NE2, is garbling the scopes of established, active WikiProjects. This is explained in full detail elsewhere, including WT:USRD/SUB (where it originated) and WT:USRD where it spread. For the sake of redundancy, I'll make this brief. Now, I'm not a mindreader, but when the state highway WikiProjects were created years ago, I'm damn sure that they had no intention of including any articles on routes not part of the modern state highway system. The issue here is that NE2 is interpreting the scopes to include articles on auto routes and turnpikes that used to exist in the state for the supposed reason that they were state-maintained. But none of the projects were ever designed nor intended to cover these articles. They were designed to cover members of the modern state highway system in that state. Again, I'm no mindreader, but I'm confident that this is accurate. The whole story is at WT:USRD/SUB. -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 07:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
(Indent reset) If we want to close one of the extraneous forums you've opened, sure. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Requesting comments from other talk pages is not automatically "forum shopping". NE2 does not appear to have done anything wrong. -- Ned Scott 07:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone help fix a strange glitch in Template:WikiProject_Unionism? I have explained it at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 135#Help_needed_with_Template:WikiProject_Unionism. (Maybe I should have posted here first, sorry if I started in the wrong place). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, everyone's been over this already, several times. However, we still have a huge number of articles which have yet to be assessed, or even have banners placed on them. That's why I think it might be a reasonable idea to try something like this. We maybe try to get the various extant projects to place their project banner on the talk page of any category where the contents of that specific category, not including any subcategories, would all fall within the scope of that project. Subcategories would be possibly individually tagged as well. Then, as articles are created, we could have some bot go through and place the appropriate banners on the talk page based on the existing categorization, without class or importance ratings in place. It might also be possible to occasionally have a bot run a list of the articles that are FA, FFA, GA, FGA, and DYKs, for the purpose of helping the possibly beleaguered portal maintainers. By placing the banner without class or importance ratings in, it would also make it a bit more obvious that the article might be a newer one, and it would hopefully draw the attention of someone in the project to the "Unassessed" articles, maybe getting them assessed more quickly in some cases. Anyway, just an idea. John Carter ( talk) 15:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is an example of something which may go wrong. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Roads#Article tagging gone mad. Simply south ( talk) 12:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Do people think that the participants section on the Council page should be moved to a new page? Simply south ( talk) 22:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
At User:Warlordjohncarter/Removal list of projects I have a list of all the projects which I haven't yet added to the new version of the directory whose main page can be found at User:Warlordjohncarter/Directory. Any help in adding the existing projects to the new directory, which uses the basic categories of the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which the existing directory doesn't would be greatly appreciated. If anyone can add the projects on the first named page to the draft directory, please remove that name from the removal list. I know it is somewhat outdated, but the projects which have been created since I started work can be added to the directory after these others are taken care of. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 15:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Many of the transport ones are listed in the directory so i'm not sure why they are in your list. And i am sure this applies to many others. (And on a minor point, is it okay in the directory to change the "Highways" sub-section to "roads", as more than just highways are covered). Simply south ( talk) 14:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Right now, just about every recognized national entity and/or overseas territory has at least a separate work group page, although creating the banner specifications is still ongoing. Do the rest of you think it would make sense to create separate banners for each national entity, and maybe some of the overseas territories, or not? The disadvantages include possible banner proliferation, but it would draw more attention to the subproject, not just the main project itself. Any ideas? John Carter ( talk) 22:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps but shouldn't the national work group of a regional project actually be displayed on the banner underneath the main regional project? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 22:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
For exmaple see
Talk:Dolores, El Petén. That regional banner should at least display:
This article is supported by the
Guatemala work group.
Could somebody then add these for each of the country work groups to the regional templates? The thing is the issue needs to be resolved if we must keep the regional banners and not have seperate banners.
♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 22:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I have just been on Wikipedia: Village Pumpto propose a new WikiProject: Gerontology, and some one said I can make this proposal here. This could be a good interdisciplinary WikiProject; any offers? ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
its funny that he asked about a gerentology project becouse ive been trying to start a biogerentology project, or a end to old age study project, neuroscientifically based. how can i do this?? please just messge my talk page i wont remember this link.
