Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Council
WikiProject icon This page relates to the WikiProject Council, a collaborative effort regarding WikiProjects in general. If you would like to participate, please visit the project discussion page.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What's a WikiProject?
A WikiProject is a group of people who want to work together. It is not a subject area, a collection of pages, or a list of articles tagged by the group.
How many WikiProjects are there?
Nobody knows, because groups of people may start working without creating pages or may stop working without notifying anyone. As of 2014, about 2,200 were participating in article assessments for the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. There is a manually maintained list of WikiProjects at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.
What's the biggest WikiProject?
Nobody knows, because not all participants add their names to a membership list, and membership lists are almost always out of date. You can find out which projects' main pages are being watched by the most users at Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProject watchers.
Which WikiProject has tagged the most articles as being within their scope?
WikiProject Biography has tagged about 1.2 million articles, making it more than three times the size of the second largest WikiProject. About ten groups have tagged more than 100,000 articles. You can see a list of projects and the number of articles they have assessed here.
Which WikiProject's pages get changed the most?
See Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by changes. These changes may have been made by anyone, not just by participants in the WikiProject.
Who gets to decide whether a WikiProject is permitted to tag an article?
That is the exclusive right of the participants of the WikiProject. Editors at an article may neither force the group to tag an article nor refuse to permit them to tag an article. See WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN.
I think a couple of WikiProjects should be merged. Is that okay?
You must ask the people who belong to those groups, even if the groups appear to be inactive. It's okay for different groups of people to be working on similar articles. WikiProjects are people, not lists of articles. If you identify and explain clear, practical benefits of a merger to all of the affected groups, they are likely to agree to combining into a larger group. However, if they object, then you may not merge the pages. For less-active groups, you may need to wait a month or more to make sure that no one objects.

RFC: Should WikiProject article categories be renamed to WikiProject X articles by quality, A-Class WikiProject X articles, etc[edit]

There appears to be consensus (albeit from a small group of participants) for this to be implemented. Number 57 18:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In this CFD, we renamed the WikiProject Somalia articles as: Category:WikiProject Somalia articles by quality, Category:A-Class WikiProject Somalia articles, Category:B-Class WikiProject Somalia articles, etc. (because WikiProject Somalia does not necessarily only pertain to the country of Somalia). In contrast, something like Category:WikiProject Athletics articles goes by Category:Athletics articles by quality, Category:A-Class Athletics articles is inaccurate and somewhat confusing because these are identified by the WikiProject not because they necessarily are articles on Athletics (which are under Category:Athletics (sport)). I'd like to see if there's a broader consensus to support this naming convention in full. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment If you look at Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments, you will see the inconsistency. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I had difficulty understanding what you are saying, but I think you are saying that the category names for WikiProject assessments ought to include the name of the WikiProject which assigned the category. Yes, it should, and yes, these names should be standardized and not subject to choice of the WikiProject. Even though I support this, I am not sure how to clean up all the categories which are already made or how to standardize everything, but I did start a proposal that eventually all of these things be supported by automated processes. See meta:Grants:IdeaLab/WikiProject management suite. I am putting this idea there also. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose It makes the already overly detailed category-tree even more difficult and less usable for the non-so-experienced visitors. This is more private hobby-ism than a service to our reader. The Banner talk 09:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes it probably would be better to use this structure, but I'm not sure it's worth all the effort in renaming. In any case, the titles are not really ambiguous because Category:Athletics articles by quality could not refer to anything else apart from the WikiProject classification category. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    • But how do we serve our customers, the readers, with this system? Would they have any benefit from it? The Banner talk 12:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
It may be just incorporated as a new policy going forward. Otherwise, aren't the entire system of WikiProjects more administrative than reader-focused? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

carbon sequestration[edit]

it is going on the co2 concetration in the extratosphere reducing low rate average to achive minor earth warming in short term with a hi- tech platform, decreasing the abnormal climate temperature and avoiding the effect of adverse phenomene world wide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Requesting help in structuring Bibliography of encyclopedias and related[edit]

The page above, and its related pages, are ones I am working on developing with material from the ALA Guide to Reference databank. On completion of adding all the relevant encyclopedias where it seems appropriate, I hope to add the other entries in that databank, along with other material from other sources, to a yet-to-be started similar Bibliography of reference works. FWIW, the Guide to Reference databank has over 3000 sources listed, and it looks like maybe 20% or so might be encyclopedic. So these lists are gonna get long. If anyone were to want to offer any help or suggestions in how to structure the pages for the optimum utility of their potential users, I would be more than grateful. John Carter (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Importance assessments of biographies[edit]

I was looking for WP:Assessment and (as you can tell) ended up here.

