![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I have added this project to the WikiProject Council directory page. See: here. NORTH AMERICA 1000 17:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe it isn't your field of expertise, but I think some of the other WMF entities and any projects they may or may not have might benefit from input as well. Many of them are not much more active in some ways than some of the most moribund projects here. John Carter ( talk) 19:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Since mass message sender was deployed, I've been working on making it easier to create mailing lists and deploy messages with the system. I started by creating Template:Mailing list member ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which was later converted into Lua ( Module:Mailing list member ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) by Jackmcbarn ( talk · contribs). In an effort to keep mailing lists updated, I started developing User:Technical 13/Scripts/UpdateMailingList.js ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) in which I've gotten some assistance from MarkTraceur ( talk · contribs) in developing. I'm currently stuck where my userInfo() function is timing out on large lists because it is trying to process hundreds or thousands of requests at a time. I need some help in getting the script to be able to process those requests in batches of 50 or less and wait for each batch to finish before starting the next. Once that is done and my data collection/updating is working as I expect, I can start building the interface to be able to select fields to populate in the template and generating the replacement content for the list to be able to update it. Once the script is working as expected, I may need some guidance in making modifications to the module to be able to support the new parameters and have a pleasing display. Thanks for any assistance I can get on this project. :) — {{U| Technical 13}} ( e • t • c) 19:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
{{#target:}}
code?
Harej (
talk)
15:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I am Gug01. May I ask that this project focus on improving the WP:WikiProject Beetles? It is annoying and frustrating how when I create a beetle article, no one helps me in the endeavor. Please reply on my talk page. Gug01 ( talk) 23:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Gug 01
A lot of our WikiProjects have a kind of limited scope, and a lot of others rather broad scopes. But in many cases we will have multiple WikiProjects which directly relate to an article, and in many of those cases many of those projects will consider some articles very important to their topic. I suppose one example might be the various "Religion in [country]" articles, which will generally be of "Top" importance to the relevant religion and national projects. In such cases, it would probably be in everybody's best interests if we could get the editors in both projects to in a sense work together on the articles, developing it with material relevant to their topics. The input from both the Latter-day Saints movement and Business wikiprojects on Zions Cooperative Mercantile Institution might both be very relevant to the article, but rather different. Can anyone think of any way to maybe encourage direct contemporaneous cross-wikiproject collaboration, either on individual articles or on a periodic basis, like with a selected group of (maybe a dozen or so) articles per month or so? John Carter ( talk) 15:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Just curious, was the invitation to participate in WikiProject X extended only to designated WikiProjects, or also task forces (many of which were established as WikiProjects but merged) and other WikiProjects not titled "WikiProject" something? The Oregon Arts Project comes to mind, and I believe there are other public art-related projects that do not take on the "WikiProject" title. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I would like to see some structured way for Wikiprojects to be able to be informed when a new editor registers for an account and has an interest in the topic area of the Wikiproject. I have long believed that wikiprojects are the best way to help increase the 'stickability' of newbies - to get them through the crucial first 20 edits and to feel like they have a 'community' they can seek advice/support from. Imagine if we could have the on-wiki equivalent of the 'first week of new semester at university' experience - where all the different interest-groups are actively trying to encourage new people to join them. Newbies would feel VALUED and WANTED, not scared and isolated.