Roy Stanley (
talk) 20:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I strongly think we need a "next page" option on our encyclopedia pages -rather like a book where you can browse the encyclopedia from one article into the next in an A-Z. While the multi wiki links in the article connect to related topics one of the things I like when looking at a book encyclopedia is to read through one article into the next on different articles. It is quite a nuisance to have to keep looking up in the index all the time. Is there anyway this option could be made available even if it is only a user preference option and a small icon or arrow (mimicking a page turn over) or something in the top right hand corner?
For example in the top right hand corner of the page two arrows <- -> for page forward and page backwards in the encyclopedia article index.
♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 15:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Well at least have an option on the page to look at that article in the index. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 20:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
some one just needs to get to the code wrighting and make a scroll box out of it.. lazy mongols.. : ) Roy Stanley ( talk) 20:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed an interesting class which i am not sure how this fits with the current classification. It is possible to have a High-class article (i am not meaning high-importance). This may possibly also fit with mid, low, etc
For example
London Transport Project‑class | |||||||
|
Simply south ( talk) 17:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Are there any practical limitations for how many bytes a project banner can or should be? John Carter ( talk) 20:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It may have been made before, but there is a proposal for a radical change to project banners at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject reform#Single Banner?. Any interested parties are more than welcome to express their opinions there. John Carter ( talk) 18:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a bot available at User:SatyrBot/WikiProject new pages which can periodically tag new articles which appear in a category in which all of the articles should fall within the scope of a given project. Personally, I think this bot would be extremely useful for pretty much every project. If you would like to have the bot work for you, please contact it's creator. As an additional question, does anyone know whether we could maybe have this bot placed on a server and running regularly for all projects which have such "dedicated" categories? That would be even more useful. John Carter ( talk) 17:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I recently tried to set up the taskforce Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Great Britain task force but for some reason, say for example the taskforce tag is on Talk:Roman Catholicism in Great Britain it doesnt add the category for "x-Class Catholicism in Great Britain articles" at the bottom. Is just lists the importance. Please can somebody help so when a tag is added to a talkpage it shows the taskforces class and importance.
These may be helpful to navigate if something needs to be fixed:
??? |
??? |
I haven't set up a tasforce before so I don't know what might be wrong, but User:ProveIt added cats into the importance sections set up. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 08:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I've searched around, and I hope that this is a proper place for the suggestion. If you feel otherwise, please forward the suggestion to the appropriate place or disregard it, and attribute it to my ignorance that it was not done correctly in the first place.
Could you, the ones most motivated to facilitate consensus, find a way to "lead" article topics and especially their talk pages so as to facilitate communication, in a manner that does not conflict with Wikipedia's egalitarianism and lack of pre-structuring?
If so, Wikipedia would be well-served, and so would its readers. Please don't be too quick to notice the obvious contradictions in this suggestion. Leadership is not always a matter of control, and the best leaders are the ones who take us to where we already want to go.
A major problem, IMHO: any contentious topic (as defined by Wikipedians themselves) has a talk page that bloats into a randomness of unusability that belies its stated purpose for existence, and often results in articles with a POV (claims to the contrary notwithstanding), or a bloated and unuseful article.
In support of this suggestion:
As to why anyone would mention these two specific examples in the same note, don't even bother to think about asking.
With admiration for where Wikipedia has gone and is going, Regards, 24.178.228.14 ( talk) 01:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
There is currently an apparently stalled discussion about project banners, their necessity, utility, etc. I do personally think that there is just cause for such discussion, however. It seems to me that one of the sticking points might be that the discussion is trying to address too large a subject. Would it be acceptable to create a proposal which would enumerate what specific functions a given project banner should fulfill to ensure that it not be eligible for deletion according to regular deletion discussions? I would consider that the following minimum standards for most content-related WikiProjects should exist:
(Discussion moved here from WT:WikiProject by Doug.( talk • contribs) 21:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC))
Last fall, User:John Carter has started to create "work group" pages for individual countries, eg. within the WikiProject Central Asia. Most of those pages have never been used by anyone. Very recently, the editors active around Mongolian topics have decided to use the "Mongolia work group" as a place to discuss issues of common interest, which is why I even noticed any of this and the following. Now John has started to convert all those pages to full blown WikiProjects. As he tells me, he has apparently created almost a hundred WikiProjects about individual countries by now. I suppose that most of those are destined to remain useless zombies for the the foreseeable future, because nobody else uses them either. But the main point of criticism is that in all that, he apparently never once consulted with the editors active in those areas. Not with the project participants where he inserted the work group pages, nor with any editors who happened to use the work group pages he converted to projects. Am I alone in thinking that this is NOT how WikiProjects are suppposed to be handled? -- Latebird ( talk) 22:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, guys. I was asked in my talk page whether it would be advisable to change the {{ WP1.0/assessments}} template to accept non-article classes. Currently, it just ignores them, which may or may not be the best idea (I have no opinion on it, to be honest), but I wonder if making the change would affect any markup that other WikiProjects use. Several WikiProjects use that code directly, so I'm a bit hesitant to make changes without knowing if I break things for anyone else. So, would adding extra classes break anything for any of you? Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 03:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone object to me working on the neglected Portal:Rapid transit?-- MrFish Go Fish 20:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Copied from WT:1.0
I just thought i'd add a small note in that i noticed an anomaly in that there were capitalised and uncapitalised versions of many of the other classes except this one, so i created a redirect. Now it is possible to do
class=FL
and
class=fl
whch produces the same result.
