Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


WikiProject Council

General information
Main page talk
   To-do list
   Templates
Contacts talk

WikiProject guide
Introduction talk
   WikiProjects
   Task forces
   Technical notes

Resources
Assessment FAQ
Directory talk
Proposals talk
Newsletters talk
WikiProjects Portal
edit · changes
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Non-standard banners

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)

Oh god please no! :D!! Why, why, why is there always one project that has to be different? In answer to your question, yes, absolutely, all project banners using the grading system should accept |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)
From the point of view of somebody authoring such a tool, I have to agree. Though - eventually - Igor will be able to handle these odd projects, it won't be for a couple of months at least. I would very much like to see class=|importance= become the official standard. – ClockworkSoul 15:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Those templates can be edited to accept {{LepidopteraTalk|class=B|importance=High}} as well as {{LepidopteraTalk|B|High}}. It has to do with the way non-named parameters are handled. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP: imageneeded=yes and template reqphoto

Proposal to merge need image categories of WikiProjects and reqphoto template categories. Do we really need to distinguish the difference between images and photographs? please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography#Requests for Pictures, Images and Photographs

[edit] Stub--->Start

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 am not sure that a specific text limit would do much good... Whether an article is a stub or not depends on its subject and the relative importance thereof. An article of the same size might be sufficient for a short-lived television series cancelled after five episodes but most inadequate for a successful show running for eight years. This goes for all levels in the assessment scale.
Personally, I am more concerned about the state of A-class. Waltham, The Duke of 12:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Character count alone isn't enough: it also depends on the nature of those characters, and that requires human assessment. An elegantly-written, copiously referenced, few paragraphs may be a very good start-class article, but if there is just an unreferenced intro and a similarly unsourced verbose list of a few achievements, that is better classed as a stub. One example I have encountered a few times recently is of articles on a poem or song, which consists of a one-para unreferenced intro, followed by the entire out-of-copyright text of the poem. That, to my mind is a stub, regardless of how long the poem is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forgotten Realms

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)

I think it's stepping a bit outside the box to suggest that a WikiProject closure should also include the deletion or transwiki of its entire articlebase. If, as seems the case, all the articles within scope are outside the confines of WP:FICT, then list them all for AfD and treat the project closure as a separate issue. You don't need to discuss with a non-existent community whether a project is still active, just tag it with {{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)
Well, the "inactive" tag has been there for almost one year - I just want to see whether anybody is left who cares for those articles. --B. Wolterding (talk) 09:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
If that's the case, I think the answer is apparent :D. Happy‑melon 10:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
From experience with similar project closedowns, it may be preferable to raise an MfD for the project itself, stating that it is inactive and represents an large amount of maintenance-tagged articles. I wouldn't be surprised then if the project gets redirected to WP:D&D, WP:RPG or similar as a result, but it then means that the templates etc can be CSD'd under housekeeping. It'll also hopefully kick-start interest from other gaming projects that there are articles that need cleanup.
I'd also suggest a caution against a block AfD of some 40+ articles, as it can stretch editor resource quite thinly when trying to resolve sourcing/cleanup issues of specialist articles. I would probably put up a sample of a couple of the worst offenders one week, followed by a phased approach going forward. I know AfD shouldn't be used for cleanup, but it is, and keeping deletion debates at a reasonable pace can really help with this. Other than that, many thanks for tackling what is likely to be a tricky cleanup.Gazimoff WriteRead 11:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
MfD is a good idea, if in fact nobody is going to answer. I've updated the page accordingly. Thanks. --B. Wolterding (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding a new quality level to WP:1.0 assessment scale

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)

[edit] Quality guidelines?

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:

  • Featured articles
  • A class articles
  • Good articles
  • B class articles
  • Start class articles
  • Stubs

Now, I know this is potentially rather radical, but this is what I'd suggest:

  • Spotlight articles
  • Featured articles
  • Good articles
  • A class articles
  • Intermediate articles
  • Stubs

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:

  • All current Featured articles remain so, and would have to go through scrutiny of Spotlight criteria (i.e. the currect FA criteria, since many don't meet the mark any more) and those that meet it and promoted.
  • A class articles become Featured articles, but only once going through the new Featured article criteria. This will be a segue from GA to SA and will require one week without contest and at least one support to FA. This needs to be good prose, nothing unreferenced and good use of images with an appropriate length lead. This creiteria can be a little relaxed from the current FA, though a peer review would be mandatory, even if it's within the FAC.
  • GA will remain exactly the same. Approval by one person.
  • B class becomes A class, which is more appropriate, if you ask me. B class sounds like the floor quality, which is clearly not the implication, but it's certainly the inference.
  • Start beomes "intemediate" simply because that's what they are. They're not a "start class" because people frankly don't know where to draw the line between stub and start, since start sounds like... the start?
  • Stubs remain just as they are.

