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 see quite a few projects have nice navigation templates at the top right (e.g. animals, birds). These all seem to be custom made though; I was hoping it was a standard template that could be used by any project. Perhaps we should have one available if projects don't wish to construct their own (unless we do already?). One for biology would be nice. Richard001 ( talk) 08:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see a need to standardize them, necessarily, but a template might be nice for new projects, to make the process easier. -- Ned Scott 09:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Think that this discussion opened well, but has drifted unhelpfully. I think it's a really good idea to develop a project navigation template to assist those projects which would like to use it, but like Ned Scott I don't see any need for a guideline to standardize them. I would like to ask ClockworkSoul to consider refocusing that proposed document, and to summarise current practice with a view to assisting the development of a template or templates, instead of trying to prescribe a standard.
Projects vary widely in their size, scope, and purpose, and are likely to have many very different needs and priorities, so it seems to me be unlikely that one size will fit all. For rexample, a tiny project like Irish Maritime has a much much simpler structure than a huge effort like WikiProject Military History.
WP:IE recently had an unfortunate encounter with a highly enthusisatic newbie editor keen to develop a project template. All sorts of template designs popped up on our pages, and were advertised in a huge proliferation of threads which rapidly became disruptive, largely because the newbie was very keen on templating but weak on collaboration, and seemed to have little idea of what the template was actually for, or how it might help the project. and by the time the new editor was indef-blocked for disruptive sockpuppetry most project members were fed up with the subject ... which is a pity, because WP:IE's layout is still a mess. However, I doubt there will much enthusiasm for revisiting the subject unless we can do it without drama, and the suggestion that we are going to "standardised" risks creating more drama.
However, in the midst of it all I did some research on the approach taken by other projects, and found a wide variety of approaches to nav templates, varying from the minimal to the huge and sophisticated. It would be really helpful to have some of those variants codified as the basis of standard templates which projects could choose from, and I think that this might lead to some useful development which could assist many projects. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Since no one here mentioned it, maybe you all are unaware that {{ Infobox WikiProject}} exists. It is used by 53 WikiProjects and has been around since 2006. This template could definitely use an overhaul, but it is a starting point. -- Scott Alter 05:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I'm surprised at the response and progress made since my suggestion above. Regarding names like 'Template:Physics', I say don't delete them until someone actually wants to use that name (but give priority to nav templates of course, not first come first served). But carry on above, this is a slightly different but related issue.
I've seen some banners (I think it might just be WP:ARTH and its subprojedts) using a template for assessment where you don't input e.g. |class=B, but just |B. (e.g. {{LepidopteraTalk|B|High}}. This is difficult for those not familiar with the template, and I've had problems with it myself in the past. Shouldn't we be using the same code for all such project assessment templates? Would it be possible to make the normal (e.g.) class=B function properly while still recognizing the previous code (since it is widely used). Richard001 ( talk) 09:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
|class=
and |importance=
, and I would very strongly discourage them from using an alternative system at all (it will, for instance, break every tagging bot in existence, I'm sure, because no one is going to have written exceptions to handle something like this). I'm doing a quick search for other projects using the parameter-less system, and will include support for |class=
and/or |importance=
as necessary.
Happy‑
melon 10:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Just another idea. What if an article became a start class if it had a minimum of say 4000-6000 characters, excluding categories, templates, references, infoboxes, images etc? Simply south ( talk) 19:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I have made a proposal that would include (among other things) the closure of an inactive WikiProject. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Forgotten Realms/Closure for all the details, which are specific to the situation of that project, and please leave your comment there. This topic seems controversial in many respects, so wide input is requested. I'd particularly be interested whether you think that this is a reasonable procedural approach for such closure. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 09:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
inactive}}
- if it's reverted, then there's someone else out there :D. And since the articles won't be deleted without AfDs anyway, trying to start a discussion in the middle of the wilderness is unnecessary, although kudos to you for trying. Nutshell: tag the project page with {{
inactive}}
, and AfD the articles, in a block-nom if you prefer.
Happy‑
melon 09:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Following some rather lengthy discussions, we're trying to propose/draft a revision to the WP:1.0 assessment scale. Comments would be greatly appreciated in the 1.0 assessment page. Thanks. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 00:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been stewing over this for a while now, but I was thinking we really ought to review the quality guidelines in place for articles ranging from stubs, start class, b class, good articles, the highly ambiguous "a class" and most importantly the featured articles. I believe there's a high level of scrutiny involved in getting thins to the upper classes, but I believe there's much that is still not consistent between different wikiprojects as to their expectations of class for different types of articles. With that in mind, I'd like to propose the inception of a new WikiProject which would encompass the assignment of class to all kinds of articles from which a standard can be derived. Within this, I'd like to encourage a few changes to what we have right now:
Now, we have:
Now, I know this is potentially rather radical, but this is what I'd suggest:
Now, the amount remains the same, and so it basically bumps things around a bit, but there are some different things within this I'd say:
Now, this project would have to take over the operation of WP:STUB, WP:GA and WP:FA, and would create WP:SPOTLIGHT, WP:INTERMEDIATE and WP:A CLASS (or something like these) and each of these sub-projects would maintain the promotion of the articles. Obviously, it's a user defined matter for the first three, but after that, it's a community matter, but all should still be moderated correctly.
All I want to achieve from this is a means by which articles can easily pass from stub to spotlight with clear and defined guidelines to follow, obviously with the guidelines for a stub to intermediate and even to A class would give pointers on how one person, or one with help could get it to A class. Once there, it gives pointers again, but now indicating a need in some ways to have to involve others to assist. For featured status, it's even more important to include others, and for Spotlight, you've basically really got to have the support of a wikiproject, unless you're a hardcore wikipedian and researcher (but it's near impossible; I don't know any featured articles that got there thanks to one editor).