However, before any software could be built that somehow allows newbies to nominate their interests (and which then somehow informs the wikiproject of the newbies' existence), there needs to be some work done on how Wikiprojects can best coordinate welcoming/mentoring programs. Perhaps a 'new member drive' advertised on external fora, perhaps a monthly googlehangout or IRC chat for new editors, perhaps a project-specific version of the 'Teahouse'... Just some thoughts. Witty lama 13:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
... is the same? Or is there some different goal? -- Infovarius ( talk) 21:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Victuallers and I have developed a draft proposal for a talk to be presented at Wikimania 2015. It's titled, How to pick up more women -- as in more women editors and more women's biographies. A friendly FYI... I have mentioned this WikiProject in the proposal. The proposal review process has begun and there's no guarantee that this proposal will be accepted. That's where you come in. Please review our proposal and give us feedback. Ultimately, we hope you add your name to the signup at the bottom of the proposal which signifies you're interested in the talk (it does not signify you'll be attending the event). Thank you! -- Rosiestep ( talk) 21:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I just saw the notice for this project, wouldn't a wikiproject to help wikiprojects be better named as WP:WikiProject WikiProject (yes, this does point to the WPCouncil) or WP:WikiProject Wikipedia collaboration/ WP:WikiProject Collaborations? "X" seems awfully like something for WP:WikiProject Paranormal or WP:WikiProject Christianity ( WP:X) or WP:WikiProject Mathematics (algebra) -- 65.94.40.137 ( talk) 05:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Many (most?) wp:wikiprojects ask editors to sign up. But what is the point of signing up when so many projects have long lists of members whose edit history shows no recent edits? Any facts/speculation? Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I have visited many WikiProjects that do not have a alerts section, so editors cannot find out which, if any of the, pages belonging to the project are in deletion discussions. It would be nice if it was easier to create such alerts. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech ( talk) 19:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone. When this link is blue, that means the new Article Request Workshop will be launched. The goal of the workshop will be the unite all the different requested articles / missing topics lists into one list that can be used by multiple projects and groups. The system uses Flow, and will be the first Flow-native workflow on English Wikipedia, so I am leaving this message here to make clear that I requested this and it is not some wry Wikimedia Foundation experiment. Harej ( talk) 23:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton today. If WikiProject X participants/watchers are interested in implementing any new tools or testing ideas using this brand new WikiProject, feel free or come over to the talk page and let's discuss... Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
11:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC){{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
15:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)I recently added a tabbed header ({{ WikiProject X tabbed header}}) to project pages to provide an overview of various project areas. Prior to this, many project subpages were not easily found, and as such, people may not have been aware of their existence. I received a message on my talk page opposing use of the header. As such, requesting further input from project members. North America 1000 02:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Navigation |
---|
Some people like the tabbed header, and some definitely do not, including both founders of the project. As such, I have boldly replaced the tabbed header with the less obtrusive sidebar on project pages. Feel free to comment here about the matter, and hopefully the sidebar will be acceptable for folks. North America 1000 00:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if anyone else has noticed, but the logo for this project File:WikiProject X logo.svg has a strong similarity to a copyright protected logo belonging to the BBC - File:BBC Radio 1Xtra logo.svg. Wes Mouse | T@lk 00:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The good:
Neutral:
The bad:
In summary: I like what you have done, but I am worried that you are abandoning a lot of useful features. If the new wikiproject will not include easy way to enable the tools I have found very helpful (listed above), I won't be able to endorse the outcome, because it replaces an imperfect solution with another one that is missing what I believe are key features. I hope you can merge the new ideas with the old ones, to create the best of both worlds. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Good Wikiprojects welcome and encourage new editors. Bad ones are the opposite, and act as foci for territorial "owners" who see off outside editors and enforce their own vision of how Wikipedia should work, even where that contradicts wider community consensus (and in doing so often reinforce systemic biases). It would be good if this initiative could examine how that happens and how it can be mitigated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
|
I'd like to see this discussion re-opened. The concerns raised in it are also those most on my mind, and the most serious issues I would like to see a "WikiProject X" try to do something to mitigate. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Please be aware that there is currently a deletion discussion regarding the above-named new Hillary Rodham Clinton WikiProject, which was announced previously at this talk page. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I see the "Volunteer" and "Pilot" links on the WikiProject X main page going to a list of editors and what wikiprojects the are in or perhaps feel they "represent" somehow. They appear to be signing up the projects to test something, but I can't find anywhere an explanation of what it is they're suggesting be tested at these wikiprojects. I'm involved in various wikiprojects, but am not comfortable signing them up for anything experimental without knowing what it will entail, so that we have some idea what to expect and what effects these things might have. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Please sign up WP:OPENACCESS for that. Thanks! -- Daniel Mietchen ( talk) 14:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
In order to set up monthly tasks on Wikiprojects, perhaps the scheme used at WP:OPERA could be made more widely available? It uses some fairly simple code to put the next three months on the talk page for discussion and preparation. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 00:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
This should probably use a standardised subfolder of the Wikiproject's space, as well as a standardised subpage in that folder for the default template preloaded when setting up new collaborations. We'd need to decide what that subfolder should be (preferably one that no Wikiproject uses) or we could give an optional parameter to change it.