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 avu 09:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Featured article is the top of the tree. I think you won't get much traction if you attempt to create a tranche above that. What instead you should do is list articles which don't meet the current FA criteria for WP:FARC. Yes, the A-Class and GA-Class are a little in conflict, but the GA process is somewhat different. GA was an attempt to introduce stable versions, editors were encouraged to tag any article they thought of as good as being so. It's moved away from that to a certain extent, but it still hovers somewhere between B and A Class. I'm pretty happy with the status quo to be honest. It's all really just a guide. The articles which are used will be vetted yet again. Hiding T 12:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I admire and appreciate how much thought and effort you've put into this, but I have to oppose in part because the proposed system is completely incompatible with the current ranking system, and would therefore necessitate a regrade of all currently graded articles. The conversion would be painful and sloppy, and probably incomplete for some time. I have other reasons as well, but not quite enough time to write there just now. – ClockworkSoul 14:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I admire and appreciate how much thought and effort you've put into this, but I have to oppose in part because the proposed system is completely incompatible with the current ranking system, and would therefore necessitate a regrade of all currently graded articles. The conversion would be painful and sloppy, and probably incomplete for some time. I have other reasons as well, but not quite enough time to write there just now. – ClockworkSoul 14:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)... Happy‑melon 14:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC) :D
    I'm flattered. :) That being said, I rather like this proposal. – ClockworkSoul 14:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    In seriousness, I admire the idea, but this is just too much effort for far too little gain: the purpose of wikipedia is not to accuratley grade articles as they are now, but to get them to FA/Spotlight/Perfect/WhateverYouWantToCallIt - the grading system is just another tool in our armoury to do that as best we can. Happy‑melon 14:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I mostly agree with the arguments of the honourable gentlemen (and ladies?) above; the proposed system is too radical, and suggests changes to elements of the current system which work very well. Furthermore, I disagree with the nomenclature; Intermediate makes little sense, given that it is not in the middle of anything, and A class is meaningless on its own, without a B class. Waltham, The Duke of 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Participants' category

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)

The majority of these users are no longer active, so I don't think we'll receive many complaints if we do. Either way, there are precedents for such an action. – ClockworkSoul 20:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I would say it is time to clear the decks. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 20:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure why that category exists at all, given that the nominal roll is hardly unmanageable as a simple list; regardless, we can certainly clean out the inactive members as long as we don't press the issue: if someone reverts the removal, then that's their prerogative... but I doubt anyone will. Happy‑melon 21:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe that the existence of the category is completely unwarranted, as long as it is connected to one or more of the userboxes declaring membership in the Council. Which brings up another question: is removing a userbox considered more unacceptable than simply removing a page from the category? I believe that it isn't, but not all might agree. Waltham, The Duke of 21:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject's recognition of Featured content other then FAs

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)

I think the class should simple be renamed "Featured"; it would be much simpler to have a single grade instead of several. Similarly, I would support dropping the "list" class from the ranks, especially considering that it's spawning an entire zoo of similar non-grade classes such as "category", "template", "portal", and "image". I'll follow that last bit up at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. – ClockworkSoul 16:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New version of Igor is available

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! – ClockworkSoul 04:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This is superb, thank you for an excellent tool! Walkerma (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changing assessment levels - please give us your choice

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)

[edit] WikiProject "soft" redirects

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)