What do you guys say? -- rm 'w a vu 09:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Although the Official Rolls of Counsellors currently lists 54 editors, the relevant category has not been affected by the Beeching Axe of last April and lists 125 users. Do you believe that we are in liberty to edit people's user pages in order to remove these editors from our category? Regards, Waltham, The Duke of 19:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that alot of projects don't have an assessment level for featured content other than featured articles. So, if a list, portal, or image gets promoted, in many cases it is identified as an FA for the purposes of some projects simply because the projects don't officially recognize those sorts of content. This seems particularly important with featured lists, since most Wikiprojects have some sort of lists in their range, but many of them are labeled incorrectly. This seems somewhat problematic to me, but I'm not sure if I have a rock-solid solution. My only suggestion would be to encourage (or require?) WikiProjects to have an FL assessment level. If a project doesn't actually have any FLs then it's a moot point, but for those that do it would help clarify alot of ratings. All it would take is updating the Project Banner templates and creating an extra category or two; probably not that much work for each project. Any thoughts? Drewcifer ( talk) 11:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Igor 0.2.0 is available, and it includes a number of features that may be useful to the members of this Council, including a Wikiproject Browser and some task-force support. If you have the time, please download it and take it for a little test drive. I'm always open to suggestions, so by all means let me have it! The next release (0.3.0) will be a quick one, so if they're fairly simple ones, they may make it into that version. Many thanks! – Clockwork Soul 04:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
We've had considerable discussion, and we're considering putting A below GA, and adding a C-Class between Start and B. Please choose your favourite option here. Walkerma ( talk) 05:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what "soft" redirects are, but can someone explain this? Do we redirect Spain, Germany, Italy and France to Europe? Why is this done to Country Projects in South America? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The {{ tmbox}} is the new ambox/mbox compatible meta-template for talk page message boxes. We are thinking of making the {{tmbox}} work with the {{ WikiProjectBannerShell}}. Comments from anyone interested in the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} would be appreciated. See discussion at Template talk:Tmbox#Sizes / modes / shapes.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 14:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This is something I've been thinking about for some time, and it's rather rampant with WikiProject tagging: what are the guidelines for tagging articles with WikiProjects? What it really should be is a "you can take the X out of Y, but you can't take the Y out of X" when it comes to tagging (where Y is the scope of the project). Take for example these two articles which are part of WikiProject Scientology:
Now, with "Trapped in the Closet", that's a clear-cut case: the episode was a parody of Scientology's actions, was analysed as such, and it's an integral part of the episode. However, I'm not fond of "Ænema" coming under the scope - it's one line in a six minute song that's equally pessimistic. Now, I understand that MJK may not like Scientology, but would the song make any sense if the line "Fuck L. Ron Hubbard and fuck all his clones" was removed? I think so, and we really need have a guideline for proper tagging, if there isn't one already. Sceptre ( talk) 23:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
(Undent) Could we have a section on this page about when it is appropriate for a WikiProject banner to be placed on an article? The major points that I'd like to see are these:
I have encountered all of these problems in the last two months, and it appears that there is nothing written anywhere about how and when to use these banners. WhatamIdoing ( talk)
Hi. The ratification vote to add {{ C-Class}} to the assessment scale has started. The poll will run for two weeks, until 0300 UTC June 18, 2008, and you can find the poll here, where we ask for your comment.
On behalf of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 03:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have been pondering how make the encyclopedia appear more reliable and end POV wars. What I came up with is a Board of Expertise idea. Each project could elect to appoint boards of expertise. This board would be experts with verified degrees that are relative to the topic. Priority would be given to those with the highest level of degree and experience. Articles that overlap would have a special board comprised of an equal niumber of the highest priority experts from each project.
Thoughts? Geoff Plourde ( talk) 01:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Could someone compile a list of useful bots that can be employed for various WikiProject tasks? For example, User:SQLBot can be asked to update WikiProject watchlist and User:AlexNewArtBot to update a list of new articles within the scope of the project. There are several bots for delivering newsletters. I am sure there must be more... Renata ( talk) 09:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I am a strong supporter of Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible, and am hoping that some editors who have expertise in logic, math and science actually agree with me. If so, then I'd like to urge that Wikipedia:WikiProject General Audience be re-activated. 69.140.152.55 ( talk) 07:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Do we have a stats page for the Wikiprojects ? say Top10 for most no of articles, FA/GA, members, task forces etc ?? -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 06:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
For the truly self-referential among us. Oh, yeah, it's being nominated for deletion. In a sense, I can see this being somewhat useful, but only in a sense. John Carter ( talk) 15:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there a convention for proper capitalization of WikiProject titles? Some projects capitalize the first letter of each word, while others don't. I haven't found any recommendations made within Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. The only reference I found to this was from a brief discussion in 2006, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Archive 4#Titles and capitalization.21, which suggested that "WikiProject" is a pseudo-namespace and everything after it should be in sentence case. -- Scott Alter 21:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Would it be beneficial if there was an RFC bot category for WikiProjects, so that WikiProjects could get updates about WikiProjectdom? MessedRocker ( talk) 06:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
How many WikiProjects are there? I am writing a paper about collaborative writing for Wikimania and would like the total figure. Thanks! Awadewit ( talk) 19:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello all! I just wanted to announce the completion of the most complete project list to date, drawn, processed and merged from the following sources:
The result is an XML document containing what appears to be a nearly complete list of all projects and many task forces. This past run found a total of 2167 items, including 1799 projects and 368 task forces. Hope you find it useful, and as usual I'm more than happy to hear criticism and ideas for how it can be improved. – Clockwork Soul 13:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey I was unsure where to post about this but this seems like a suitable place. I was wonderign how I would go about organizing an assessment scheme for the Slipknot Project. I only want it so the articles are organised by class and so we can include it in our template on talk pages, I don't believe we need an importance rating. So can anybody tell me just how I go about including this in the project? REZTER TALK ø 10:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
{{
Slipknot Project}}
) to use {{
WPBannerMeta}}
, which will make it very much easier to expand and add functionality to the banner, such as this quality assessment. Enabling quality assessments for the banner is now as simple as setting the parameter |QUALITY_SCALE=
to equal "yes": |QUALITY_SCALE=yes
. However, before you do that, there is some infrastructure you need to create first: I suggest you have a quick read of
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot: basically you need to create a category
Category:Slipknot articles by quality, with subcategories
Category:FA-Class Slipknot articles,
Category:A-Class Slipknot articles, etc, with appropriate categorisation. Once you've done that, enable assessments on the banner and get grading!
Happy‑
melon 15:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)There is a discussion going on at Requests for approval regarding the use of bots for talk page banner tagging. I request the councillors to add their comments to the dicussion. Thanks, Ganeshk ( talk) 12:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
This idea of this discussion is a genuine and good faith attempt to discuss concerns and views regarding a long debated topic, at a single place, hoping for a consensus. This is not a policy making initiative or a ballot. Kindly Be Civil and avoid personal attacks. |
Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ?
The context of this discussion are the recent
WP:COMP Tagging Issue ,
WP:FOOD Tagging Issue ,
TinucherianBot issues etc.