I'm meeting with Harej now to think about the importance predictor (see newsletter). We think that it would be good -- long term -- to think about API's that will provide input data (e.g. pageviews, inlinks, etc.)
I took some notes about how we'd like to structure the input API. See https://gist.github.com/halfak/8b1a6e4d9d72c455eec1.
-- EpochFail ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
...or soon thereafter. Is there any way to add a brief guide at the top of the "edit source" view that directs a new editor to an "Orientation page", perhaps one that focuses on that particular topic? For example, when an admin adds PP it includes a template with the necessary information at the top of the edit view. Why couldn't a topic specific template be added that would benefit new editors? Let's say it's an article that is categorized to a controversial topic, like politics or religion for example. There could be a brief guideline at the top of the edit view that states something like NEW TO THIS PAGE? - (named article) follows XXXX guidelines and policies. Please refer to XXXX before adding, deleting or modifying the article. You should also present your proposed edit(s) on the article talk page before making any changes.
Another thought is to somehow include in the new editor Welcome message a list of sandtraps that tend to discourage new editors and/or cause them to be TB or blocked. What we're using now apparently doesn't work because we're losing editors faster than they're signing up. Atsme 📞 📧 13:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there a way to get a list of editors who have edited any of the articles tagged with a certain WikiProject banner? If so, how would I go about getting said list? – Fredddie ™ 02:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
First of all, I want to congratulate all of those who have been working hard on making WikiProject X a success, especially Harej - the pilot project pages are looking great, and the underlying structure is already fantastically advanced!
I'm wondering a couple of things about the Discussions feed:
I'm also wondering about task force support. Reading the stories, I'm struck by how often it seems that a successful and active WikiProject buds from a well-purposed taskforce. Might it be worth helping less-active WikiProjects to re-integrate and incubate in larger and/or more active WikiProjects? Or helping taskforces that are ready to cast out on their own? And what scope is there for joint task forces between WikiProjects (either hosted on one WikiProject or mirrored across both)?
As an aside, will there be any further inclusions under metrics alongside the assessment stats? In a fit of optimism last year, I started drawing plans for an update of WikiProject Systems as part of a one-man revival attempt, but it only ever came to having this rough plan to show for it. One of the things that I found most useful was the {{ progression}} template usage (which I believe I found through WikiProject Military History and WikiProject Medicine). On a fundamental level, this allows fairly live display of the progress of a task (as a stats magpie, I find it gratifying to update even one page appropriately, and then refresh and find the bar moved along - a gamification, if you will); used in conjuction with targeted goals (such as in article drives and task forces), it can help encourage rapid progress on needed tasks. So for instance, in prioritising a proportion of high-importance articles to be addressed to B-class or above, one can have the following progression bar:
50% of high-importance articles at B-class or above: 30.2% complete | ||
If you look in the code, you'll see that the numerator is still manually entered, but the value comes from the sum of this and this, so could perhaps even be linked to WP 1.0 Bot's outputs. And even with a mixed-source progression template, it could potentially partially automate (i.e. I expect that the {{ PAGESINCATEGORY}} function would remain live, so at least part of the fraction would move closer in step with the measured activity).
Speaking of activity, I also feel that beyond the wiki-work statistics, they could be used to look at the rate of change in assessment categories, for instance by the following formula (ironically, it's based on radioactive rate of decay):
where:
This can help highlight the most highly-active projects, as well as potentially being a tool to fine-tune the size of targeted goals relative to the number of people that have signed up.