Apparently we don't redirect European countries (see Talk:Spain); why are South American country Projects disappearing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm told we're "rationalizing templates". This is so wrong on every level I can't believe what my eyes are seeing. When I go to Talk:Spain, I see a link to the Spain Project. When I go to Talk:Venezuela, I see the country Project disappears, and they're rolled into a continent. I simply cannot believe this apparent double standard; if we're rationalizing templates, I suppose we'll be redirecting all 50 U.S. states to the USA, and all European countries to Europe, African countries to Africa, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If it's being done with the agreement of the projects concerned, then I don't have a problem with it - indeed it's probably a good idea. If, however, it's being done across the board, then there are serious discussions that I'd better have missed... Happy‑melon 15:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
So far, it appears that it's being done to South America, but not to Europe for example; I hope there's a good explanation for relegating one continent to second-class citizenry on Wiki. Where is the discussion of this matter ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed it happening with WikiProject Christianity seeming to swallow up Wikiproject Catholocism. I too would like a link to the discussion, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I presume the discussion will have gone on individual talkpages of the projects concerned. If it hasn't, then we certainly have a problem, though only if project members disagree with the change. I can find no centralised discussion that says we are rationalising projects, if it is happening on an indiviual basis, then it needs the input of the projects involved. Woody (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, in regards to this edit, I checked on all four projects talk pages and nothing. I can sorta see the three denominations going under it, but the Saints project probably isn't such a good fit for a merger. And I agree, that some sort of discussion probably needs to have taken place. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject (and category) tagging - "You can take the kid out of the fight"

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)

That is a good definition— if you remove the related content, is the article still coherent; if so, then it is probably not relevant. That works for trivia and pop culture content as well. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I rather like that as well. I would like to see this developed more fully into a guideline. – ClockworkSoul 16:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Although a council, we do not have the power to legislate. :-D
Perhaps we could lobby for change in Wikipedia:Talk page templates or some other, more suitable place (which I have yet to find). While at it, we should probably also try and solidify the practice on the order of the page-top templates, a problem still unresolved. In any case, I find Sceptre's definition of relevance quite reasonable. Waltham, The Duke of 23:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
We don't and we do. If we present an idea and the community as a whole agrees with and accepts it, then we aren't legislating, we're participating the the wiki process. The key is that we're not handing down a ruling, we're proposing a definition. A good one, too. – ClockworkSoul 00:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. I suppose one can expect a clockwork soul to make such accurate descriptions. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 00:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
In general, so far as I can tell, banner plaacement tends to be based on categorization, or clear relevant content in the article. There is an additional caveat in articles relating to Scientology, given that all articles related to that subject are currently on probation by the ArbCom. In cases like that, I can see, possibly, allowing banner placement to be extended a wee bit, given the consequences of violating that ruling, although I won't speak to this particular case about which I know absolutely nothing. One advantage to the categorization basis is that, in general, the project which "claims" that category might be better able to place the article in a more relevant category later, as new ones are created. John Carter (talk) 00:40, 3 June 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:

  1. The article must be related to the scope of the WikiProject. Please consider adding a message on the talk page or using the |explanation= parameter if the connection is not obvious.
  2. Project banners on the talk page should not be substitute for, or simply duplicate, Wikipedia's categorization system. To identify an article as being related to a topic, place the correct category in the article itself.
  3. The presence of a project banner indicates that the article has been, or will be, developed by members of the project, and that questions about the article can be directed to members of the project. When the project does not expect to support an article's improvement, it should not add the project's banner to that page.
  4. The project has the right to remove its banner from any article that it does not intend to support.

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)

[edit] Tmbox in WikiProjectBannerShell

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)

[edit] Wikiproject Boards of Expertise

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)

An interesting idea. How would you propose that potential experts' degrees be verified? – ClockworkSoul 02:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Email or fax proof to the Foundation. Geoff Plourde (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that can be easily faked. For a couple of years I worked at a company where part of my job was to perform background checks on job applicants. The only reasonably reliable method was to get the applicant's written permission to do the check (usually required to proceed), and then to simply phone up the registrar's office at the degree-granting institution. For this you would typically have to fax to the institution the applicant's name, graduation date, and written permission before such verification would be given. – ClockworkSoul 03:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
OK then, i would have them fax a signed form and have someone call the college registrar. Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
What of non-college experience? I can't think of any article I edit that relates to my traditional education, yet I consider myself an expert in several subjects. And even experts have POV. Not slamming the idea, just poking at it. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 10:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The primary purpose would be to get a filter of experts who are trusted by the world to go in and serve as a house of sober second thought. If we went by life experience, we would have major issues in some areas. Where no other expert is available, i don't see a problem with life experience. Geoff Plourde (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Any other questions or ideas on how to bring this to projects? Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of useful bots?

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)

[edit] Ratification vote on {{C-Class}} started

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)

[edit] Wikiprojects Stats

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)