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Nobody knows, because not all participants add their names to a membership list, and membership lists are almost always out of date.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.

WP:DISCOGSTYLE dormant[edit]

Hi there, I am member of the Discography WikiProject and while I edit discography projects I always turn to this, however it has became dormant. I believe this should not by any means be dormant and should be an active guideline, discographies should be similar so as they are easily recognised from article to article. Can someone help me make this active again and also help me make it more of a guideline or standard for other discography pages? I have no idea how to make it active again and since hardly anyone patrols/watches this page I got no response there. SilentDan (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyone willing to help me here? SilentDan (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make it a proper style guideline, then you'll need to make a WP:PROPOSAL to the entire community.
If you want it to remain a WP:WikiProject advice page, then just update it however you and the rest of the WikiProject (if any) want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: How do I make a proposal? The instructions don't appear all that clear to me. SilentDan (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The instructions are meant to provide a general idea of things you could do, rather than a list of required steps. But an easy and common method is to start an WP:RFC (the code for the talk page discussion will be {{rfc|policy|style}}, maybe with the addition of the subject area) and list it at WP:CENT. Also, tag the page with {{proposal}}. Then wait about a month or so, and see what people say.
Generally speaking, you'll have better success if you first update the page to make it look as good as possible first, and (to prevent some confusion by people unfamiliar with the process), explain in your RFC "question" (which is basically "Shall we adopt this as a community-wide guideline?") that if the advice page is approved by the wider community, that it would be moved to the appropriate page title, i.e., Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Something or another. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


When using this redirect (or section) as a guideline for explaining why a project banner can't be removed if the project insists on including it, it has the effect of seemingly accusing the remover of WP:OWN. I wish there could be a softer redirect and softer title for this section. I would recommend a section title like "WikiProjects hold sway over articles included in their projects". The section should include a discussion of WP:OWN but I think that sometimes people who don't necessarily demonstrate an article ownership problem will remove a project banner they don't think belongs. Thoughts? Stevie is the man! TalkWork 10:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