Having asked around a bit over time, I still don't quite understand what we're doing, and how we're doing it, regarding article assessments for importance. Please note that it is not my intention to start a discussion about article assessments as concerns article quality, only about the importance aspect!

Couldn't Since the word "importance" be is considered problematic, especially for biographical articles assessed to be of "Importance: low", whereas "Priority: low" [etc.] could be seems better, with the couldn't stricter policy be the addition - right there! - of the name of the user giving h personal opinion ("assessment") in each case?

  • If there's some other criteria than personal opinions that we Wikipedians are supposed to use in evaluating the importance to our readers of a vast number of life stories, as is commonly done, I would like to know about that.

I may very well be underenlightened now in having an opinion which rather stongly objects to our regularly evaluating life stories, expecially those under WP:BLP, as of "high", "medium" or "low importance" - that (to boot!) being one of the the first things a reader sees very prominently displayed when visiting such an article's talk page, and that based solely on our own personal opinions, as far as I know, rather than on any other more substantial and neutrally reliable foundation. I don't see what gives us that right, nor why any such privilege or responsibility should exist for Wikipedia editors to exercise that kind of personal authority over other named individuals, living or dead, and their reputations.

  • Is there any additional WP policy I could read up on which might make me better understand such privileges/responsibilities of ours?

Certainly other editors may also have questioned things like this (though Wikipower also may tend to corrupt us)?

Find a Grave is actually (for once) much more careful with something - the word "important" - than we are here, and they only deal with dead people. That's rather odd, I think. I'm absolutely not suggesting that we should use levels of fame for biography assessment, as they do, just that we look at something better than what we're doing now.

As with all my opinions, even the strongest ones, I am always open to clear, constructive, non-personalized, well-founded arguments aimed at changing them. Looking forward to such input, I remain sincerely --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

So sorry, I searched sloppily and missed this before. Now adjusting my questions here accordingly. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You should know that WikiProject Biography refers to it as "priority" not "importance." Other WikiProjects haven't made the change, yet. I don't find it problematic so I recommend against asserting that it is. Of course, if you don't feel comfortable making assessments of importance you're welcome to leave that task to others who will. I don't find it odd that a website called Find-a-Grave only deals with dead people and I'm not concerned how they deal with the word "important." Importance ratings are designed to prioritize articles of greater interest to the general readership over articles with less common appeal.
Yes, importance is a somewhat subjective quality. Like our vital articles, importance speaks to how central the subject is. The vast majority of articles on Wikipedia have a low importance although there are certainly articles like history, life, and money that are of top importance. Encyclopedias must have articles on concepts like these so prioritizing them should ideally push editors to improve them ahead of more esoteric and niche-interest topics.
To the extent you're asking about biographies, you should ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Assessment. Each WikiProject owns the importance rating for articles in their purview as the article relates to their subject. You could make the case that the Adrianne Wadewitz article would have a higher importance to WikiProject Wikipedia than it would to WikiProject Biography. There's no need to attach a user name to that rating as the editor is acting as a member of the applicable WikiProject. That information is available in the history tab, anyway.
I'm concerned when you question "what gives us that right". Importance ratings are about the article's importance and they say nothing about the subject. It's not a value judgement. If there's a specific case that's bothering you please take it up with WikiProject Biography. Don Quixote called and he wants his horse back. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sad to say that I find you less than empathetic and understanding as to how a very large amount of regular readers and editors are bound to perceive an "Importance: Low" assessment on a BLP. They aren't able to grasp the complicated inner workings of a WP elite that might make "Importance: Low" not actually mean "Importance: Low", as it seems you would like them to.
And your sarcastic Don Quixote ending makes me appreciate your comments even less. I'm trying to get information about matters of principle that are important to this project, in my opinion. Sorry if you find that inappropriate. Anyone else? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who has done a lot of assessments of all kinds, and has honestly come to regret some of his previous assessments, particularly regarding priority/importance, I have come to the conclusion that, basically, the topics or articles which are covered in reasonable length in the leading reference books related to that topic are probably roughtly the "top" importance or priority. So, as an example, looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic articles, and particularly the content related to the Brill/Eerdmans Encyclopedia of Christianity, I would think that in that case any topic which either has a separate article in that work, or has a subtopic of comparatively great length, 2 pages in that case, would probably qualify as "Top" importance to that project. Any shorter subarticles, or articles found in relevant reference works for specific fields of Chrsitianity of similar nature, might be "High." Shorter articles in more focused reference sources, or topics included in only a few of the more focused reference sources, might be "Mid." Something found in none of the leading reference sources, preferably because of lack of comparative historical importance, might be "Low." Granted, that doesn't indicate how to deal with material too new for any of the leading reference sources, but I think that sort of basic structure is one of the things which was being thought of when the importance/priority assessments were instituted. John Carter (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Thankyou! My question, however, is not about how to assess those articles properly, but about the term "Importance" still being being used, and how that looks to most readers, in evaluating life stories. I've now also asked a question at WikiProject Biography as helpfully suggested by Chris troutman. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Serge, it looks to me like you are getting answers but does not acknowledge them as such. So what do you want to hear really?--BabbaQ (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "you are getting answers but does [?] not acknowledge them", but an acknowledgement that as per guideline we are supposed to use "Priority" not "Importance" in assessing biographies would be nice, and following that guideline, not disregarding it. Having the discussion in one place, not several, would also be nice. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The priority level is not a matter of personal opinion. It is a matter of group opinion.

