Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Websites

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD - Everybody Draw Mohammad Day

• Everybody Draw Mohammad Day

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everybody Draw Mohammad Day. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Newgrounds up for deletion

FYI, Newgrounds has been sent to AfD for deletion. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Expekt.com

Is this notable? I umm'd and ahh'd about AfD but want to check here first. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hibe

Need help regarding two aspects of article above. I am related to the company, hence a potential conflict of interest.
A) Notability: The article contains two secondary sources. (I put few more in the talk page). Is it enough?
B) Edition: I wrote the article as a draft. As much as I tried to be neutral, there is still a conflict of interest. Can an editor have a peek at it? Comments are welcome and I expect changes.
Thanks.
VirtualArtifacts (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a decent amount of legitimate coverage. What's with all the French sources, though, when the site is based in San Francisco? Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Gary. Hibe is US-based, however most of its development was done in Montreal, Canada. What would then be the next step to insure that the quality of the article is on par with the community standards? Very best. VirtualArtifacts (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It needs more reliable, English sources. Looking at the sources currently in use, it looks like only Le Devoir is the only reliable one, but it's not even in English. Press releases and the like generally don't count as a source that proves notability, per WP:CORP. Gary King (talk · scripts) 00:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I hear you. We will get a reasonable secondary English source to back the article. How long can the current draft page remain before deletion? Many thanks. VirtualArtifacts (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely Gary King (talk · scripts) 03:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Relevant AFD discussion page

Please see Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. AFD discussion is at, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Websites articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Websites articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Search engine marketing

I believe that search engine marketing should fall under this WikiProject. Does anyone else here agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anneaholaward (talk • contribs) 19:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly relevant tool

Interesting project. Just in case it's of use, a list of red links to anything resembling a domain name in the English-language Wikipedia can be found here. - TB (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Computing importance no longer defaults to Websites importance

Articles tagged using {{WikiProject Websites}} will retain their Websites importance, but will no longer get assigned a general computing importance unless one is provided explicitly using computing-importance=.

When assessing articles for the Websites project, please consider the computing importance and tag accordingly. For articles which also have a {{WikiProject Computing}} banner, its importance= must match the Websites computing-importance=.

This will help WP Computing in three ways:

1. Improve the accuracy of importance assessments for general computing
2. Avoid unexpected changes to the Computing importance that result from changing the Websites importance
3. Bring attention to the parameter for general computing importance, reducing the likelihood of articles accidently being listed in multiple Computing importance categories. (This causes false entries in the Computing reassessment log – see discussion at WP:COMP/A – and likely other problems as well.) --Pnm (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for an independent look at proposed article

I've researched and drafted a proposed article about the C-SPAN Video Library, a website containing more than two decades of archived public affairs programming by the U.S. television network C-SPAN. That article is presently in my user subspace, here. I hesitate to post it immediately because I work with C-SPAN's communications team, and am mindful that I have a WP:CONFLICT with C-SPAN as a general subject. I hasten to add that the article has been written to strictly follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and WP:NPOV among them. I don't believe there is anything remotely controversial about the proposed article and its suitability per WP:NOTE is more than adequately demonstrated, but to stay on the safe side, I figured this was an appropriate place to post a review request. If there are no objections after a day or so, I'll probably go ahead and post it up. But I'm open to any feedback you may have here or on my talk page. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a good article. I don't see any serious problems. Some minor observations:

1. Lead: The 160,000 statistic could be moved to Content. "The complete collection of" in the lead sounds promotional, and it isn't necessary – it would be implied. Is a "Golden Beacon" known outside the industry? If not it might not need to be in the lead.
2. History section contains a lot of detail. In particular background about the C-SPAN archives should be covered elsewhere and linked to.
3. Public response section contains weasel words. "Landmark educational tool" sounds unencyclopedic, and should probably be a direct quote.
4. Do the Multichannel News, Mediaite, and Gothamist citations meet WP:RS? (Those would be helpful wikilinks in the citations.)