But wikiprojects emphatically do not "hold sway" over articles they decide are within their scope, as a matter of clear policy, three times over (per WP:OWN, WP:NPOV and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). I've clarified this section some, but the entire tone of it is still a bit troubling. Some of what it said until just now blatantly violated these policies, while now it just seems standoffish. What this page really needs is a clearer explanation and exploration of how wikiprojects cannot dictate content. Precisely the opposite of what you propose.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  11:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
It would be nice if that were true, but in some corners of Wikipedia, projects do - despite policy - hold sway over "their" articles - and arbcom have shown a pronounced lack of willingness to address this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I consider this a serious threat to Wikipedia's future, as it will prove to be the main mechanism by which interest-conflicted POV pushers take over areas of content and bend them to suit a particular messaging agenda.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, I'm saying that projects hold sway over (in other words, they decide) articles they include in their projects, not over the content of those articles. That was the existing policy. You have just made changes without seeking any consensus here. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 12:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
This page is not a WP:POLICY, "existing" or otherwise, though it conflicted with several of them. WP:BOLD is policy, too. :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
IANAWL. Put "policy" with lower caps then. It's an existing policy of sorts worked out by the Wikipedia community. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 16:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion has been unfortunately misinterpreted. Let me rephrase the title suggestion: "WikiProjects hold sway over which articles are included in their projects" -- this has nothing to do with control over content. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 12:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Even though a consensus wasn't sought for the changes to the section, I have read the changes to the section, and I can't say I disagree with any of them. They still underscore the point that projects pretty much have the say over which articles they include; that is, what their scope is. However, the reason I started this discussion is that linking to the section seems to accuse a project banner remover of WP:OWN, while that is not necessarily the problem in any particular case. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 12:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No new consensus is needed to fix material that violates policy; our policies already represent consensus. WP:BRD exists if anyone has an issue with policy interpretation being somehow questionable. That said, I agree that WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN is a crappy shortcut. Maybe WP:BANNERWAR or WP:SCOPEWAR.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the previous version of the material violated policy, and that's because it wasn't discussed first. I know what your assertions are, but I don't know how they correlate specifically to your updates since that wasn't spelled out. I agree that you have at least improved the format and wording of the section. Anyway, your shortcut suggestions are definitely an improvement over the current one. But I would go with something more specific, like WP:PROJSCOPEWAR or WP:PROJSCOPEDEFER. Also, the title of the section, like I said, overstresses WP:OWN and could use a softer title like "Defer to projects about their scope". I'm open to suggestions for better wording. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 13:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Then let's stop arguing about the content of the edits if there's not an actual argument to be had.  :-). Shortcuts: The point of shortcuts is that they're short, memorable and easily understood. Those ones aren't any of the above. Is there some other context in which "banner warring" and "scope warring" arise? As far as I know, I just invented them, by reference to WP:EDITWAR + banner & scope. If there's no other context to which to apply them, won't one of these already be specific enough? If we insist on "PROJ" being in there, just WP:PROJWAR should work, though it's vague enough, I'd want the section to also cover scope-warring between projects. Hmmm, the more I think about this, the more I think it's good idea. Inter-project scope-warring is actually the #1 source of project-related strife, I think (if not, it's second only to project resistance against WP:AT and WP:MOS). The already cited ArbCom case, but editors not being allowed to forcibly remove a project's banner because they didn't want the article to be within the project's scope, was one of these. I know I've seen others, e.g. between the biography project and the classical music project, with the latter claiming their scope over the genre allowed them to remove infoboxes from classical composer articles, and the former claiming its scope over all bios allowed them to impose the templates. There are also ongoing disputes about how to apply WP:AT to animal breed articles that amounts to a project scope-war (with several of them not only conflicting with each other, but also contradicting WP:AT policy).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The argument as such was about how the changes were executed. Major changes to guidelines without discussion may be bold, but it's not courteous to other interested editors. But I can set that aside to deal with the issue at hand.
  • Interproject disputes maybe should be addressed separately, as I think that's a similar, but not exactly the same issue.
  • The more I think about it, the more I don't like "war" being in this shortcut, simply because it's not always about a banner placement edit war. I want to simply explain to the other user that the project (actually, myself as their participant/agent) considers an article to be in their scope. I want to come off as explanatory, not accusatory.
  • At this point, I don't care what the shortcut is, as long as it doesn't contain 'war' or 'own' or anything accusatory.
  • I still think the title of the section sucks, and would like to see some discussion about that.
I'll check back into this tomorrow -- I've already put too much time into this today. Have a good one. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 16:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
What about WP:PROJSCOPE, then? I favored the -WAR ones because behavioral guidelines (which is what that section is) are generally about stopping disruptive behaviors not dictative good ones (there can be multiple acceptable approaches to anything, but disruptive ones are usually uniformly disruptive). Trying to prevent a project from claiming an article is in-scope, and trying to force a project to accept an article as in-scope, are both forms of WP:EDITWARring, about which we have such a nice policy already. I do see your point about the section not necessarily always addressing editwarring over the matter, though. There's no reason it can't have multiple shortcuts, and leading with a more general one like PROJSCOPE.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
You make great points, and I agree thoroughly. Yes, two or more shortcuts make perfect sense, and I don't know why that didn't cross my mind before. :) Leading with WP:PROJSCOPE followed by WP:SCOPEWAR (and/or other war variants) will be fine. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 16:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikiproject scope autonomy[edit]

There are major problems with the changes in this diff. Here is the important background:

  • A WikiProject (see the definition) is social group of editors who want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia. A WikiProject is the people; it is not the pages on which the people talk to each other.
  • Relevantly, a WikiProject is a collection of WP:VOLUNTEERs who voluntarily choose to work with other VOLUNTEERS that are interested in the same type of VOLUNTEER work.
  • To include a page in the group's scope is to publicly state that the group has VOLUNTEERed to track and support that page.
  • You cannot force a VOLUNTEER to support an article if he doesn't want to. You cannot force a VOLUNTEER to stop supporting an article if he does want to support it (with any method short of a WP:TBAN).