The main question to be answered is, "If you were making a fixed copy of Wikipedia (e.g., on paper or DVD), to put in a school or a library in a place without internet access, and you could not include everything, then what articles would you include in the first (smallest) copy, which ones in an expanded version, and which ones only if there were plenty of room to spare?"

Additionally, this forms the "priority" for a group that cares about each subject, so that the group will improve the articles that are more "important" to readers who want to learn about that subject.

This per-subject approach results in significant differences. For example, Leonardo da Vinci is on the WP:VITAL list, which means that if you are copying only ~1,000 articles—just 0.02% of our articles—then you should always include that one. But from the perspective of medicine-related articles—meaning, if you were making a list of the 1,000 most important medical articles to copy—he wouldn't be anywhere near the top of the list. You'd want articles like Common cold and Influenza and Sanitation and Antibiotics instead.

This isn't because da Vinci wasn't "important"; it's because there are more urgent "priorities" for a specifically medicine-related collection. This difference in focus creates differences in the ratings by project.

Frankly, there are hundreds of thousands of people whose bios will never rate inclusion in an offline copy with a general focus, just like there are billions of people whose bios will never rate inclusion in the English Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that they are less worthy as humans.

The question of the parameter label has come up multiple times before. The problem with fixing it is practical: To change just the label for WP:MED (where that change would be supported) requires editing 33,000 talk pages (and one template). That's a lot of work to do on the off-chance that someone might be unhappy with a parameter name that isn't even visible unless you edit the page.

(It's possible to change the text of the WikiProject banner without changing the actual parameter itself. If we did this at the main template, it would flood the job queue for a while, but that's not necessarily a blocker.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

New sub-working group?[edit]

Hi. I'm part of the popular culture working group of Wikiproject Korea. As far as I can tell, the main WP has no admins, as there are none listed. The popular culture working group covers TV, movies, celebrities of all type, music, and such things. Right now, the few active members are trying to work intensively on a subset of these articles, the ones pertaining to Korean pop music. This includes biographical articles of people and groups, albums, EPs, songs, discographies, concert tours, etc. - they're spread out across a variety of different categories. One thing I'm struggling with is keeping track of all these articles, which are numerous. Wikipedia categories aren't too helpful because, again, the articles are split between many, many categories. And tracking them with the WP/working group's banner tag brings up all articles in the working group, which number in the thousands. I thought while we work on this little project, there might be some way to add another element to the WP tag, to allow tracking of just the articles we designate as fitting within the project. However, I'm not sure how to proceed either procedurally or from a technical point of view (I know zilch about templates or the like). Can you give me some advice? Thanks so much! Shinyang-i (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Shinyang-i,
It sounds like you want a task force, which is described in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide. You can look at WP:MEDTF for some ideas about how to go about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
A belated thank you, @WhatamIdoing: Shinyang-i (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

What's missing in the Cosmology Wikiproject?[edit]

This is a new project and I wonder if there is something missing. Tetra quark (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And now a message specific for the WikiProject Council: I would be very interested in actively working with the Council during this project. To the extent that the Council has a de facto responsibility for setting standards for WikiProjects, and has a great deal of experience working with WikiProjects, I think the best outcome would come from working together. We are all Wikipedians working toward the same goal, after all. If you have specific concerns or questions, please let me know. Thanks, Harej (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Add Assists to Football Association footballer career statistic tables.[edit]