Simply south ( talk) 15:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
At {{ WikiProject Dance}}, {{ WikiProject Ballet}} category:WikiProject Dance articles has category:WikiProject Ballet articles as a subcategory. An editor at the Australian WikiProject has raised questions about this approach creating problems when he noticed that I had started putting category:WikiProject Australian history articles as a subcategories of the relevant Category:WikiProject History articles cats. See the question at Australian Noticeboard. Paul foord ( talk) 12:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Directory keeps receiving messages that are meant for here, and even the relevant to the directory messages are not always answered. I cannot always handle them, so I request that a few people here should watch the page and try to answer any questions or redirect them. I also think that a template ought to be placed at the top, requesting editors to post there only messages pertaining to the directory itself. That should solve a part of the problem. Waltham, The Duke of 17:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject IROC was marked as possibly being inactive, so I approached WikiProject members to discuss the issue. With the IROC sanctioning body apparently closed, we have discussed closing the WikiProject here. We await an official decision by the WikiProject Council. Most of the WikiProject members are still active, so you can discuss things if needed. Its parent WikiProject is WikiProject Motorsport. Royalbroil 01:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I've set up an RSS feed to filter only video-game related articles from the new pages feed. Maybe other WikiProject want to do the same. See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#New articles RSS feed. JACO PLANE • 2007-12-17 22:19
Please help writing article about multi-level internet marketing radio show keep getting deleted need help 65.11.48.203 ( talk) 23:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Stunned as many of you might be by seeing this, I actually wrote something. It's just a few ideas regarding what I think might be the situation regarding WikiProjects in general, but if nothing else, it might provide a bit of a springboard for future discussion. It can be found at Wikipedia:The Problem with Projects. I know that it has serious problems, consider it was me who wrote it, but would welcome any comments anyway. John Carter ( talk) 18:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
:D
. My first thought on the subject is "remember no one has to be here". The essay I pay most attention to is
WP:CREEP, with a few caveats - at no point should we ever be making it harder for Joe Smith to improve Wikipedia. I can see where you're coming from - as a whole, WikiProjects would be more organised, more durable, and probably more effective if they were restricted along the lines you suggest, but that assumes that there still as many John Smiths willing to join them. And if you restrict WikiProject in any way, you've meant that at least one John Smith can't contribute in the way he would have liked - by joining
WikiProject Questionably Notable TV Program. I am of the opinion that we should be more willing to blank (not remove, but blank) WikiProject banners from projects that have clearly flopped, to make inactive projects less messy, but as long as inactive projects don't keep sprawling over into other namespaces, I don't think that another collection of like-minded editors is ever a bad thing. If they make just one co-ordinated edit to one article, it's better than nothing.
Happy‑
melon 21:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
If a proposed WikiProject is about a fictional series, they can propose it at WikiProject Fictional series/Task forces. That could help reduce the amount of proposals here. - LA @ 09:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
These current proposals could be ported to the Fictional series WikiProject. - LA @ 09:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
These could become a task force under WikiProject Fictional series or WikiProject Television.