So S McCandlish writes (without realizing it, I'm sure), in effect, "If I join a group of people because we all want to work on articles about widgets, then let's let "RFCs" and "other community processes" dominated by total outsiders, people who have no interest at all in widgets, decide which articles I and my teammates have to edit and support. Let's not let us mere WP:VOLUNTEERs decide which articles we'll edit and which ones we want to check at AFDs and which ones should have a note on the talk page saying, 'If you need help with this article, then our group's talk page is over here, and we're willing to support improvements to this article'. No, deciding for ourselves which articles we'll edit would be impermissible OWNership! Independent, voluntary choice of which articles to support is only for individuals, not for people who like collaborating with others. Once you form a little group that wants to support articles only about widgets, then other people should certainly be able to force you to deal with complaints about BLP violations in widget inventors biographies or AFDs about songs that mention widgets, too, because they're The Community™ and They Know Best what articles your little group of VOLUNTEERS should be working on."

See how that doesn't work? If you and three wikifriends get together and make a list of 200 articles that your little group wants to improve, then you should be permitted to do that. You should not have some outsider—not even a bunch of outsiders—show up and demand that your list of articles (your "scope") be changed to suit their POV about which articles ought to be editing.

This is the important point: WikiProjects have absolute, exclusive control over just this one thing: the list of pages they choose to support (including their choice not to support some pages). That's it: they control the list itself, which we call "their scope". They do not have any control over what goes into those articles. They do not have any control over the format of those articles. They do not have any control over any guidelines or policies related to those articles. They do not have any control over any other group's list. The only thing that they control is their own list.

I cannot imagine why anyone thinks it would be good, or useful, or wise, or effective, for people outside a group to force the people inside a group change the list of articles that the group has WP:VOLUNTEERed to work on. Other editors are never permitted to demand that the list of articles at User:SMcCandlish#What I'm working on now... be changed to include articles that The Community™ thinks SMcCandlish should work on, but that SMcCandlish does not want to work on. We all know that would be a perfectly unreasonable demand: he's a volunteer, and works on whatever he wants. Also, we all know that it wouldn't work, because he'd quit in protest, and then we'd lose a useful editor. So why on Earth would anyone believe that other editors should be permitted to demand exactly the same thing for a WikiProject composed of SMcCandlish and a couple of other editors?