Hi Wikiroject should start to add assist stats in Footballer career statistics tables on footballer pages it would make their stat tables look a whole lot better because users who go on footballer wiki pages like to look at statistics. There is a very reliable website on that record assists. Some footballers stat tables look a bit bland on wiki because they don't score a huge amount such as players like Xavi Hernandez and Andres Iniesta but but they make a lot of assists another side to their game. ( same website but has Spanish La Liga player recorded assists). Assists are just as important as goals. This is what an assist is an Assist was awarded to the player who had given the last pass to the goalscorer.. please will someone edit Frank Lampard's career statistics table and put in the stats table Lampard's premier league assists also his assists in all competitions for Chelsea because that is another important side to his game. The same for players like Paul Scholes, Ryan Giggs, Steven Gerrard. This will improve their statistics table. If you go on All of Lampard's assists for Chelsea and Manchester City have been recorded on that website. On that site the letter A in the table is for Assists and G is for Goals. It's a reliable site. On the site at top of the table on right side next to career click on 2014-15then all the years Lampard has played for Chelsea and his stats will open. Hope this helps you out.--CescFabregas4CFC (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@CescFabregas4CFC: This talk page is for discussing the WikiProject Council, not Frank Lampard. Take this issue to Talk:Frank Lampard. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Automating the WikiProject Directory[edit]

Hello, Council! I would like to recommend that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory be automated. There is no reason this needs to be maintained by human hands when it can be done automatically, plus the pages in the directory do not get edited enough for me to believe that any of it is up to date. The bot maintaining the directory would have two tasks: (1) scouring the categories of WikiProjects and generating lists on that basis; (2) updating WikiProject's classification as active/inactive. The former task would run more frequently, mostly to pick up on new WikiProjects, and the latter task would run less frequently. The bot lists would be tested in a sandbox before they replace the directory.

For this to work, especially the second part, we need to come up with objective definitions of active, semi-active, inactive, and defunct WikiProjects. If we are going to be labeling WikiProjects as such, we should at least standardize the terminology so we can get some proper metrics. First, I recommend collapsing the current four status categories into just "active" and "inactive." I don't see any practical difference between "inactive" and "defunct," and "semi-active" is ambiguous; does a semi-active project meet a basic minimum level of activity or not? In any case, I would recommend defining it according to the number of people editing (since WikiProjects are supposed to be collaborative after all). The number has to be the smallest that would suggest there is still a project going; I recommend at least three editors making at least two edits to all project pages (including WT pages and subpages) in a six month period. Three people indicates a group; the two edit requirement filters out most people dropping by to make random announcements (like yours truly). An inactive project is anything that falls below that.