A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia; and, simultaneously, a group of editors that use said pages to collaborate on encyclopedic work. It is not a place to write encyclopedia articles directly, but a resource to help coordinate and organize article writing and editing. Project banner Tagging and Assessing articles are an important part of the workload of most, if not all WikiProjects. However it is tedious to keep track of newer articles that come under the scope of the the project regularly and add the project banner manually. Hence bots are also often employed to tag articles based on categories. This means that multiple WikiProjects may tag an single article if it falls under its own scope .
Nothing happens more than attention and contributions of more subject experts by additional tagging by a project, which is primarily needed for the growth of Wikipedia. If you are more concerned of cluttering of talk page , we have options of {{
WikiProjectBannerShell}} which takes up very less space.If the concern is about too many banners, we can have intergated Project banners like {{
WP India}} which supports over 50 descendant WikiProjects! It is also sad to see Some Wikiprojects members trying to '
own' articles by preventing tagging by another project , which is against one of our fundamental rules of
WP:OWN. It is basically against our fundamental Principle of a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If that is the case, soon the day will come when a WikiProject will not even allow anyone other than the project members to edit the article itself.
This discussion is NOT regarding "WikiProject country" tagging to use on an article about a city, especially if the city has changed hands several times over the course of history. The community consensus(already agreed upon) on this is that if there is disagreement, then the only country's WikiProject template that should be used, is the one for where the city is currently located.
This discussion is specific to issues like WP:Food and Drink tagging articles related to WP:BEER and other descendant projects or issues like WP:COMP Tagging articles in Category:Cryptographic protocols which falls under the scope of their project and also WP:CryptographyProject !. The fundamental question is: Why should any project have to get "permission" from other projects to tag articles? It may be courteous to inform them but not a mandatory thing to do...The thumb rule that No one owns the article in Wikipedia, neither does WikiProjects!.
WikiProject Council Guide explains as follows : "Many articles will be tagged by more than one WikiProject. This is particularly true of articles which deal with prominent people, as those articles may be tagged by WikiProjects for biography, their places of residence, their professional field, and any other activities they may engage in. This can and occasionally does create problems, as some projects will, quite reasonably, think that another project might be only minimally capable of assisting in the improvement of an article. However, it is important for all parties to remember that beyond simply being WikiProjects, they are also collections of people with specific abilities and competencies which might not be available within other groups. A member of a football project might be better able to copyedit an article about a player from a non-English speaking country, who might even go on to achieve prominence elsewhere and draw the attention of other projects, than a native speaker of that country who might be less skilled at English composition. On that basis, it is a good idea to welcome any banner placements on an article provided that the banner is actually at all relevant to the subject. The fact that these other projects may also regularly "check up" on the article for improvements, vandalism, etc. can also be beneficial."
Since we don't have a definite consensus or discussion on this, as a member of WikiProject Council, I present this discussion to you for your valuable opinions and concerns...This is not a policy making initiative or a ballot but an attempt to understand and discuss concerns and views of everyone.. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 11:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:SNOW , If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause. Nevertheless, if the objection raised is unreasonable or contrary to policy, then the debate needs to be refocused, and editors may be advised to avoid disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 15:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The prior approval tagging question above was worded to get the response it did. A more pertinent question would be - "How far does a project's scope extend?" Is there a point at which a project's useful control over an article diminishes - and if so, where is that point reached? Could WikiProject Medicine decide that as Food & Drink is nutritional and the basis for medicines, they could tag Food & Drink and carry on down to Beer?
It is positive when projects overlap. But what is of concern here is not overlapping as over-reaching. I feel it would be helpful to all projects if there was an awareness of the potential limits of their scope so that over-reaching doesn't occur. Even though beer is made from water I don't think it would be appropriate for the Beer Project to tag everything in Category:Water. Even though beer is made from grain, it would be inappropriate for the Beer project to tag all articles in Category:Grains, etc. While it would usually be down to the project members themselves to decide the limits of their scope, it would come down to the council to advise on scope when clashes occur, such as the current issue of Food & Drink tagging brewery articles. SilkTork * YES! 22:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The issue of tagging has come up on a number of articles that The Bird Wikiproject has worked on. Bots and the like working for Country wikiprojects will frequently tag bird articles (and those of other animals) solely on the basis of the distribution of that bird falling in that country. Or, in some cases, having occured there once or twice (vagrancy)! Or the tag is flat out wrong (I once saw Landlocked Laos claiming a marine turtle!). Personally I don't see how this is a valid use of tags; it seems fair enough if the species is endemic to a country (like the Silktail is to Fiji) or if the animal in question is iconic or a national symbol (see Bald Eagle or Kiwi). It becomes faintly ridiculous with species like Cattle Egrets or House Sparrows which occur across most of the globe (before I removed them there was about 10 country projects claiming Cattle Egret). The purposes of tags is to advertise to likely interested editors about collaboration groups, how are the projects that actually work on the articles actually going to get noticed if there are dozens of tags or worse their tag is hidden in one of theose godawful shells? It seems that a species simply occurring in a country hardly makes it under the scope of that Wikiproject - are countries going to claim the articles sand, road, car and mountain because those also occur in the countries? Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TinucherianBot 4 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Bots.2FRequests_for_approval.2FTinucherianBot_4 . FYI.. I guess this will make our work easier in WP 1.0 Assessment Categories creation with the bot. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal for a bot that would notify WikiProjects when their articles have entered certain workflows, e.g. when they are nominated for deletion or for Good article reassessment.
The request comes from WP:PHYSICS. I would be willing to try an implementation; but for only one WikiProject, it probably wouldn't be worth the while. Are any other WikiProjects interested in such a notification bot? You can find details of the functionality, and leave your comments, at at the bot request page. Thanks, -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 18:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I just created an article for SoldierCity, an online military merchandise company for which I am the marketing manager. Here is the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Princessgwen_77/New_article
The company provides a great deal of valuable goods, including official military awards and memorabilia for veterans going back to WWII. In addition, we donate to reunions and other military events.