Having said all of that, the usual reason for someone worrying about this section is because some representative of a WikiProject has forgotten that their group's control ends with their right to make the list of articles they want to support, and starts claiming that their group gets to control content, too, for anything on their list. This is nonsense; small groups of editors calling themselves a WikiProject get absolutely no extra rights compared to any other group of editors. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages for the guideline on that, and feel free to make it clearer and stronger whenever you find ways to improve it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Thanks for the detailed response (while some of it seemed to belabor the point, I read all of it, and I don't throw "tl;dr" at people). Although I strongly agree with the gist of your point about "the usual reason for someone worrying about this section is because some representative of a WikiProject has forgotten" about WP:OWN, I'm not 100% certain the analogy you're using works well, because (I added some rationale after initial post):
  1. All wikiprojects are each something any editor may participate in, and they have processes and resources we all have equal access to. That fact is enough to make wikiproject-participant control being absolute a questionable idea. While per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy they have no more authority than any two or more editors agreeing to collaborate on something, in other less "wikipolitical" wikiprojects are distinguishable as a form of WP process from "just some people volunteering to work on similar articles", such as article quality peer review. If you, me and Stevietheman directly collaborate on improving the Roman Britain article, our three-way userspace conversations are not necessarily something others can effectively participate in on equal footing (though they'd be welcome to interject, I suppose). The three of us wouldn't make a talk page, Talk:Sekrit_Three-member_Club, about our joint scope. If we did, a strong case could be made for MFDing it into a wikiproject with a clearly defined scope for everyone, especially if part of our goal was to, by ourselves, promote the article as A-class, propose a topical style guideline that would affect it and related articles, or do other "processy" thing.
  2. As a practical matter, the scope of a small project could be totally WP:GAMEd by a WP:TAGTEAM listing themselves as participants in it and then out-arguing the existing project members (most of whom probably won't be active). A gate that keeps nothing out or in is effectively imaginary, and best forgotten about.
  3. We do in fact have a semi-formal process (even if it's insufficiently active) by which the community determines wikiproject scope (WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals), and an even more formal and active one by which it can do so (WP:Miscellany for discussion, which shut the WP:Esperanza project down, and has probably been used to delete and alter other projects; I haven't researched that in any depth).
  4. Wikiprojects are generally pretty hierarchical; part of the scope of one general project can be assumed by another, more specific one; there's often little if any bickering about it. For example, WP:WikiProject Cue sports covers lawn games like croquet, because no other project under WP:WikiProject Games and WP:WikiProject Sports does, and they're historically related (billiards, golf, croquet, field hockey, etc., all originated as essentially the same lawn game played with curved sticks, knocking balls around on the ground, aiming for goals and avoiding hazards and sometimes interfering players). But it's not a very good fit. If WP:WikiProject Lawn games were created, and actually had enough participants to be viable, it would be entirely reasonable for someone from that project to remove such games from the scope of WP:CUE (subject to WP:CUE's WP:BRD objection if they wanted to make one, and I doubt they'd make one). In the event of a dispute, it would come down to a consensus discussion, perhaps an RFC, not one project telling the other to go #@$* off. Heh. The consensus discussion would actually be useful to have, since it matters for other editors which project's scope is what. As I hinted at earlier, if I want to propose Croquet for a Class A article review, which project would I do this at if both claimed scope? And so on. It's not practical for every project that could in some sense be relevant to claim overlapping scope; the very next section in the guideline explains in detail why this can be disruptive. It's not telling editors what article they can care about, it's simply management labels and resources of where and how these collaborations are grouped, for everyone's benefit.
  5. The "volunteer" rationale seems to be a bit of a red herring; everything all of us do here is volunteer work. It's like preceding a statement of political opinion with "I'm a taxpayer, and...". We're all volunteers, and we're all taxpayers, so being one doesn't affect the argument in any way (absent the odd case of "I've never paid income tax and am a big fan of welfare" or "I am a paid editor and only care about processes that get my POV-pushing clients to cut a bigger check to me" >;-)
  6. Perhaps most importantly, the idea that RfCs and such are "dominated by total outsiders, people who have no interest at all" in the articles claimed within a project's scope isn't viable. All Wikipedians may have an equal interest in the quality and development of all articles, even if they choose to express that interest in a limited subset of them. This has come up so frequently that I'm considering writing an essay about it. I can't count the number of times I've seen an argument at WP:AFD, WP:CFD, WP:TFD, WP:RM (especially) and various WP:RFCs that so-and-so's view should be ignored on the basis that the commenter isn't a "member" of "the" (should be "a") scope-claiming project, isn't a regular editor of the article or articles in question, isn't an expert in the topic, and other related arguments, and these are always ignored as invalid exclusionary, elitist approaches, by anyone who knows how to properly close a XfD. There's simply no such thing as a "total outsider" on Wikipedia, except perhaps for WP:MEATPUPPETs canvassed off-wiki to come here and "vote" on something.
I do see the underlying logic point you're making, and don't entirely disagree with it. I just think it's more nuanced than wikiprojects always totally determining their own scope. There's probably better wording, that ends up in the middle somewhere. My main goal was removing all the WP:OWNish stuff in that section.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Expanded 09:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