In summary, apologies for the wall of suggestions, but I hope they're received in the spirit given. Please keep up the good work! — Sasuke Sarutobi ( talk) 23:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I have added this project to the WikiProject Council directory page. See: here. NORTH AMERICA 1000 17:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe it isn't your field of expertise, but I think some of the other WMF entities and any projects they may or may not have might benefit from input as well. Many of them are not much more active in some ways than some of the most moribund projects here. John Carter ( talk) 19:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Since mass message sender was deployed, I've been working on making it easier to create mailing lists and deploy messages with the system. I started by creating Template:Mailing list member ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which was later converted into Lua ( Module:Mailing list member ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) by Jackmcbarn ( talk · contribs). In an effort to keep mailing lists updated, I started developing User:Technical 13/Scripts/UpdateMailingList.js ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) in which I've gotten some assistance from MarkTraceur ( talk · contribs) in developing. I'm currently stuck where my userInfo() function is timing out on large lists because it is trying to process hundreds or thousands of requests at a time. I need some help in getting the script to be able to process those requests in batches of 50 or less and wait for each batch to finish before starting the next. Once that is done and my data collection/updating is working as I expect, I can start building the interface to be able to select fields to populate in the template and generating the replacement content for the list to be able to update it. Once the script is working as expected, I may need some guidance in making modifications to the module to be able to support the new parameters and have a pleasing display. Thanks for any assistance I can get on this project. :) — {{U| Technical 13}} ( e • t • c) 19:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
{{#target:}}
code?
Harej (
talk)
15:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I am Gug01. May I ask that this project focus on improving the WP:WikiProject Beetles? It is annoying and frustrating how when I create a beetle article, no one helps me in the endeavor. Please reply on my talk page. Gug01 ( talk) 23:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Gug 01
A lot of our WikiProjects have a kind of limited scope, and a lot of others rather broad scopes. But in many cases we will have multiple WikiProjects which directly relate to an article, and in many of those cases many of those projects will consider some articles very important to their topic. I suppose one example might be the various "Religion in [country]" articles, which will generally be of "Top" importance to the relevant religion and national projects. In such cases, it would probably be in everybody's best interests if we could get the editors in both projects to in a sense work together on the articles, developing it with material relevant to their topics. The input from both the Latter-day Saints movement and Business wikiprojects on Zions Cooperative Mercantile Institution might both be very relevant to the article, but rather different. Can anyone think of any way to maybe encourage direct contemporaneous cross-wikiproject collaboration, either on individual articles or on a periodic basis, like with a selected group of (maybe a dozen or so) articles per month or so? John Carter ( talk) 15:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Just curious, was the invitation to participate in WikiProject X extended only to designated WikiProjects, or also task forces (many of which were established as WikiProjects but merged) and other WikiProjects not titled "WikiProject" something? The Oregon Arts Project comes to mind, and I believe there are other public art-related projects that do not take on the "WikiProject" title. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I would like to see some structured way for Wikiprojects to be able to be informed when a new editor registers for an account and has an interest in the topic area of the Wikiproject. I have long believed that wikiprojects are the best way to help increase the 'stickability' of newbies - to get them through the crucial first 20 edits and to feel like they have a 'community' they can seek advice/support from. Imagine if we could have the on-wiki equivalent of the 'first week of new semester at university' experience - where all the different interest-groups are actively trying to encourage new people to join them. Newbies would feel VALUED and WANTED, not scared and isolated.