--Pnm (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the close read, Pnm. These are helpful observations and I'll have to go back into my research to find answers to some of your questions. I'll have some revisions to share over the weekend. Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've incorporated most of your suggestions into the current draft of the article. As for the sources, Multichannel News is an industry publication that goes back to 1980, and should remain. Gothamist probably is not, and the same point was already made by the NYT, so I've removed it. The more interesting question is Mediaite: it's a professional site with an editorial structure and is known for providing commentary on the news media (hence its name) but it is also known more for opinion than reporting and so is probably right on the bubble. If it falls short, then I will have to find a replacement. Your insight would be appreciated here. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like Mediaite is fine. You might try the Reliable sources noticeboard where some very thoughtful folks participate. I do think the Public response section needs to attribute the sources of opinions including that one. --Pnm (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. The opinion there was sourced to Mediaite, hence the quotation marks I had placed around "landmark". However, I did look up additional sources, and added an editorial from the New Hampshire Union Leader and Howard Kurtz, then of The Washington Post, making similar statements. I then rewrote the sentence, softening the language somewhat. With that done, I've gone ahead and moved it into the mainspace. Thanks for your input, and if you have any other suggestions, let me know. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I requested a move of the userspace draft in place of the copy-paste, which will preserve the little bit of edit history, preserve links from this discussion, and get rid of the draft page, all at once. --Pnm (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Aha, I saw the "speedy delete" and wondered what was up. That makes sense, even if the template is a bit confusing. I'll keep an eye on it, and I appreciate the help. WWB Too (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've completed the move. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 22:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I nominated C-SPAN Video Library for Did you know. --Pnm (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

All looks good to me. Thanks for taking an active interest in the article, especially uploading that screen shot. If there's anything I can do to help with the DYK process, just let me know. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Bloginity.com

Hi everyone, I am a new member of this group, and looking forward to contribute as much as I can. I wanted to get your awareness for Bloginity which is up for deletion. I was hoping that some of you here may be able to help the group out with the improvement of the article, and or help with the debate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bloginity. (Knox387 (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).

Hi there. Welcome. I would be happy to help, but I cannot seem to figure out what is notable about Bloginity.com...A. Ward (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion about this article on the AfD page. --Pnm (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome! --Pnm (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

New article: Net.wars

New article, created, at Net.wars. Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Blog del Narco

Hi! What categories would be good for Blog del Narco? Based on the coverage in reliable sources, Blog del Narco is a significant website. We need to have it appropriately categorized so people can find it WhisperToMe (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

New guidelines for italicizing website titles

After much debate, some guidelines for when to italicize website titles have finally been added to the Manual of Style. Kaldari (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That's useful. Is there any guidance regarding the inclusion of the TLD? I see there's been previous discussion of this at Amazon.com. Thanks. --Trevj (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Related discussion at Template talk:Infobox website#Italicize site name. -- Trevj (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the use of terminology like “GiB” (gibibyte) on Wikipedia

Notice: An RFC is being conducted here at Talk:Hard diskdrive#RFC on the use of the IEC prefixes. The debate under consideration is the use in this table of the “Hard disk drive” article of nomenclature such as “KiB”, “MiB”, and “GiB” to describe capacities. The governing guideline on MOSNUM is Quantities of bytes and bits. The quality of the discussion can be improved by broadening participation of the discussion. This will hopefully more fully achieve a consensus. Greg L (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Santorum (sexual neologism)

Santorum (sexual neologism)

This article has recently been expanded with additional sources and referencing improvements. There is also some ongoing discussion about that, at the article's talk page. If you are interested, please have a look at Santorum (sexual neologism) and the associated talk page discussion at Talk:Santorum (sexual neologism). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination for Riscos.info

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Riscos.info#Contested deletion. Trevj (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Request for comment - Santorum (neologism)

• Santorum (neologism)

Request for Comment discussion started, please see Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Proposal_to_rename.2C_redirect.2C_and_merge_content.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Alexa Bot

I have written a bot to update Alexa rankings. It depends on a pre-defined list of articles and it's currently being tried and discussed in this request for approval. Please check the bot contributions, add your feedbacks and help me improve the list of articles by reading these few tips.--OsamaK 23:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

RS noticeboard on Amina Abdallah Arraf al Omari

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Amina_Abdallah_Arraf_al_Omari.2C_Minal_Hajratwala regarding an RS noticeboard entry on the Amina Arraf/Minal Hajratwala interaction WhisperToMe (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional opinions needed about an article for a website

Can someone please join the discussion on the talk page of Digital Blasphemy about some issues? The article is currently being edited by two disagreeing editors. Dream Focus 15:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Websites to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Websites/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 22:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Question

Are instant messaging services allowed on the List of virtual communities with more than 100 million users?--Cattus ^talk 17:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)