PS: I slightly tweaked your version, of your changes after my WP:BOLD rewrite, to remove the "legacy histrionics" like huge swaths of boldfacing, and the odd "exclusive rights" legalistic stuff, also present in the old version. Maybe that's enough to arrive at a compromise text?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree nearly 100%. The only quibble I have is that, generally, there is no significant issue with project overlapping with regards to A-class determination (or grade determination in general really), as each project can decide that differently and display different grades if they wish (there's no requirement for grade uniformity that I know of). But this only works as long as the projects have separate banners. If they share a banner, like in the WP:USA case, it could be a different story. And as the founder/participant of WP:LOU, I kind of dread one day having a conflict with WP:KY or WP:USA or another state/local project inside WP:USA over a grade. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 17:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
To correct myself, there probably is an expectation of grade uniformity for WP:FA and WP:GA. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 18:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
FA and GA require non-WikiProject-based assessments. They are uniform because they are community-wide processes. A WikiProject may choose to decline to have the FA or GA rating listed in their banner (and therefore on their WikiProject-specific assessment tables).
For all others, the rule is that you may set any scale you want. Most groups go with the standard scale. Ratings do not need to match. I have personally assessed articles as being Stub for one project and Start for another, in the very same edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. People can and do create pages for tiny little groups; they're called userprojects, and usually kept in userspace. Promoting an article to A-class is meaningless outside the WP:1.0 team, and thus unimportant. WikiProjects have exactly the same (lack of) right to promite a topical style guideline that would affect it and related articles as any other editors; see WP:Advice pages.
  2. It might possible to take over a small project, but it's never even been tried. (Why bother? Make your own if you want one.) In the last five years, I've seen exactly one case of a (legitimate) new member trying to change a group's scope and zero cases of gaming.
  3. WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals does not determine scope, nor does MFD. It is rare for a WikiProject's pages to be deleted (too rare, IMO). Esperanza did not have a "scope"; it supported people, not articles.
  4. Wikiprojects are generally completely non-hierarchical. Getting tiny little projects merged up into larger, more sustainable ones is usually desirable, and bickering is limited only if people are approached the right way and the targets carefully selected. For a counter example, check the archives from a few months back, when someone proposed that various religions and alternative medicine should be merged into Rational Skepticism so that these (barely active) hotbeds of sedition could be properly monitored. For your WP:WikiProject Cue sports example, I'd encourage that group to up-merge themselves by renaming themselves to WP:WikiProject Lawn games or WP:WikiProject Lawn and cue games. When two groups have overlapping scopes, there is never any need to remove games from the scope of the other one. In the event of a dispute, it would exactly come down to one project telling the other that they'll support whatever articles they want. It does not matter for other editors which project's scope is what.
    Every single WikiProject must assess articles for A-class separately. Very few bother with A-class. The fact that it's impractical to have WikiProject Pharmacology and WikiProject Chemicals give contradictory advice about what to put in the articles is exactly why WikiProjects are not allowed to do that (see, as you righty point out, the next section). Scope is "telling editors what article they can care about".
  5. The "volunteer" rationale is critical: everything all of us do here is volunteer work. If you tell a volunteer that you've noticed that he's gone to a little bit of trouble to make sure that he will receive WP:Article alerts notices if the article he cares about is ever prodded, but that you don't care, because he's not allowed to tag the article for his WikiProject, then you are (pointlessly) offending people and they will quit as a result. Really: Who cares?! If the editors working at WikiProject All Us Joes actually want to put {{WP All us Joes}} on some article about Sally, then who cares? Who is hurt by this? The other editors, who do not have to do anything at all about this? The other editors, who are not the least bit affected by this? The editors at WikiProject Sally, who might decide that there is so little pointless drama around here that they need to pitch a fit because some other group of editors also cares about the article?
  6. All Wikipedians may have an equal interest in the quality and development of all articles, but none of them have a legitimate interest in preventing some other Wikipedian from being notified by bot about changes to the tagged article's status. If you encounter people claiming that so-and-so's view on an article's existence or content should be ignored on the basis that the commenter isn't a "member" of "the" (should be "a") scope-claiming project, then please point those ignorant and uncollegial editors to WP:PROJGUIDE—and help me more strongly word the section about WikiProjects not owning articles to make it crystal-clear to even the most willfully blind reader. (The stuff about experts or frequent editors of the article in question is outside of the project guide's scope.) As I said, the only thing that WikiProjects have exclusive control over is the list of the articles they are watching. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Guideline location & "promotion"[edit]