However, before any software could be built that somehow allows newbies to nominate their interests (and which then somehow informs the wikiproject of the newbies' existence), there needs to be some work done on how Wikiprojects can best coordinate welcoming/mentoring programs. Perhaps a 'new member drive' advertised on external fora, perhaps a monthly googlehangout or IRC chat for new editors, perhaps a project-specific version of the 'Teahouse'... Just some thoughts. Witty lama 13:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
... is the same? Or is there some different goal? -- Infovarius ( talk) 21:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Victuallers and I have developed a draft proposal for a talk to be presented at Wikimania 2015. It's titled, How to pick up more women -- as in more women editors and more women's biographies. A friendly FYI... I have mentioned this WikiProject in the proposal. The proposal review process has begun and there's no guarantee that this proposal will be accepted. That's where you come in. Please review our proposal and give us feedback. Ultimately, we hope you add your name to the signup at the bottom of the proposal which signifies you're interested in the talk (it does not signify you'll be attending the event). Thank you! -- Rosiestep ( talk) 21:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I just saw the notice for this project, wouldn't a wikiproject to help wikiprojects be better named as WP:WikiProject WikiProject (yes, this does point to the WPCouncil) or WP:WikiProject Wikipedia collaboration/ WP:WikiProject Collaborations? "X" seems awfully like something for WP:WikiProject Paranormal or WP:WikiProject Christianity ( WP:X) or WP:WikiProject Mathematics (algebra) -- 65.94.40.137 ( talk) 05:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Many (most?) wp:wikiprojects ask editors to sign up. But what is the point of signing up when so many projects have long lists of members whose edit history shows no recent edits? Any facts/speculation? Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I have visited many WikiProjects that do not have a alerts section, so editors cannot find out which, if any of the, pages belonging to the project are in deletion discussions. It would be nice if it was easier to create such alerts. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech ( talk) 19:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone. When this link is blue, that means the new Article Request Workshop will be launched. The goal of the workshop will be the unite all the different requested articles / missing topics lists into one list that can be used by multiple projects and groups. The system uses Flow, and will be the first Flow-native workflow on English Wikipedia, so I am leaving this message here to make clear that I requested this and it is not some wry Wikimedia Foundation experiment. Harej ( talk) 23:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton today. If WikiProject X participants/watchers are interested in implementing any new tools or testing ideas using this brand new WikiProject, feel free or come over to the talk page and let's discuss... Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
11:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC){{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
15:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)I recently added a tabbed header ({{ WikiProject X tabbed header}}) to project pages to provide an overview of various project areas. Prior to this, many project subpages were not easily found, and as such, people may not have been aware of their existence. I received a message on my talk page opposing use of the header. As such, requesting further input from project members. North America 1000 02:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Navigation |
---|
Some people like the tabbed header, and some definitely do not, including both founders of the project. As such, I have boldly replaced the tabbed header with the less obtrusive sidebar on project pages. Feel free to comment here about the matter, and hopefully the sidebar will be acceptable for folks. North America 1000 00:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if anyone else has noticed, but the logo for this project File:WikiProject X logo.svg has a strong similarity to a copyright protected logo belonging to the BBC - File:BBC Radio 1Xtra logo.svg. Wes Mouse | T@lk 00:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The good:
Neutral:
The bad:
In summary: I like what you have done, but I am worried that you are abandoning a lot of useful features. If the new wikiproject will not include easy way to enable the tools I have found very helpful (listed above), I won't be able to endorse the outcome, because it replaces an imperfect solution with another one that is missing what I believe are key features. I hope you can merge the new ideas with the old ones, to create the best of both worlds. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Good Wikiprojects welcome and encourage new editors. Bad ones are the opposite, and act as foci for territorial "owners" who see off outside editors and enforce their own vision of how Wikipedia should work, even where that contradicts wider community consensus (and in doing so often reinforce systemic biases). It would be good if this initiative could examine how that happens and how it can be mitigated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
|
I'd like to see this discussion re-opened. The concerns raised in it are also those most on my mind, and the most serious issues I would like to see a "WikiProject X" try to do something to mitigate. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Please be aware that there is currently a deletion discussion regarding the above-named new Hillary Rodham Clinton WikiProject, which was announced previously at this talk page. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 14:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I see the "Volunteer" and "Pilot" links on the WikiProject X main page going to a list of editors and what wikiprojects the are in or perhaps feel they "represent" somehow. They appear to be signing up the projects to test something, but I can't find anywhere an explanation of what it is they're suggesting be tested at these wikiprojects. I'm involved in various wikiprojects, but am not comfortable signing them up for anything experimental without knowing what it will entail, so that we have some idea what to expect and what effects these things might have. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Please sign up WP:OPENACCESS for that. Thanks! -- Daniel Mietchen ( talk) 14:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
In order to set up monthly tasks on Wikiprojects, perhaps the scheme used at WP:OPERA could be made more widely available? It uses some fairly simple code to put the next three months on the talk page for discussion and preparation. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 00:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
This should probably use a standardised subfolder of the Wikiproject's space, as well as a standardised subpage in that folder for the default template preloaded when setting up new collaborations. We'd need to decide what that subfolder should be (preferably one that no Wikiproject uses) or we could give an optional parameter to change it.