I am hoping that someone will help me submit this so it appears in the article space.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princessgwen 77 ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I saw on the simple english wikipedia that you are allowed to make User:Example/Wikiproject Example on there. Can you do that on the regular english WikiPedia? -- Robbie ( talk) 22:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I remember some time ago I complained about the inconsistent naming of WikiProject banner templates and asked that all of them at least have a redirect from the name "Template:WikiProject <insert name>". For some reason this doesn't seem to be showing up in the archives for me, but I have just had another case with Template:WikiProject Fish, which I had to create because it was red. I thought something would have been done about this by now - I recall there was a long discussion about exactly how we should fix the problem, but I don't remember what became of it. Anyone know what I'm talking about? Richard001 ( talk) 03:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
While we're at it: Some time ago, Happy-Melon made a proposal for standardizing the template names, what has become of that? -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 13:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
(Cross-posted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Directory)
Hello all. During the last update of the source data I use for Igor, I found about 189 projects that have not yet been assigned a position on the directory. I was hoping that if anybody had any time, they could help me determine whether they belong in the directory, and if so to place them? Many thanks! – Clockwork Soul 04:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I just rebuilt the list, which has actually grown in size a bit. I then listed 44 projects, mostly music- and India-related projects. – Clockwork Soul 02:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC) 44
Updated again based on the newest version of the project list: 129 projects total are not categorized, out of a total of 2183 projects (including task forces), for a uncategorization percentage of 5.9%. – Clockwork Soul 19:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
As this template is not working as it should and is not getting fixed in the foreseeable future, I am working on a new one which will be far simpler to set up and use. It needs extensive testing of the current features. This template will use only the standard categories and links to subpages to start standardizing WikiProjects as well. The only thing missing from the template I am writing is task forces. (I am still trying to think of a way to keep that as simple as possible.) So if there are any projects out there that want to keep it simple, please see the test banner template to run the tests. Thank you. - LA ( T) 21:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, to help Richard001 with the discussion above, I might be able to add something that will check the name where the template is transcluded and come back with an error if the template is misnamed. I will have to think on it. - LA ( T) 21:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
WPBiography}}
to
Template:WikiProject Biography.
Happy‑
melon 13:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)WPBannerMeta is working quite well on the projects with simple templates. I've converted quite a few over to use it. -- WOSlinker ( talk) 09:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, take the new banner out for a spin and tell me what you think. I added something that may give notice the template is in the wrong place. And another goodie. - LA ( T) 07:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I really don't want to come across as attacking this template, since as the primary maintainer of {{
WPBannerMeta}}
I have a very visible CoI, but I really must ask: what is the purpose of this template? What problem is it trying to solve, what advantages does it have over existing solutions? It strikes me as being very limited in the range of functionality on offer, and (more seriously) the range of functionality that can be disabled. Code bulk and efficiency are also issues. While I don't want to disparage the enormous amount of work that LA has clearly put into this template, I am failing to locate the niche it is intended to fill.
Happy‑
melon 13:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
|IMAGE_LEFT=
, an imageright parameter was always intended. I've just set up a todo list on
Template talk:WPBannerMeta, so if you have any other feature requests, throw them in there.
Happy‑
melon 16:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC){{ WPBannerMeta}} | {{ the new banner}} |
|PROJECT = |BANNER_NAME = {{subst:FULLPAGENAME}} |small={{{small|}}} |nested={{{nested|}}} |IMAGE_LEFT = |IMAGE_LEFT_SMALL = |IMAGE_LEFT_LARGE = |QUALITY_SCALE = |class={{{class|}}} |FULL_QUALITY_SCALE = |IMPORTANCE_SCALE = |importance={{{importance|}}} |ASSESSMENT_CAT = |ASSESSMENT_LINK = |MAIN_TEXT = |MAIN_ARTICLE = |PORTAL = |PORTAL_IMG = |MAIN_CAT = |ATTENTION = |attention={{{attention|}}} |ATTENTION_CAT = |INFOBOX = |infobox={{{needs-infobox|}}} |INFOBOX_CAT = |COMMENTS = |COMMENT_CAT = |COMMENT_FORCE = |PEER_REVIEW = |peer review={{{**PARAMETER**|}}} |old peer review={{{**PARAMETER**|}}} |PR_LINK = |PR_CAT = |PR_OLD_CAT =All usage that this banner has for items the one I am writing does not cover are not included. |
|project= |image= |image size= |italic= |
{{ Lady Aleena banner}} |
|project= |image= |image size= |italic= |small={{{small|}}} |nested={{{nested|}}} |class={{{class|}}} |importance={{{importance|}}} |attention={{{attention|}}} |needs image={{{needs image|}}} |needs infobox={{{needs infobox|}}} |needs navbox={{{needs navbox|}}} |
My issue is not that ideas like this are not good ones - I have just added class-sorting-by-namespace to {{
WPBannerMeta}}
, because it is a very good idea - but rather that, because a template that serves as a banner metatemplate has already been developed, 95% of what you've spent the past few days slaving over is just reinventing the wheel. In just a few edits time you're going to realise, as I did, that the banner you've created uses different categories for the "needs attention/infobox/image/navbox" notes to those used by the majority of WikiProjects (most use
Category:PROJECT articles needing attention etc). You can't change the syntax after the banner has been deployed, so you'll need to add a parameter to override the default category - it doesn't matter what you call it, you've just reinvented |ATTENTION_CAT=
and |INFOBOX_CAT=
. There are a huge number of little things like this that you think are unnecessary, but everything in WPBannerMeta is there for a reason, and I suspect any fully-functional banner metatemplate is going to be similar enough to the existing one to make developing an alternative fairly pointless.
You're also making a huge mistake (again, one that I made - see this discussion at WP:IRELAND) if you think that the way forward is just to require projects to rename categories, banners, assessment pages, etc, to make them comply with the syntax of your banner. WikiProject are square, and very definitely do not like being hammered into round holes. A large number of WPBannerMeta parameters are there to accomodate the quirks and idiosyncracies of individual projects, and you cannot afford to ignore these. At best, this banner with its inviolate syntax will be usable by the minority of WikiProjects which use exactly the functionality provided (no more, no less) and have entirely consistent syntax. If you try to force any projects to change their infrastructure to accomodate an inflexible template, however, you are likely to be shot down in flames. Happy‑ melon 10:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
{{#ifeq:{{{nested|}}}|yes|<just the WikiProject's category and maybe a little note to see above/below>|<the normal code for showing the comments>}}
{{
WPBS}}
to {{
WPB}}
so they both display comments). I'll have to have a think - WPBS and WPB don't actually display the comments like most project banners do, they just display a link to the comment subpage.