A few more, although actually I think most of the TV projects have spawned at least a few novels:
A few others, like Wikipedia:WikiProject G.I. Joe integrate in their scope fictional series, but are actually even a bit broader than that topic. John Carter ( talk) 14:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a thread somewhere in the archives, and a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads. It's ridiculous what "friendly" competition can do to people when they have the opportunity to remove stubs from projects to boost their project over others on "wikiwork". -- NE2 03:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
In all seriousness, can somebody go there and help sort out the scopes of the subprojects, starting from the basics of why we have WikiProjects and how a scope should be defined? Thank you very much. -- NE2 03:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Once again, a new wikiproject has got off to an unhelpful start by insensitively plonking its banner at the top of talk-pages even where there are several other nested banners (many of projects that are more directly relevant, and very activwe in maintaining the article) and also FA tags and the like. This time it was Wikipedia:WikiProject Celts, less than a week old. My polite comment to the editor concerned (and that of an admin later) was met with spectacular rudeness. Is there a policy governing this sort of thing? It should not be necessary, but it appears it is. Johnbod ( talk) 18:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Am I correct in believing that every single project banner is plagiarised from some other project, and that there is no central meta-template for project banners? Happy‑ melon 11:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
WikiProjectBannerShell}}
), as well as making it much easier for new projects to develop their own banners without having to steal someone else's, and realise six months down the line that they forgot to change some wording and they've still got quotes from
Template:WikiProject Ballet in some rarely-used corner of their own banner. When I've got something going, Council will be the first to know.
Happy‑
melon 16:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
WPBannerMeta}}
and tell me what you think. If no one can spot any hugely glaring bugs I'll convert a few small projects' banners over and see if anyone notices :D
Happy‑
melon 19:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
AARTalk}}
, which uses quality and importance assessment. The latter flagged up a load of bugs, which I've now fixed. Anyone see any others? If not I'll convert a few more.
Happy‑
melon 18:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Good work, Happy-melon. I'm especially pleased to see that two ideas I started on {{ TrainsWikiProject}}, the unref and imageneeded/imagedetails parameters, have found use on other banners as well. Another feature you might consider is to add portal-specific listing parameters to the portal box like I did with {{ TrainsWikiProject}}; see Talk:Rail transport in Victoria for an example. Also, how about a subtemplate that could list applicable task forces and subprojects and their associated importance grades (examples at Talk:London Underground and Talk:A (New York City Subway service))? The first idea is probably far simpler of these two... Slambo (Speak) 17:32, 17 March 2008 (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. |
I know that this is an idea which has probably been beaten to death repeatedly, but I'm going to raise it anyway. Right now, we have about 1.2 million articles with banners, leaving around 1.0 million without any banners yet. I think it might well be the case that the month of December, particularly late December, might be one of the quietest times for wikipedia. There will doubtless be a lot of complaints if this were to be done, but what would the rest of you think of perhaps asking a bot to place banners on as many articles that haven't yet been tagged as it finds. Also, if we do get many/most of the articles tagged, do the rest of you think that it might be an acceptable idea to try to tag newer articles (created in the last X hours), regularly thereafter? The advantage of the former is that it would make it substantially easier for projects to know which articles they have to deal with, and would with luck result in more assessments, and attention to those articles. The advantage of the latter, if that bot were to not engage in assessments, is that it would allow the relevant projects to know which new articles have been created, by their appearing in the unassessed articles category. I know that this could potentially take a very long time, and that several of the banners might be contested, even sometimes by the project itself. But at this point I think it might be the only way to really get assessment going for a lot of projects. Anyway, I welcome any responses, positive or negative. John Carter ( talk) 20:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The consensus in the math project has been to avoid mass tagging articles; we'd rather see the class= and importance= parameters filled in when the tags are placed, since we already have a list of mathematics articles. This requires warm bodies to read the articles before placing the tags. I think this consensus could change, but it would take strong reasons in favor of the tagging. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 23:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This is why I think that my concept of general top-level "holding pen" tags/assessments is perhaps easier and more feasible. The main purpose is merely to bring all possible articles into the assessment scheme through simple means, and allow the articles to be "claimed" by their respective projects and more appropriately tagged later. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 00:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been running rampant through the infrastructure of the League of Copyeditors and, having made a new set of templates for the listing mechanism, turned my attention to the woefully out-of-date members list. On the talk page, I've outlined a skeleton system I've created and tested to improve the project members list. It adds enhanced functionality to flag up users that haven't "checked in" for more than an arbitrary time period. The relevant code is included at Template:LOCE/T, Template:User LOCE and the members list. The point is that this system could be fairly easily ported to become a standard set of templates that could be used by any WikiProject to enhance their members list. I'd be interested to hear from members of the council whether this system would be useful, and if there are any improvements/additions to suggest to it. Probably the best way to respond is on the LOCE members list talk page. Happy‑ melon 17:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me why the WP:PROJDIR now has an "active" column? It looks silly, at least to me, and I thought we had already decided that only the active projects would be listed on the directory anyway, so it's redundant as well. Also, I seriously have to question why the Basic topic lists, Topic lists, Glossaries, Portals, and Category projects are listed separately in the directory template. Are those individual projects really so important to each be listed separately? John Carter ( talk) 21:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
At one point, it was all the vogue. Have your WikiProject have a "Collaboration of the week". Then as inactivity sets in, rename it to Collaboration of the Month, then as further inactivity sets in, the pages just "sit there".