Any thoughts? Harej (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of automating the directory, and coming up with definitions re: active, inactive, etc. However, surely many projects have tucked away subpages that are not edited every six months, but are still active elsewhere. What about a certain number of edits to the project's primary talk page within a designated time frame? Just a thought. I'm trying to think of the projects which may have may subpages or dead "branches". ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The edits wouldn't have to be on every page. It would be measured by the combined total of these pages. So some obscure essay written in 2008 wouldn't count against the project, but by that same token, a project could still be considered active if the main talk page is not necessarily that active but there's a highly active sub-process. Harej (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Strong objection to the notion that a project be tagged as active or inactive or all the variations in between - there is a set of very old projects that runn from designations of what projects were almost 10 years ago, some newer projects, and projects in between. I do not think it helps projects to be labelled as such, and I believe that ways of assesing as to whether projects are relevant/redundant or mergable or even re-newable rely on factors that are not machine readable - and as to whether a project was ever originally constituted correctly. I believe that the whole notion of active/inactive is something that needs reviewing. And not simply done in an 'easy fix it' machine process. satusuro 09:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Projects are already tagged as active or inactive through the WikiProject status categories and through {{WikiProject status}}. I personally am not a fan of marking projects as active or inactive; I would prefer that projects always have some sort of activity, even if it has to be all automated, so that they are useful no matter what. Until that kind of technology is implemented, and until we as a community agree to eliminate the classification of projects by activity level, I argue it should be done with some level of consistency. I'm also asking nothing about automatically determining whether projects be considered relevant, redundant, or mergeable; I agree those are best judged by humans. A project's renewability cannot be determined automatically alone—reinvigorating a project does require actual people to get involved—but the process can be informed by data to see where it is more likely to happen than not. Harej (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
A decent compromise might be that the directory would track activity/inactivity, but the projects themselves would not be labeled—insofar as status labels would be proactively removed. Harej (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The one primary good reason I can imagine for tagging inactive WikiProjects is something that I have faced in the past. I remember when one of our more productive, if occasionally less than personable, editors for Christianity related content left a message on the talk page of an inactive Christianity related WikiProject that no one responded to. He retired permanently sometime shortly thereafter. It is very much in all of our intersts to let people know which WikiProjects are ones where they might be able to receive real assistance, and which are ones where there might not be enough individuals involved to actively help them if they request it. John Carter (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The second task does not actually need to have a set series of definitions attached to it (at least not yet). The bot could just pick up the changes to Category:Inactive WikiProject banners that are made by users, and then the discussion about what "active" and "inactive" mean can be done independently of the programming. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure. Since the active/inactive distinction is a point of contention, we can focus on just the list automation for now. What might be the prerequisites, in terms of how WikiProjects are currently sorted, for there to be an automated directory list? Harej (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I would start with the current directory as a starting basis for the project's "main category" (for lack of a better term). For example, WP:WPTC is currently listed under "Science, technology and engineering"; we can safely assume that somebody at some point thought that was an accurate assessment of the WikiProject's category, and we can add a hidden category to the WikiProject's page if necessary.
The other point where things may get complex is in recognizing task forces / collaborations; again, we already have a good starting point of data in the existing directory, so we may have to add something along the lines of {{ReleaseVersionParameters}} somewhere in the WikiProject's page structure. (Actually, maybe modifying the ReleaseVersionParameters template to accommodate categorization data like this would be a useful shortcut...) Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I am going to look through the directory pages and the category tree and see how they are similar or different in structure. Ideally, they are as similar as possible; why have multiple ontology schemes if we don't have to? Depending on how much the two differ from another, I may suggest changes to the directory or to the category tree, or I may just make some changes myself if they're small. Harej (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The one biggest reservation I can imagine would lie in addition and classification of new projects, or, specifically, figuring out exactly where to add them. I don't know that a bot would be able to do that, particularly if a given WikiProject would not unreasonably be included in more than one section of the directory. But I suppose it might be possible for a computer generated list to create a list of projects to be added which involved individuals could then use to update the directory. John Carter (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It would presumably be based on the various WikiProject subcategories. A project would have multiple directory entries if it was included in multiple categories. New WikiProjects would either be sorted into the main category (for further subcategorization) or in a category/list for "unsorted WikiProjects." My question is, how do we know when a WikiProject has been created if someone forgets to put it in an appropriate category? Harej (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
This page might be somehow able to be subjected to automation to maybe make a list of pages (without the subpage /) starting with WikiProject and maybe removal of any new pages which are already linked to in the directory, although, honestly, I don't know enough about the tech involved to come up with an idea how. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Reconciling the directory and the category tree[edit]

I started doing some work with organizing Category:WikiProjects. I created a new parent category, Category:WikiProjects by area, where pretty much all projects will be sorted under. The main subcategories of the "WikiProjects" category are things like "WikiProjects by status," etc. In comparing the directory to the category tree, I find that they more or less resemble one another, but the category system is much sloppier. I would like to invest some effort in maintaining the category system, one because a well-maintained category system is typically a good thing, and because it will be necessary if we want to effectively automate the WikiProject directory.

I have a question regarding categorization best practices. WikiProjects often times have their own categories named after themselves. WikiProject Biography, for example, has a category Category:WikiProject Biography. In theory, the project could just belong to its self-named category, and then all applicable meta-categories (Culture WikiProjects, etc.) could apply to the project's category rather than the project's page. However, some projects are sorted in both their own self-named categories and the applicable meta-categories. There does not seem to be a consistent practice for these things. So should WikiProjects with their own categories also have their project pages sorted into additional categories, or should the additional categories apply to only the project category? Harej (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It is certainly reasonable to have some standardization one way or another. Either the category can be categorized as a subcat of the meta category, or maybe have the individual project page be categorized in both a meta category and the direct project category. FWIW, most of the time the project-specific cats get created to do assessment, because the process relies on those assessment categories existing. Personally, I'd favor having the project page be categorized in the various extant meta categories, and leave the additional pages and cats in the project-specific categories, for ease of maintenance. Unfortunately, getting people to consistently adhere to any system regarding any future project creation is going to be all but impossible. Categories are always notoriously difficult to maintain. John Carter (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Even if we don't manage standardized definitions for "inactive" and the like, it would be very handy just to have entries in the directory for every single WikiProject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Article alerts -FYI[edit]

If you are curious to learn more about Article alerts here is a 2009 Signpost article about it. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion elsewhere that concerns one of the pages for which this is a talk page[edit]

There's a discussion at Template talk:WPBannerMeta#Very commendable guideline being virtually ignored which directly concerns one of the pages for which this is a talk page. It also potentially affects every single WikiProject that recognises the |importance= parameter (about 1000, I think), so deserves an audience that is wider than the 107 watchers of a template's talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)