Happy‑
melon 19:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
{{#ifexist:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments| {{!}}- {{!}} {{{!}}class="collapsible collapse" style="width:100%;background:transparent;" !style="text-align:left;font-size:95%;background:#f5deb3;"{{!}}Assessment comments {{!}}- {{!}}style="border:1px solid #c0c090;background:#fff;"{{!}}{{{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments}} {{!}}} }}
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 see quite a few projects have nice navigation templates at the top right (e.g. animals, birds). These all seem to be custom made though; I was hoping it was a standard template that could be used by any project. Perhaps we should have one available if projects don't wish to construct their own (unless we do already?). One for biology would be nice. Richard001 ( talk) 08:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see a need to standardize them, necessarily, but a template might be nice for new projects, to make the process easier. -- Ned Scott 09:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Think that this discussion opened well, but has drifted unhelpfully. I think it's a really good idea to develop a project navigation template to assist those projects which would like to use it, but like Ned Scott I don't see any need for a guideline to standardize them. I would like to ask ClockworkSoul to consider refocusing that proposed document, and to summarise current practice with a view to assisting the development of a template or templates, instead of trying to prescribe a standard.
Projects vary widely in their size, scope, and purpose, and are likely to have many very different needs and priorities, so it seems to me be unlikely that one size will fit all. For rexample, a tiny project like Irish Maritime has a much much simpler structure than a huge effort like WikiProject Military History.
WP:IE recently had an unfortunate encounter with a highly enthusisatic newbie editor keen to develop a project template. All sorts of template designs popped up on our pages, and were advertised in a huge proliferation of threads which rapidly became disruptive, largely because the newbie was very keen on templating but weak on collaboration, and seemed to have little idea of what the template was actually for, or how it might help the project. and by the time the new editor was indef-blocked for disruptive sockpuppetry most project members were fed up with the subject ... which is a pity, because WP:IE's layout is still a mess. However, I doubt there will much enthusiasm for revisiting the subject unless we can do it without drama, and the suggestion that we are going to "standardised" risks creating more drama.
However, in the midst of it all I did some research on the approach taken by other projects, and found a wide variety of approaches to nav templates, varying from the minimal to the huge and sophisticated. It would be really helpful to have some of those variants codified as the basis of standard templates which projects could choose from, and I think that this might lead to some useful development which could assist many projects. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Since no one here mentioned it, maybe you all are unaware that {{ Infobox WikiProject}} exists. It is used by 53 WikiProjects and has been around since 2006. This template could definitely use an overhaul, but it is a starting point. -- Scott Alter 05:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I'm surprised at the response and progress made since my suggestion above. Regarding names like 'Template:Physics', I say don't delete them until someone actually wants to use that name (but give priority to nav templates of course, not first come first served). But carry on above, this is a slightly different but related issue.
I've seen some banners (I think it might just be WP:ARTH and its subprojedts) using a template for assessment where you don't input e.g. |class=B, but just |B. (e.g. {{LepidopteraTalk|B|High}}. This is difficult for those not familiar with the template, and I've had problems with it myself in the past. Shouldn't we be using the same code for all such project assessment templates? Would it be possible to make the normal (e.g.) class=B function properly while still recognizing the previous code (since it is widely used). Richard001 ( talk) 09:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
|class=
and |importance=
, and I would very strongly discourage them from using an alternative system at all (it will, for instance, break every tagging bot in existence, I'm sure, because no one is going to have written exceptions to handle something like this). I'm doing a quick search for other projects using the parameter-less system, and will include support for |class=
and/or |importance=
as necessary.
Happy‑
melon 10:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Just another idea. What if an article became a start class if it had a minimum of say 4000-6000 characters, excluding categories, templates, references, infoboxes, images etc? Simply south ( talk) 19:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I have made a proposal that would include (among other things) the closure of an inactive WikiProject. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Forgotten Realms/Closure for all the details, which are specific to the situation of that project, and please leave your comment there. This topic seems controversial in many respects, so wide input is requested. I'd particularly be interested whether you think that this is a reasonable procedural approach for such closure. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 09:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
inactive}}
- if it's reverted, then there's someone else out there :D. And since the articles won't be deleted without AfDs anyway, trying to start a discussion in the middle of the wilderness is unnecessary, although kudos to you for trying. Nutshell: tag the project page with {{
inactive}}
, and AfD the articles, in a block-nom if you prefer.
Happy‑
melon 09:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Following some rather lengthy discussions, we're trying to propose/draft a revision to the WP:1.0 assessment scale. Comments would be greatly appreciated in the 1.0 assessment page. Thanks. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 00:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been stewing over this for a while now, but I was thinking we really ought to review the quality guidelines in place for articles ranging from stubs, start class, b class, good articles, the highly ambiguous "a class" and most importantly the featured articles. I believe there's a high level of scrutiny involved in getting thins to the upper classes, but I believe there's much that is still not consistent between different wikiprojects as to their expectations of class for different types of articles. With that in mind, I'd like to propose the inception of a new WikiProject which would encompass the assignment of class to all kinds of articles from which a standard can be derived. Within this, I'd like to encourage a few changes to what we have right now:
Now, we have:
Now, I know this is potentially rather radical, but this is what I'd suggest:
Now, the amount remains the same, and so it basically bumps things around a bit, but there are some different things within this I'd say:
Now, this project would have to take over the operation of WP:STUB, WP:GA and WP:FA, and would create WP:SPOTLIGHT, WP:INTERMEDIATE and WP:A CLASS (or something like these) and each of these sub-projects would maintain the promotion of the articles. Obviously, it's a user defined matter for the first three, but after that, it's a community matter, but all should still be moderated correctly.
All I want to achieve from this is a means by which articles can easily pass from stub to spotlight with clear and defined guidelines to follow, obviously with the guidelines for a stub to intermediate and even to A class would give pointers on how one person, or one with help could get it to A class. Once there, it gives pointers again, but now indicating a need in some ways to have to involve others to assist. For featured status, it's even more important to include others, and for Spotlight, you've basically really got to have the support of a wikiproject, unless you're a hardcore wikipedian and researcher (but it's near impossible; I don't know any featured articles that got there thanks to one editor).