Part of why the page in question, WP:WikiProject Council/Guide, is so poorly understood, infrequently referenced by others, and POV-pushed in weird directions, is probably its location/name, and the fact that its talk page redirects here. WP:WikiProject Council is a wikiproject itself, an internal one like WP:WikiProject Inline templates. It might be better to have this at WP:WikiProjects guideline or something, and give it its own talk page. Regardless, we may need to check and make sure it's listed in all the categories, lists and templates of guidelines. I hazard a guess that 9 out of 10 experienced Wikipedians have no idea the page exists at all.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

As for promotion, I would suggest putting {{WikiProject Footer}} at the bottom of every WikiProject main page, as it includes a prominent link to the guide. Also, the guide already appears in {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}} (another good addition to a WikiProject main page somewhere above the footer), although hard to spot in it. I find myself indecisive about moving the page, but it should have its own talk at any rate. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 18:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Good ideas. Any objection to giving the guideline it's own talk page? I think it'd be very WP-normal to do so.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
If there's no response within a week, I imagine you can be WP:BOLD with this. :) Stevie is the man! TalkWork 18:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it's primarily a question of practicalities: do enough people watch the Guide page so that discussion threads on it will garner sufficient participation? Does the set of interested editors have significant overlap with those interested in following threads on this talk page? I don't think the existence of a separate talk page influences most readers' views on the Guide page (I imagine they don't check to see if there is a separate discussion page, and then consider the Guide page in a different light as a result). But if there are enough interested editors in the Guide page that are distinct from those interested in this page, then it may be worthwhile to split conversations off to a separate discussion page. isaacl (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I've given more thought to moving the page, and I think how it's done depends on whether it's going to be made into an essay or a full-fledged guideline. If it's just going to be an essay, you probably only need consensus here, followed by just moving it and ensuring it's labeled as an essay.. But for a guideline, you would need a lot wider discussion, and likely many updates and much more consensus-building work to go through. I don't object to moving it either way, but for the latter approach, there would have to be significant commitment to doing all the related work (and then the question is: Is it worth it? :) ). Stevie is the man! TalkWork 18:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
It's already an official guideline, and has been for years. S McCandlish is correct that the page title is an odd choice for a community-wide guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I thought guidelines have to be within the guidelines section. If this is a guideline, it appears to be part of a project and not an official guideline. Note again, I'm talking appearances and position, not whether it's official. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 12:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sport or sports tag[edit]

Hello. I tag alot of biographies for inclusion within their countries sports sub-projects. For example, people from Australia, Canada, Russia and Hungary. Some of them use the parameter "|sports=yes" and others use "|sport=yes". Is there a way to standarize these? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Why? Are there any practical problems that result from the difference, or is it an essentially aesthetic issue? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
It breaks the template if the wrong variation is used, right? This means that a person needs to know "sport" versus "sports" for every WikiProject, and it is an unwarranted variation with consequences for choosing incorrectly. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Whats wrong with the template supporting both? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking about WikiProject Biography's template, but I think he's talking about {{WPCANADA|sport=yes|class=C}}, which doesn't currently support both, and which differs from {{WPHungary|class=C|sports=yes}}.
It's possible to make them all support both, but I believe that parameter aliases are somewhat costly in performance terms. (I'm not sure that should matter for a talk page, though.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Not costly enough to worry about at all, or we'd have to gut most of the citation templates. It would be helpful if they all (and the meta-template they're based on) supported both spellings. This same problem has bugged me for years, too. There are so many geographical projects, it was too much work to try to change them.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The citation templates were re-written in Lua precisely because they were so costly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I.e., we have a tool that makes the costliness argument irrelevant.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  17:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I doubt the cost is significant, but if it was, it would only apply to saving any changes to the talk page or purging it. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 17:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Supporting both would be helpful. I know it's a minor thing in the grand scheme of things! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Need help with moving/creation of article[edit]