In my experience, collaboration happens in "spurts", and usually is more likely to happen due to a talk page discussion than some "collab of the week/month/year".
(I think a list of those which are actually "active" would be interesting.)
Along with the main page, there are often nomination pages, related categories, and a myriad of templates.
And all this just to note that a single article should be worked on?
Not to be too cliche, but Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and the related Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep would seem to apply here?
Most projects have noticeboards, and a note on the noticeboard (either as a result of being bold, or WikiProject talk page consensus) should be enough.
I've noticed that inactive projects have been listed at MfD lately. Perhaps these should be as well? (A project could be active, with an inactive CotW/M.)
I welcome more information about these, as well as others' opinions. - jc37 02:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week has even been marked historical... - jc37 14:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Why are project tags generally placed on the talk page? Is it so people working on the article can contact the project for help, or is it so the project can keep track of how well it's doing with improving articles? -- NE2 05:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The issue here far transcends wikiwork or stubs or any statistic. The issue is that one editor, NE2, is garbling the scopes of established, active WikiProjects. This is explained in full detail elsewhere, including WT:USRD/SUB (where it originated) and WT:USRD where it spread. For the sake of redundancy, I'll make this brief. Now, I'm not a mindreader, but when the state highway WikiProjects were created years ago, I'm damn sure that they had no intention of including any articles on routes not part of the modern state highway system. The issue here is that NE2 is interpreting the scopes to include articles on auto routes and turnpikes that used to exist in the state for the supposed reason that they were state-maintained. But none of the projects were ever designed nor intended to cover these articles. They were designed to cover members of the modern state highway system in that state. Again, I'm no mindreader, but I'm confident that this is accurate. The whole story is at WT:USRD/SUB. -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 07:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
(Indent reset) If we want to close one of the extraneous forums you've opened, sure. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Requesting comments from other talk pages is not automatically "forum shopping". NE2 does not appear to have done anything wrong. -- Ned Scott 07:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone help fix a strange glitch in Template:WikiProject_Unionism? I have explained it at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 135#Help_needed_with_Template:WikiProject_Unionism. (Maybe I should have posted here first, sorry if I started in the wrong place). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, everyone's been over this already, several times. However, we still have a huge number of articles which have yet to be assessed, or even have banners placed on them. That's why I think it might be a reasonable idea to try something like this. We maybe try to get the various extant projects to place their project banner on the talk page of any category where the contents of that specific category, not including any subcategories, would all fall within the scope of that project. Subcategories would be possibly individually tagged as well. Then, as articles are created, we could have some bot go through and place the appropriate banners on the talk page based on the existing categorization, without class or importance ratings in place. It might also be possible to occasionally have a bot run a list of the articles that are FA, FFA, GA, FGA, and DYKs, for the purpose of helping the possibly beleaguered portal maintainers. By placing the banner without class or importance ratings in, it would also make it a bit more obvious that the article might be a newer one, and it would hopefully draw the attention of someone in the project to the "Unassessed" articles, maybe getting them assessed more quickly in some cases. Anyway, just an idea. John Carter ( talk) 15:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is an example of something which may go wrong. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Roads#Article tagging gone mad. Simply south ( talk) 12:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Do people think that the participants section on the Council page should be moved to a new page? Simply south ( talk) 22:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
At User:Warlordjohncarter/Removal list of projects I have a list of all the projects which I haven't yet added to the new version of the directory whose main page can be found at User:Warlordjohncarter/Directory. Any help in adding the existing projects to the new directory, which uses the basic categories of the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which the existing directory doesn't would be greatly appreciated. If anyone can add the projects on the first named page to the draft directory, please remove that name from the removal list. I know it is somewhat outdated, but the projects which have been created since I started work can be added to the directory after these others are taken care of. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 15:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Many of the transport ones are listed in the directory so i'm not sure why they are in your list. And i am sure this applies to many others. (And on a minor point, is it okay in the directory to change the "Highways" sub-section to "roads", as more than just highways are covered). Simply south ( talk) 14:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Right now, just about every recognized national entity and/or overseas territory has at least a separate work group page, although creating the banner specifications is still ongoing. Do the rest of you think it would make sense to create separate banners for each national entity, and maybe some of the overseas territories, or not? The disadvantages include possible banner proliferation, but it would draw more attention to the subproject, not just the main project itself. Any ideas? John Carter ( talk) 22:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps but shouldn't the national work group of a regional project actually be displayed on the banner underneath the main regional project? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 22:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
For exmaple see
Talk:Dolores, El Petén. That regional banner should at least display:
This article is supported by the
Guatemala work group.
Could somebody then add these for each of the country work groups to the regional templates? The thing is the issue needs to be resolved if we must keep the regional banners and not have seperate banners.
♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 22:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I have just been on Wikipedia: Village Pumpto propose a new WikiProject: Gerontology, and some one said I can make this proposal here. This could be a good interdisciplinary WikiProject; any offers? ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
its funny that he asked about a gerentology project becouse ive been trying to start a biogerentology project, or a end to old age study project, neuroscientifically based. how can i do this?? please just messge my talk page i wont remember this link.
Roy Stanley (
talk) 20:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I strongly think we need a "next page" option on our encyclopedia pages -rather like a book where you can browse the encyclopedia from one article into the next in an A-Z. While the multi wiki links in the article connect to related topics one of the things I like when looking at a book encyclopedia is to read through one article into the next on different articles. It is quite a nuisance to have to keep looking up in the index all the time. Is there anyway this option could be made available even if it is only a user preference option and a small icon or arrow (mimicking a page turn over) or something in the top right hand corner?
For example in the top right hand corner of the page two arrows <- -> for page forward and page backwards in the encyclopedia article index.
♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 15:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Well at least have an option on the page to look at that article in the index. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 20:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
some one just needs to get to the code wrighting and make a scroll box out of it.. lazy mongols.. : ) Roy Stanley ( talk) 20:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed an interesting class which i am not sure how this fits with the current classification. It is possible to have a High-class article (i am not meaning high-importance). This may possibly also fit with mid, low, etc
For example
London Transport Project‑class | |||||||
|
Simply south ( talk) 17:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Are there any practical limitations for how many bytes a project banner can or should be? John Carter ( talk) 20:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It may have been made before, but there is a proposal for a radical change to project banners at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject reform#Single Banner?. Any interested parties are more than welcome to express their opinions there. John Carter ( talk) 18:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a bot available at User:SatyrBot/WikiProject new pages which can periodically tag new articles which appear in a category in which all of the articles should fall within the scope of a given project. Personally, I think this bot would be extremely useful for pretty much every project. If you would like to have the bot work for you, please contact it's creator. As an additional question, does anyone know whether we could maybe have this bot placed on a server and running regularly for all projects which have such "dedicated" categories? That would be even more useful. John Carter ( talk) 17:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I recently tried to set up the taskforce Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Great Britain task force but for some reason, say for example the taskforce tag is on Talk:Roman Catholicism in Great Britain it doesnt add the category for "x-Class Catholicism in Great Britain articles" at the bottom. Is just lists the importance. Please can somebody help so when a tag is added to a talkpage it shows the taskforces class and importance.
These may be helpful to navigate if something needs to be fixed:
??? |
??? |
I haven't set up a tasforce before so I don't know what might be wrong, but User:ProveIt added cats into the importance sections set up. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 08:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I've searched around, and I hope that this is a proper place for the suggestion. If you feel otherwise, please forward the suggestion to the appropriate place or disregard it, and attribute it to my ignorance that it was not done correctly in the first place.