What do you guys say? -- rm 'w a vu 09:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Although the Official Rolls of Counsellors currently lists 54 editors, the relevant category has not been affected by the Beeching Axe of last April and lists 125 users. Do you believe that we are in liberty to edit people's user pages in order to remove these editors from our category? Regards, Waltham, The Duke of 19:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that alot of projects don't have an assessment level for featured content other than featured articles. So, if a list, portal, or image gets promoted, in many cases it is identified as an FA for the purposes of some projects simply because the projects don't officially recognize those sorts of content. This seems particularly important with featured lists, since most Wikiprojects have some sort of lists in their range, but many of them are labeled incorrectly. This seems somewhat problematic to me, but I'm not sure if I have a rock-solid solution. My only suggestion would be to encourage (or require?) WikiProjects to have an FL assessment level. If a project doesn't actually have any FLs then it's a moot point, but for those that do it would help clarify alot of ratings. All it would take is updating the Project Banner templates and creating an extra category or two; probably not that much work for each project. Any thoughts? Drewcifer ( talk) 11:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Igor 0.2.0 is available, and it includes a number of features that may be useful to the members of this Council, including a Wikiproject Browser and some task-force support. If you have the time, please download it and take it for a little test drive. I'm always open to suggestions, so by all means let me have it! The next release (0.3.0) will be a quick one, so if they're fairly simple ones, they may make it into that version. Many thanks! – Clockwork Soul 04:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
We've had considerable discussion, and we're considering putting A below GA, and adding a C-Class between Start and B. Please choose your favourite option here. Walkerma ( talk) 05:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what "soft" redirects are, but can someone explain this? Do we redirect Spain, Germany, Italy and France to Europe? Why is this done to Country Projects in South America? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The {{ tmbox}} is the new ambox/mbox compatible meta-template for talk page message boxes. We are thinking of making the {{tmbox}} work with the {{ WikiProjectBannerShell}}. Comments from anyone interested in the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} would be appreciated. See discussion at Template talk:Tmbox#Sizes / modes / shapes.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 14:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This is something I've been thinking about for some time, and it's rather rampant with WikiProject tagging: what are the guidelines for tagging articles with WikiProjects? What it really should be is a "you can take the X out of Y, but you can't take the Y out of X" when it comes to tagging (where Y is the scope of the project). Take for example these two articles which are part of WikiProject Scientology:
Now, with "Trapped in the Closet", that's a clear-cut case: the episode was a parody of Scientology's actions, was analysed as such, and it's an integral part of the episode. However, I'm not fond of "Ænema" coming under the scope - it's one line in a six minute song that's equally pessimistic. Now, I understand that MJK may not like Scientology, but would the song make any sense if the line "Fuck L. Ron Hubbard and fuck all his clones" was removed? I think so, and we really need have a guideline for proper tagging, if there isn't one already. Sceptre ( talk) 23:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
(Undent) Could we have a section on this page about when it is appropriate for a WikiProject banner to be placed on an article? The major points that I'd like to see are these:
I have encountered all of these problems in the last two months, and it appears that there is nothing written anywhere about how and when to use these banners. WhatamIdoing ( talk)
Hi. The ratification vote to add {{ C-Class}} to the assessment scale has started. The poll will run for two weeks, until 0300 UTC June 18, 2008, and you can find the poll here, where we ask for your comment.
On behalf of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 03:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have been pondering how make the encyclopedia appear more reliable and end POV wars. What I came up with is a Board of Expertise idea. Each project could elect to appoint boards of expertise. This board would be experts with verified degrees that are relative to the topic. Priority would be given to those with the highest level of degree and experience. Articles that overlap would have a special board comprised of an equal niumber of the highest priority experts from each project.
Thoughts? Geoff Plourde ( talk) 01:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Could someone compile a list of useful bots that can be employed for various WikiProject tasks? For example, User:SQLBot can be asked to update WikiProject watchlist and User:AlexNewArtBot to update a list of new articles within the scope of the project. There are several bots for delivering newsletters. I am sure there must be more... Renata ( talk) 09:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I am a strong supporter of Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible, and am hoping that some editors who have expertise in logic, math and science actually agree with me. If so, then I'd like to urge that Wikipedia:WikiProject General Audience be re-activated. 69.140.152.55 ( talk) 07:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Do we have a stats page for the Wikiprojects ? say Top10 for most no of articles, FA/GA, members, task forces etc ?? -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 06:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
For the truly self-referential among us. Oh, yeah, it's being nominated for deletion. In a sense, I can see this being somewhat useful, but only in a sense. John Carter ( talk) 15:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there a convention for proper capitalization of WikiProject titles? Some projects capitalize the first letter of each word, while others don't. I haven't found any recommendations made within Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. The only reference I found to this was from a brief discussion in 2006, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Archive 4#Titles and capitalization.21, which suggested that "WikiProject" is a pseudo-namespace and everything after it should be in sentence case. -- Scott Alter 21:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Would it be beneficial if there was an RFC bot category for WikiProjects, so that WikiProjects could get updates about WikiProjectdom? MessedRocker ( talk) 06:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
How many WikiProjects are there? I am writing a paper about collaborative writing for Wikimania and would like the total figure. Thanks! Awadewit ( talk) 19:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello all! I just wanted to announce the completion of the most complete project list to date, drawn, processed and merged from the following sources:
The result is an XML document containing what appears to be a nearly complete list of all projects and many task forces. This past run found a total of 2167 items, including 1799 projects and 368 task forces. Hope you find it useful, and as usual I'm more than happy to hear criticism and ideas for how it can be improved. – Clockwork Soul 13:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey I was unsure where to post about this but this seems like a suitable place. I was wonderign how I would go about organizing an assessment scheme for the Slipknot Project. I only want it so the articles are organised by class and so we can include it in our template on talk pages, I don't believe we need an importance rating. So can anybody tell me just how I go about including this in the project? REZTER TALK ø 10:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
{{
Slipknot Project}}
) to use {{
WPBannerMeta}}
, which will make it very much easier to expand and add functionality to the banner, such as this quality assessment. Enabling quality assessments for the banner is now as simple as setting the parameter |QUALITY_SCALE=
to equal "yes": |QUALITY_SCALE=yes
. However, before you do that, there is some infrastructure you need to create first: I suggest you have a quick read of
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot: basically you need to create a category
Category:Slipknot articles by quality, with subcategories
Category:FA-Class Slipknot articles,
Category:A-Class Slipknot articles, etc, with appropriate categorisation. Once you've done that, enable assessments on the banner and get grading!
Happy‑
melon 15:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)There is a discussion going on at Requests for approval regarding the use of bots for talk page banner tagging. I request the councillors to add their comments to the dicussion. Thanks, Ganeshk ( talk) 12:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
This idea of this discussion is a genuine and good faith attempt to discuss concerns and views regarding a long debated topic, at a single place, hoping for a consensus. This is not a policy making initiative or a ballot. Kindly Be Civil and avoid personal attacks. |
Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ?
The context of this discussion are the recent
WP:COMP Tagging Issue ,
WP:FOOD Tagging Issue ,
TinucherianBot issues etc.
