So I was looking around. I'm sure most of the editors here know about the main pages for the council, e.g.:
But did you know about these?
Are these getting used? Should we tag them as historical, or send them to MfD? Link them on the project page so they don't get lost? What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, let's see:
- Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
-
- If there are no objections to any of the above suggestions, I'll go ahead and carry them out in the next day or so. Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
-
-
- All of these are now done. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Hm, with regards to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Banner standardisation, I think this still provides good advice in general (which doesn't really become 'historical'; note I did tweak the page last month to convert it to simple advice), perhaps moving it to an essay would be a good idea? –xenotalk 01:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- That might be a good idea. The proposal itself is "historical" (or, more precisely, inactive) in the sense that it didn't really move forward, but there's a lot of useful material there that could easily be put into a different form. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that "historical" is the right tag: That proposal was made, clearly failed to gain consensus, and was never implemented, so the proposal's proper status is "failed".
- I personally oppose the basic claims that this page is making:
- that putting the actual page at Template:WikiProject Medicine, and a redirect at Template:WPMED, is magically more effective for new page patrollers than putting the actual page at Template:WPMED and a redirect at Template:WikiProject Medicine,
- that editors will be psychologically unable to create navigation templates for the main namespace if a name like Template:Chemistry is currently used for a project space template (whereas a redirect to a project space template supposedly won't have any such impact), and
- that sloppy bot programmers will get better results if they can guess the name of the page rather than having to look it up -- especially since uses of some 'non-standard' names like WPMED outnumber the long name by more than ten to one, which means that overreliance on the naming convention means that 90% of a project's articles will be missed.
- Consequently, I think that this page might be better off in userspace, so that Xeno can present it as his personal opinion, rather than something that was rejected by the community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is a difference between a proposal failing to achieve consensus and being rejected. You should feel free to write a counter-essay if you feel this one is detrimental. The essay represents far more than my "personal opinion", the desire for standardization for wikiproject templates is shared by many. –xenotalk 16:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I went ahead and essayfy'd it. Cheers, –xenotalk 01:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Given WP:CONLIMITED, to what extent and under what circumstances can individual WikiProjects and users customize article appearance with individual styles that deviate from site-wide style guidelines? (Relevance here: the question arises particularly in context of the use of color in tables.) Interested contributors are invited to participate there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
One topic that was mentioned during last weekend's discussions with the Smithsonian Institution was the potential of having WikiProjects somehow participate in GLAM activities related either to individual articles within those projects' scope, or to entire institutions whose focus was similar to that of the project.
I'd like to start up some form of roundtable discussion among the active WikiProjects to consider whether we can participate in this arena, and, if so, how we can best go about collaborating with GLAM institutions. Thus, two questions come to mind:
- Do people think having a discussion of this sort would be worthwhile?
- If so, what's the best way of setting it up, and how can we get broad participation from active projects?
Any thoughts would be very appreciated! Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm an avid editor for articles in the state of Georgia under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) page.
- It has came up from a small discussion, here, that this page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Albany/Savannah/Valdosta (South Georgia), has been inactive and should be added as a task force of the WikiProject Georgia page. It would be helpful and more organized if this action is approved that there be code added to the WikiProject Georgia banner template.
- There is also a page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Atlanta. This WikiProject is inactive as well and covers an area of Georgia similar to the South Georgia WikiProject. If the first action is passed it would also be helpful to add the Atlanta WikiProject page as a task force of the WikiProject Georgia page.
- A third action to be added as a task force for the WikiProject Georgia page would be to create an education task force to the WikiProject Georgia banner template. I have already prepared the code to be added to the template banner, here. There is a red lock on the WikiProject Georgia banner template page, so only administrators can edit this and approve any changes. I have contacted three admins about the education task force proposition and have received only one response.
So, I am here requesting advice and assistance on this matter to improve coverage over the state of Georgia on Wikipedia. Thanks for your help! Tamer_of_Hope talk 22:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Have you read the Guide and what it says about WikiProjects and Task forces? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a backlog of proposals at WP:WPPRO that dates back to last year. How do they usually get archived? To monthly subpages? What happens when there is 5+ supports? Who is supposed to start the project if it hasn't already? Matthewedwards : Chat 21:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- There's a set of continuous archive pages (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Archive 5) that should probably be continued; these aren't monthly, but seem to be broken down simply by length instead.
- As far as creating the project is concerned, my opinion is that if nobody has bothered to actually create the project, then there's really not enough interest to sustain it, even if five people put their names down in support; keep in mind that it's not uncommon for editors to sign up in support of a proposal and subsequently disappear. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Recently (well, today), quality/importance assessment has been set up for Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing. On the template banner page, Template:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing, a box immediately appeared with a stack of redlink categories which needed to be created - fair enough.
We set about creating these, and I used the "create" button next to each, to pull in the preload template to make it easier. This is one of the URLs that was behind a "create" button. I didn't notice at the time, but this particular one created Category:Image-Class Thoroughbred racing articles, which was automatically placed in Category:Image-Class articles. Xeno (talk · contribs) has altered it to sit in Category:File-Class articles which I suppose it should have been in the first place. How do we amend the preload stuff to use File instead of Image? I suspect that Template:WPBannerMeta/templatepage/deduceclass is one of those to be amended, but I don't know the whole story, so shall make no changes myself. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, give us a chance and we'll catch up. We're working through this right now on WP:RIF. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fixed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Many or most editors will already know about the extant "book" class articles, like Book:Christianity, for example. It seems to me, personally, that these longer, more detailed pieces of content might be the best way to provide some sort of content similar to the articles in the Macropedia part of Encyclopedia Britannica. If nothing else, maybe we could try to encourage the various relevant projects to create books which more or less duplicate the extant articles in the Macropedia. Would this make sense to the rest of you? John Carter (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