Could you, the ones most motivated to facilitate consensus, find a way to "lead" article topics and especially their talk pages so as to facilitate communication, in a manner that does not conflict with Wikipedia's egalitarianism and lack of pre-structuring?
If so, Wikipedia would be well-served, and so would its readers. Please don't be too quick to notice the obvious contradictions in this suggestion. Leadership is not always a matter of control, and the best leaders are the ones who take us to where we already want to go.
A major problem, IMHO: any contentious topic (as defined by Wikipedians themselves) has a talk page that bloats into a randomness of unusability that belies its stated purpose for existence, and often results in articles with a POV (claims to the contrary notwithstanding), or a bloated and unuseful article.
In support of this suggestion:
As to why anyone would mention these two specific examples in the same note, don't even bother to think about asking.
With admiration for where Wikipedia has gone and is going, Regards, 24.178.228.14 ( talk) 01:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
There is currently an apparently stalled discussion about project banners, their necessity, utility, etc. I do personally think that there is just cause for such discussion, however. It seems to me that one of the sticking points might be that the discussion is trying to address too large a subject. Would it be acceptable to create a proposal which would enumerate what specific functions a given project banner should fulfill to ensure that it not be eligible for deletion according to regular deletion discussions? I would consider that the following minimum standards for most content-related WikiProjects should exist:
(Discussion moved here from WT:WikiProject by Doug.( talk • contribs) 21:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC))
Last fall, User:John Carter has started to create "work group" pages for individual countries, eg. within the WikiProject Central Asia. Most of those pages have never been used by anyone. Very recently, the editors active around Mongolian topics have decided to use the "Mongolia work group" as a place to discuss issues of common interest, which is why I even noticed any of this and the following. Now John has started to convert all those pages to full blown WikiProjects. As he tells me, he has apparently created almost a hundred WikiProjects about individual countries by now. I suppose that most of those are destined to remain useless zombies for the the foreseeable future, because nobody else uses them either. But the main point of criticism is that in all that, he apparently never once consulted with the editors active in those areas. Not with the project participants where he inserted the work group pages, nor with any editors who happened to use the work group pages he converted to projects. Am I alone in thinking that this is NOT how WikiProjects are suppposed to be handled? -- Latebird ( talk) 22:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, guys. I was asked in my talk page whether it would be advisable to change the {{ WP1.0/assessments}} template to accept non-article classes. Currently, it just ignores them, which may or may not be the best idea (I have no opinion on it, to be honest), but I wonder if making the change would affect any markup that other WikiProjects use. Several WikiProjects use that code directly, so I'm a bit hesitant to make changes without knowing if I break things for anyone else. So, would adding extra classes break anything for any of you? Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 03:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone object to me working on the neglected Portal:Rapid transit?-- MrFish Go Fish 20:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Copied from WT:1.0
I just thought i'd add a small note in that i noticed an anomaly in that there were capitalised and uncapitalised versions of many of the other classes except this one, so i created a redirect. Now it is possible to do
class=FL
and
class=fl
whch produces the same result.