A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia; and, simultaneously, a group of editors that use said pages to collaborate on encyclopedic work. It is not a place to write encyclopedia articles directly, but a resource to help coordinate and organize article writing and editing. Project banner Tagging and Assessing articles are an important part of the workload of most, if not all WikiProjects. However it is tedious to keep track of newer articles that come under the scope of the the project regularly and add the project banner manually. Hence bots are also often employed to tag articles based on categories. This means that multiple WikiProjects may tag an single article if it falls under its own scope .
Nothing happens more than attention and contributions of more subject experts by additional tagging by a project, which is primarily needed for the growth of Wikipedia. If you are more concerned of cluttering of talk page , we have options of {{
WikiProjectBannerShell}} which takes up very less space.If the concern is about too many banners, we can have intergated Project banners like {{
WP India}} which supports over 50 descendant WikiProjects! It is also sad to see Some Wikiprojects members trying to '
own' articles by preventing tagging by another project , which is against one of our fundamental rules of
WP:OWN. It is basically against our fundamental Principle of a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If that is the case, soon the day will come when a WikiProject will not even allow anyone other than the project members to edit the article itself.
This discussion is NOT regarding "WikiProject country" tagging to use on an article about a city, especially if the city has changed hands several times over the course of history. The community consensus(already agreed upon) on this is that if there is disagreement, then the only country's WikiProject template that should be used, is the one for where the city is currently located.
This discussion is specific to issues like WP:Food and Drink tagging articles related to WP:BEER and other descendant projects or issues like WP:COMP Tagging articles in Category:Cryptographic protocols which falls under the scope of their project and also WP:CryptographyProject !. The fundamental question is: Why should any project have to get "permission" from other projects to tag articles? It may be courteous to inform them but not a mandatory thing to do...The thumb rule that No one owns the article in Wikipedia, neither does WikiProjects!.
WikiProject Council Guide explains as follows : "Many articles will be tagged by more than one WikiProject. This is particularly true of articles which deal with prominent people, as those articles may be tagged by WikiProjects for biography, their places of residence, their professional field, and any other activities they may engage in. This can and occasionally does create problems, as some projects will, quite reasonably, think that another project might be only minimally capable of assisting in the improvement of an article. However, it is important for all parties to remember that beyond simply being WikiProjects, they are also collections of people with specific abilities and competencies which might not be available within other groups. A member of a football project might be better able to copyedit an article about a player from a non-English speaking country, who might even go on to achieve prominence elsewhere and draw the attention of other projects, than a native speaker of that country who might be less skilled at English composition. On that basis, it is a good idea to welcome any banner placements on an article provided that the banner is actually at all relevant to the subject. The fact that these other projects may also regularly "check up" on the article for improvements, vandalism, etc. can also be beneficial."
Since we don't have a definite consensus or discussion on this, as a member of WikiProject Council, I present this discussion to you for your valuable opinions and concerns...This is not a policy making initiative or a ballot but an attempt to understand and discuss concerns and views of everyone.. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 11:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:SNOW , If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause. Nevertheless, if the objection raised is unreasonable or contrary to policy, then the debate needs to be refocused, and editors may be advised to avoid disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 15:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The prior approval tagging question above was worded to get the response it did. A more pertinent question would be - "How far does a project's scope extend?" Is there a point at which a project's useful control over an article diminishes - and if so, where is that point reached? Could WikiProject Medicine decide that as Food & Drink is nutritional and the basis for medicines, they could tag Food & Drink and carry on down to Beer?
It is positive when projects overlap. But what is of concern here is not overlapping as over-reaching. I feel it would be helpful to all projects if there was an awareness of the potential limits of their scope so that over-reaching doesn't occur. Even though beer is made from water I don't think it would be appropriate for the Beer Project to tag everything in Category:Water. Even though beer is made from grain, it would be inappropriate for the Beer project to tag all articles in Category:Grains, etc. While it would usually be down to the project members themselves to decide the limits of their scope, it would come down to the council to advise on scope when clashes occur, such as the current issue of Food & Drink tagging brewery articles. SilkTork * YES! 22:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The issue of tagging has come up on a number of articles that The Bird Wikiproject has worked on. Bots and the like working for Country wikiprojects will frequently tag bird articles (and those of other animals) solely on the basis of the distribution of that bird falling in that country. Or, in some cases, having occured there once or twice (vagrancy)! Or the tag is flat out wrong (I once saw Landlocked Laos claiming a marine turtle!). Personally I don't see how this is a valid use of tags; it seems fair enough if the species is endemic to a country (like the Silktail is to Fiji) or if the animal in question is iconic or a national symbol (see Bald Eagle or Kiwi). It becomes faintly ridiculous with species like Cattle Egrets or House Sparrows which occur across most of the globe (before I removed them there was about 10 country projects claiming Cattle Egret). The purposes of tags is to advertise to likely interested editors about collaboration groups, how are the projects that actually work on the articles actually going to get noticed if there are dozens of tags or worse their tag is hidden in one of theose godawful shells? It seems that a species simply occurring in a country hardly makes it under the scope of that Wikiproject - are countries going to claim the articles sand, road, car and mountain because those also occur in the countries? Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TinucherianBot 4 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Bots.2FRequests_for_approval.2FTinucherianBot_4 . FYI.. I guess this will make our work easier in WP 1.0 Assessment Categories creation with the bot. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal for a bot that would notify WikiProjects when their articles have entered certain workflows, e.g. when they are nominated for deletion or for Good article reassessment.
The request comes from WP:PHYSICS. I would be willing to try an implementation; but for only one WikiProject, it probably wouldn't be worth the while. Are any other WikiProjects interested in such a notification bot? You can find details of the functionality, and leave your comments, at at the bot request page. Thanks, -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 18:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I just created an article for SoldierCity, an online military merchandise company for which I am the marketing manager. Here is the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Princessgwen_77/New_article
The company provides a great deal of valuable goods, including official military awards and memorabilia for veterans going back to WWII. In addition, we donate to reunions and other military events.