hi everybody! The article on Sihanoukville has been created in 2005 or so - i presume without clear geographical definition - there used to be any sort of content in it, relating to both, the city and the province too....i went through the entire content around a month ago and did a general clean-up. The article is now explicitly subjected to the province, although content needs further sorting. I have by now relevant content to create the "city" article. Anyhow - I tried to move the existing article to: "Sihanoukville province" - didn't work. Creating an article "Sihanoukville province" or "Sihanoukville city" doesn't work either - because creator redirects to existing article.

Any suggestions? ...and thanks a lot for your attention!!! I am grateful for any reply! All the best!!!Wikirictor (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wikirictor, it sounds like you need the WP:Requested moves process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X[edit]

I have submitted a proposal for a Wikimedia Foundation Individual Engagement Grant to study WikiProjects. The proposal is called WikiProject X and seeks to study editing communities within the English Wikipedia. View the proposal here and feel free to leave comments there! Harej (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You may wish to inform the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia.
Wavelength (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
See also m:Grants:IEG/Evaluating WikiProjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Most vandalised wikiproject[edit]

Are there any statistics on which wikiproject is the most vandalised one? I need it for my research (I am a Ph.D. student).Srijankedia (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome, Srijankedia. Are you talking about the WikiProject's own page (e.g., WP:WikiProject Military history) or the articles that the WikiProject supports (e.g., World War II)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing. I was looking for the pages that the WikiProject supports, but both would be useful. Any pointers in both the directions are appreciated. Thanks Srijankedia (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
It is WP:WikiProject Biographies because biographies is by far the WikiProject covering the most pages, and there is no reason to think that these pages would be vandalized less than average. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply, Srijankedia. If you want raw numbers, then it's going to be WPBIO, as Bluerasberry said. If you're looking for a ratio (e.g., the percentage of articles vandalized within 24 hours), then there aren't any good statistics. However, the entire database dump is available (free) and you could probably calculate it using a few markers (e.g., number of edit summaries that use rollback or scripts like Huggle or Twinkle, or mention vandalism).
You can probably find some resources in the Category:Wikipedia resources for researchers, and there's a mailing list at User:EpochFail has done some work on differentiating good-faith from bad-faith (vandalism) edits, so you might look at some of his research and how WP:Snuggle identifies promising new editors. If he sees this, he might be able to post a link to a report about this work on Meta.
It may take you a while to get a handle on this subject, but I think it's achievable. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi Srijankedia. I have some datasets that you might find useful. You can find a dataset of reverted and reverting revisions in english wikipedia here: [1] Not all reverts are for vandalism, but most all vandalism gets reverted. This dataset should provide you with some signal. Here's a quick description of the fields in the datasets:

reverts.all.p_0-43609236.r_0-622033840.tsv -- Each row represents a *reverting* revision
  • rev_* -- Matches fields from revision table for reverting edit
  • reverted_to_rev_id -- The ID of the revision that was reverted back to
  • revisions_reverted -- The number of revisions that this revert discards (max is 15 by definition)
reverteds.all.p_0-43609236.r_0-622033840.tsv -- Each row represents a *reverted* revision
  • rev_* -- Matches fields from the revision tabled for the *reverted* edit (note that a revision can be reverted multiple times)
  • reverting_* -- Matches fields from revision table for reverting edit
  • rev_revert_offset -- The distance of the reverted revision from the reverting revision (1 == the most recent reverted revision)
  • revisions_reverted -- The number of revisions reverted in this revert event (max(rev_revert_offset) == revisions_reverted)
  • reverted_to_rev_id -- The ID of the revision that was reverted back to