I'm meeting with Harej now to think about the importance predictor (see newsletter). We think that it would be good -- long term -- to think about API's that will provide input data (e.g. pageviews, inlinks, etc.)
I took some notes about how we'd like to structure the input API. See https://gist.github.com/halfak/8b1a6e4d9d72c455eec1.
-- EpochFail ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
...or soon thereafter. Is there any way to add a brief guide at the top of the "edit source" view that directs a new editor to an "Orientation page", perhaps one that focuses on that particular topic? For example, when an admin adds PP it includes a template with the necessary information at the top of the edit view. Why couldn't a topic specific template be added that would benefit new editors? Let's say it's an article that is categorized to a controversial topic, like politics or religion for example. There could be a brief guideline at the top of the edit view that states something like NEW TO THIS PAGE? - (named article) follows XXXX guidelines and policies. Please refer to XXXX before adding, deleting or modifying the article. You should also present your proposed edit(s) on the article talk page before making any changes.
Another thought is to somehow include in the new editor Welcome message a list of sandtraps that tend to discourage new editors and/or cause them to be TB or blocked. What we're using now apparently doesn't work because we're losing editors faster than they're signing up. Atsme 📞 📧 13:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there a way to get a list of editors who have edited any of the articles tagged with a certain WikiProject banner? If so, how would I go about getting said list? – Fredddie ™ 02:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
First of all, I want to congratulate all of those who have been working hard on making WikiProject X a success, especially Harej - the pilot project pages are looking great, and the underlying structure is already fantastically advanced!
I'm wondering a couple of things about the Discussions feed:
I'm also wondering about task force support. Reading the stories, I'm struck by how often it seems that a successful and active WikiProject buds from a well-purposed taskforce. Might it be worth helping less-active WikiProjects to re-integrate and incubate in larger and/or more active WikiProjects? Or helping taskforces that are ready to cast out on their own? And what scope is there for joint task forces between WikiProjects (either hosted on one WikiProject or mirrored across both)?
As an aside, will there be any further inclusions under metrics alongside the assessment stats? In a fit of optimism last year, I started drawing plans for an update of WikiProject Systems as part of a one-man revival attempt, but it only ever came to having this rough plan to show for it. One of the things that I found most useful was the {{ progression}} template usage (which I believe I found through WikiProject Military History and WikiProject Medicine). On a fundamental level, this allows fairly live display of the progress of a task (as a stats magpie, I find it gratifying to update even one page appropriately, and then refresh and find the bar moved along - a gamification, if you will); used in conjuction with targeted goals (such as in article drives and task forces), it can help encourage rapid progress on needed tasks. So for instance, in prioritising a proportion of high-importance articles to be addressed to B-class or above, one can have the following progression bar:
50% of high-importance articles at B-class or above: 30.2% complete | ||
If you look in the code, you'll see that the numerator is still manually entered, but the value comes from the sum of this and this, so could perhaps even be linked to WP 1.0 Bot's outputs. And even with a mixed-source progression template, it could potentially partially automate (i.e. I expect that the {{ PAGESINCATEGORY}} function would remain live, so at least part of the fraction would move closer in step with the measured activity).
Speaking of activity, I also feel that beyond the wiki-work statistics, they could be used to look at the rate of change in assessment categories, for instance by the following formula (ironically, it's based on radioactive rate of decay):
where:
This can help highlight the most highly-active projects, as well as potentially being a tool to fine-tune the size of targeted goals relative to the number of people that have signed up.
In summary, apologies for the wall of suggestions, but I hope they're received in the spirit given. Please keep up the good work! — Sasuke Sarutobi ( talk) 23:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)