I am hoping that someone will help me submit this so it appears in the article space.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princessgwen 77 ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I saw on the simple english wikipedia that you are allowed to make User:Example/Wikiproject Example on there. Can you do that on the regular english WikiPedia? -- Robbie ( talk) 22:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I remember some time ago I complained about the inconsistent naming of WikiProject banner templates and asked that all of them at least have a redirect from the name "Template:WikiProject <insert name>". For some reason this doesn't seem to be showing up in the archives for me, but I have just had another case with Template:WikiProject Fish, which I had to create because it was red. I thought something would have been done about this by now - I recall there was a long discussion about exactly how we should fix the problem, but I don't remember what became of it. Anyone know what I'm talking about? Richard001 ( talk) 03:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
While we're at it: Some time ago, Happy-Melon made a proposal for standardizing the template names, what has become of that? -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 13:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
(Cross-posted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Directory)
Hello all. During the last update of the source data I use for Igor, I found about 189 projects that have not yet been assigned a position on the directory. I was hoping that if anybody had any time, they could help me determine whether they belong in the directory, and if so to place them? Many thanks! – Clockwork Soul 04:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I just rebuilt the list, which has actually grown in size a bit. I then listed 44 projects, mostly music- and India-related projects. – Clockwork Soul 02:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC) 44
Updated again based on the newest version of the project list: 129 projects total are not categorized, out of a total of 2183 projects (including task forces), for a uncategorization percentage of 5.9%. – Clockwork Soul 19:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
As this template is not working as it should and is not getting fixed in the foreseeable future, I am working on a new one which will be far simpler to set up and use. It needs extensive testing of the current features. This template will use only the standard categories and links to subpages to start standardizing WikiProjects as well. The only thing missing from the template I am writing is task forces. (I am still trying to think of a way to keep that as simple as possible.) So if there are any projects out there that want to keep it simple, please see the test banner template to run the tests. Thank you. - LA ( T) 21:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, to help Richard001 with the discussion above, I might be able to add something that will check the name where the template is transcluded and come back with an error if the template is misnamed. I will have to think on it. - LA ( T) 21:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
WPBiography}}
to
Template:WikiProject Biography.
Happy‑
melon 13:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)WPBannerMeta is working quite well on the projects with simple templates. I've converted quite a few over to use it. -- WOSlinker ( talk) 09:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, take the new banner out for a spin and tell me what you think. I added something that may give notice the template is in the wrong place. And another goodie. - LA ( T) 07:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I really don't want to come across as attacking this template, since as the primary maintainer of {{
WPBannerMeta}}
I have a very visible CoI, but I really must ask: what is the purpose of this template? What problem is it trying to solve, what advantages does it have over existing solutions? It strikes me as being very limited in the range of functionality on offer, and (more seriously) the range of functionality that can be disabled. Code bulk and efficiency are also issues. While I don't want to disparage the enormous amount of work that LA has clearly put into this template, I am failing to locate the niche it is intended to fill.
Happy‑
melon 13:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
|IMAGE_LEFT=
, an imageright parameter was always intended. I've just set up a todo list on
Template talk:WPBannerMeta, so if you have any other feature requests, throw them in there.
Happy‑
melon 16:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC){{ WPBannerMeta}} | {{ the new banner}} |
|PROJECT = |BANNER_NAME = {{subst:FULLPAGENAME}} |small={{{small|}}} |nested={{{nested|}}} |IMAGE_LEFT = |IMAGE_LEFT_SMALL = |IMAGE_LEFT_LARGE = |QUALITY_SCALE = |class={{{class|}}} |FULL_QUALITY_SCALE = |IMPORTANCE_SCALE = |importance={{{importance|}}} |ASSESSMENT_CAT = |ASSESSMENT_LINK = |MAIN_TEXT = |MAIN_ARTICLE = |PORTAL = |PORTAL_IMG = |MAIN_CAT = |ATTENTION = |attention={{{attention|}}} |ATTENTION_CAT = |INFOBOX = |infobox={{{needs-infobox|}}} |INFOBOX_CAT = |COMMENTS = |COMMENT_CAT = |COMMENT_FORCE = |PEER_REVIEW = |peer review={{{**PARAMETER**|}}} |old peer review={{{**PARAMETER**|}}} |PR_LINK = |PR_CAT = |PR_OLD_CAT =All usage that this banner has for items the one I am writing does not cover are not included. |
|project= |image= |image size= |italic= |
{{ Lady Aleena banner}} |
|project= |image= |image size= |italic= |small={{{small|}}} |nested={{{nested|}}} |class={{{class|}}} |importance={{{importance|}}} |attention={{{attention|}}} |needs image={{{needs image|}}} |needs infobox={{{needs infobox|}}} |needs navbox={{{needs navbox|}}} |
My issue is not that ideas like this are not good ones - I have just added class-sorting-by-namespace to {{
WPBannerMeta}}
, because it is a very good idea - but rather that, because a template that serves as a banner metatemplate has already been developed, 95% of what you've spent the past few days slaving over is just reinventing the wheel. In just a few edits time you're going to realise, as I did, that the banner you've created uses different categories for the "needs attention/infobox/image/navbox" notes to those used by the majority of WikiProjects (most use
Category:PROJECT articles needing attention etc). You can't change the syntax after the banner has been deployed, so you'll need to add a parameter to override the default category - it doesn't matter what you call it, you've just reinvented |ATTENTION_CAT=
and |INFOBOX_CAT=
. There are a huge number of little things like this that you think are unnecessary, but everything in WPBannerMeta is there for a reason, and I suspect any fully-functional banner metatemplate is going to be similar enough to the existing one to make developing an alternative fairly pointless.
You're also making a huge mistake (again, one that I made - see this discussion at WP:IRELAND) if you think that the way forward is just to require projects to rename categories, banners, assessment pages, etc, to make them comply with the syntax of your banner. WikiProject are square, and very definitely do not like being hammered into round holes. A large number of WPBannerMeta parameters are there to accomodate the quirks and idiosyncracies of individual projects, and you cannot afford to ignore these. At best, this banner with its inviolate syntax will be usable by the minority of WikiProjects which use exactly the functionality provided (no more, no less) and have entirely consistent syntax. If you try to force any projects to change their infrastructure to accomodate an inflexible template, however, you are likely to be shot down in flames. Happy‑ melon 10:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
{{#ifeq:{{{nested|}}}|yes|<just the WikiProject's category and maybe a little note to see above/below>|<the normal code for showing the comments>}}
{{
WPBS}}
to {{
WPB}}
so they both display comments). I'll have to have a think - WPBS and WPB don't actually display the comments like most project banners do, they just display a link to the comment subpage.
Happy‑
melon 19:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
{{#ifexist:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments| {{!}}- {{!}} {{{!}}class="collapsible collapse" style="width:100%;background:transparent;" !style="text-align:left;font-size:95%;background:#f5deb3;"{{!}}Assessment comments {{!}}- {{!}}style="border:1px solid #c0c090;background:#fff;"{{!}}{{{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments}} {{!}}} }}