Simply south ( talk) 15:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
At {{ WikiProject Dance}}, {{ WikiProject Ballet}} category:WikiProject Dance articles has category:WikiProject Ballet articles as a subcategory. An editor at the Australian WikiProject has raised questions about this approach creating problems when he noticed that I had started putting category:WikiProject Australian history articles as a subcategories of the relevant Category:WikiProject History articles cats. See the question at Australian Noticeboard. Paul foord ( talk) 12:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Directory keeps receiving messages that are meant for here, and even the relevant to the directory messages are not always answered. I cannot always handle them, so I request that a few people here should watch the page and try to answer any questions or redirect them. I also think that a template ought to be placed at the top, requesting editors to post there only messages pertaining to the directory itself. That should solve a part of the problem. Waltham, The Duke of 17:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject IROC was marked as possibly being inactive, so I approached WikiProject members to discuss the issue. With the IROC sanctioning body apparently closed, we have discussed closing the WikiProject here. We await an official decision by the WikiProject Council. Most of the WikiProject members are still active, so you can discuss things if needed. Its parent WikiProject is WikiProject Motorsport. Royalbroil 01:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I've set up an RSS feed to filter only video-game related articles from the new pages feed. Maybe other WikiProject want to do the same. See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#New articles RSS feed. JACO PLANE • 2007-12-17 22:19
Please help writing article about multi-level internet marketing radio show keep getting deleted need help 65.11.48.203 ( talk) 23:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Stunned as many of you might be by seeing this, I actually wrote something. It's just a few ideas regarding what I think might be the situation regarding WikiProjects in general, but if nothing else, it might provide a bit of a springboard for future discussion. It can be found at Wikipedia:The Problem with Projects. I know that it has serious problems, consider it was me who wrote it, but would welcome any comments anyway. John Carter ( talk) 18:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
:D
. My first thought on the subject is "remember no one has to be here". The essay I pay most attention to is
WP:CREEP, with a few caveats - at no point should we ever be making it harder for Joe Smith to improve Wikipedia. I can see where you're coming from - as a whole, WikiProjects would be more organised, more durable, and probably more effective if they were restricted along the lines you suggest, but that assumes that there still as many John Smiths willing to join them. And if you restrict WikiProject in any way, you've meant that at least one John Smith can't contribute in the way he would have liked - by joining
WikiProject Questionably Notable TV Program. I am of the opinion that we should be more willing to blank (not remove, but blank) WikiProject banners from projects that have clearly flopped, to make inactive projects less messy, but as long as inactive projects don't keep sprawling over into other namespaces, I don't think that another collection of like-minded editors is ever a bad thing. If they make just one co-ordinated edit to one article, it's better than nothing.
Happy‑
melon 21:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
If a proposed WikiProject is about a fictional series, they can propose it at WikiProject Fictional series/Task forces. That could help reduce the amount of proposals here. - LA @ 09:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
These current proposals could be ported to the Fictional series WikiProject. - LA @ 09:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
These could become a task force under WikiProject Fictional series or WikiProject Television.
A few more, although actually I think most of the TV projects have spawned at least a few novels:
A few others, like Wikipedia:WikiProject G.I. Joe integrate in their scope fictional series, but are actually even a bit broader than that topic. John Carter ( talk) 14:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a thread somewhere in the archives, and a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads. It's ridiculous what "friendly" competition can do to people when they have the opportunity to remove stubs from projects to boost their project over others on "wikiwork". -- NE2 03:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
In all seriousness, can somebody go there and help sort out the scopes of the subprojects, starting from the basics of why we have WikiProjects and how a scope should be defined? Thank you very much. -- NE2 03:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Once again, a new wikiproject has got off to an unhelpful start by insensitively plonking its banner at the top of talk-pages even where there are several other nested banners (many of projects that are more directly relevant, and very activwe in maintaining the article) and also FA tags and the like. This time it was Wikipedia:WikiProject Celts, less than a week old. My polite comment to the editor concerned (and that of an admin later) was met with spectacular rudeness. Is there a policy governing this sort of thing? It should not be necessary, but it appears it is. Johnbod ( talk) 18:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Am I correct in believing that every single project banner is plagiarised from some other project, and that there is no central meta-template for project banners? Happy‑ melon 11:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
WikiProjectBannerShell}}
), as well as making it much easier for new projects to develop their own banners without having to steal someone else's, and realise six months down the line that they forgot to change some wording and they've still got quotes from
Template:WikiProject Ballet in some rarely-used corner of their own banner. When I've got something going, Council will be the first to know.
Happy‑
melon 16:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
WPBannerMeta}}
and tell me what you think. If no one can spot any hugely glaring bugs I'll convert a few small projects' banners over and see if anyone notices :D
Happy‑
melon 19:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
AARTalk}}
, which uses quality and importance assessment. The latter flagged up a load of bugs, which I've now fixed. Anyone see any others? If not I'll convert a few more.
Happy‑
melon 18:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Good work, Happy-melon. I'm especially pleased to see that two ideas I started on {{ TrainsWikiProject}}, the unref and imageneeded/imagedetails parameters, have found use on other banners as well. Another feature you might consider is to add portal-specific listing parameters to the portal box like I did with {{ TrainsWikiProject}}; see Talk:Rail transport in Victoria for an example. Also, how about a subtemplate that could list applicable task forces and subprojects and their associated importance grades (examples at Talk:London Underground and Talk:A (New York City Subway service))? The first idea is probably far simpler of these two... Slambo (Speak) 17:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)