These files are complete for page_ids 0-43609236 and revision ids 0-622033840. Practically, that means these datasets represent complete data up to August 8th, 2014. --EpochFail (talkcontribs) 21:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks EpochFail, WhatamIdoing and Blue Rasberry for replying! EpochFail, the link that you mentioned [2] is not working. Could you point me to the correct link? On a similar note, is there a data source for all contributions by a user? I know about [3], but I would have to crawl it if I want to use it. Is there already a data source that has it? Srijankedia (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


That link works fine if you change "https" to "http". It looks like mediawiki is trying to be smart by having you connect via SSL (which is totally not necessary and won't work) Try copy-pasting this into your URL bar. --EpochFail (talkcontribs) 00:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Great! This works well! Thanks EpochFail. Again, do you know if there is any data source for all contributions by a user? Thanks!Srijankedia (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


Sure! You could do it with the API like this [4] or with Quarry like this [5]. --EpochFail (talkcontribs) 00:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Great that works perfectly! Thanks!Srijankedia (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

EpochFail, the reverted and reverting revisions dataset is very useful to me, but is there a way to get it on the go? Can I also get the information through any API? Srijankedia (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Also, there seems to be some issues in the dataset that you gave the link to. For example: revision id 619251395 by Jacklikedick187 made at 06:08, 31 July 2014 was reverted by Bongwarrior at 07:26, 31 July 2014 [6]. However, the dataset does not mention that this edit was reverted. Any pointers in the direction or am I looking at things wrong? Thanks Srijankedia (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI: You don't need to keep using {{unindent}}. Once someone uses that template, we start over again with tabbing in messages from zero. I prefixed my paragraphs with ":" in this message. You should prefix yours with "::" for your reply.
So, revert detection methods aren't perfect. In this case, the revert went too far back into the history of the page to be detected. We generally set bounds on this in revert detection methods. See m:R:Reverts for details. This dataset uses a strategy that matches the psuedocode here: m:Research:Revert#Identity_revert_via_checksum_with_history. In the case of that psuedocode and in my scripts, I set the maximum revert radius to 15 revisions. --EpochFail (talkcontribs) 17:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again. I guess it is ok to use the 15 revision cutoff, given that Kittur et al say that it captures 94% of the reverts. I am curious, are you one of the authors of that paper? WhatamIdoing mentioned that you have published some papers in this area, and I would like to read them. Thanks Srijankedia (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm Aaron Halfaker. I'm not an author of that paper, but I have worked with those guys a lot. See my staff page (Halfak (WMF)) for a list of my publications. --EpochFail (talkcontribs) 18:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help Aaron, and nice to have interacted with you. I would definitely read some of your papers :) Srijankedia (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi EpochFail, Is there a paper that I should cite when using the dataset at [7]? Thanks Srijankedia (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Regretfully not, but you can cite datasets all the same. I'd prefer if you cited this URL ( and myself (Aaron Halfaker). --EpochFail (talkcontribs) 22:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse and Wikiprojects[edit]

  • Recently I posed m:Grants:IEG/From_large_world_to_small_communities, suggesting to actively "catch" new editors based on their topic of interest and suggest them to join Wikiprojects, and to let editors who have similar interests (e.g from the Wikiproject) to help the new editors in their first steps in Wikipedia. The idea is based on observations (mainly in hewiki but also in enwiki), that editors who edit in specific topic can have much more helpful dialog with new editors (not solely technical suggestions). I would like to have your positive/negative comments or general feedback about the idea in Wikipedia talk:Teahouse#Teahouse and Wikiprojects or in m:Grants talk:IEG/From large world to small communities.
  • And in general, what do you think on "matrix management" of Teahouse across (large enough) Wikiprojects, e.g. having defined place in each Wikiproject for hosting new editors?
(please comment in Wikipedia talk:Teahouse#Teahouse and Wikiprojects). Thanks, Eran (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes in WikiProject[edit]

Hello, where I can find recent changes in WikiProject Germany? There used to be tool for that but don't know what happened. --Xoncha (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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)