Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

starting

Hi I would like to join one of the groups but i can't figure out how. can some one help me with this? and if able on my talk page? Thanx--Cheyenne (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Answered on the users talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Feedback request

Hi! I am contemplating creating a new WP page: How to Write Citations. Before I publish it, I made a draft to get some critique: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Loffy Please take a look, if you have the time, and any feedback regarding this WP page draft is appreciated.

The WP page draft is about a new citation tool found on the web: http://howtowritecitations.com NB!: I am the author behind that tool (http://howtowritecitations.com )

Loffy (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Deletion

I noticed that this WikiProject is not listed in your directory under the contents systems and general maintenance section. I plan to try to get this project active again, so could this be listed? Mad Man American (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I have now added it. When it is definitely active, you can indicate that in the table ("active = yes").

—Wavelength (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Justin Bieber

Is there any wikiproject for Justin Bieber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.68.29 (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I expect it would be covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music would be your best bet. That said WP:Canadian music participants seem to prefer talking on article talk pages to get more involed in talks.Moxy (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate Florida wikiprojects

WP:Viva Florida 500 WP duplicates the work of WP:WikiProject Florida the only difference being that it is somehow related to a Florida tourism initiative. Dougweller (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

A WikiProject is really a group of people, not a subject area, so that's okay. There's no rule that says two groups of people can't have similar interests. (If the tourism one has gone dormant, then the regular one could "acquire" it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 30#Template:Persondata

The Persondata template has been listed for deletion or modification at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 30#Template:Persondata. As a project that would be affected if the template is deleted or modifed I am leaving this notice. --Kumioko (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding assessment "importance"

Y'know, I really, really kinda hate the idea that assessments seem to actively grade the "importance" of an article. It seems to me to be casting judgments on articles, and that isn't really in our best interests. Maybe we could change the term to something less opinionated, and perhaps change the standard assessment page accordingly? "Priority" might be less problematic, with maybe the existing "importance" text being changed to indicate something to the effect that the priority rating more or less would follow a basic "outline" format, with the highest priority articles being the main article and its most immediate child articles, next being the direct child articles of those first child articles, and so on down the line. Any opinions? John Carter (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that priority is more inline with how most projects use the importance field but I'm not sure its worth the effort of changing it for every project and article at this point. I would be fine with changing it but it would be a major change and a lot of work to replace it. Also, I thought that it priority used to be the commonly used term and it changed to importance a few years ago. --Kumioko (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, all I was really thinking of was basically changing the assessment summary box and, maybe, the standard banner template upon which most of the banners seem to be based. Things like categorization could easily stay the same. John Carter (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh ok. --Kumioko (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography uses "priority", because it's inappropriate to routinely declare some humans to be more important than others. I prefer priority myself, and I believe that any WikiProject may use it, despite the personal preferences of the everything-must-be-identical people who pushed for everyone to use "importance" a while back.

Both options are available in Template:WPBannerMeta. However, I believe you can only have one or the other enabled, so if you switch, you'd probably need a bot to change all the existing instances to your new one.

("Importance", BTW, began with a legitimate question: According to this group of people, how important is it that this article be included in the WP:1.0 offline release of Wikipedia? But that's not how most new users experience it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No disagreement about "importance" in general. But there is probably a bit of a problem in calling so many articles "low importance". That in and of itself might give a lot of editors a reason to back out, if we basically call their work unimportant. "Priority" seems to me anyway to be a more group specific term, and I think editors might be less put out if their article is said to be a low priority to a specific project than of low importance. By the way, regarding the last point, has anyone ever thought of maybe adding at least one priority/importance scale, perhaps "core" or something similar, to indicate those articles which are (or should be) included in the 1.0 release? Doing so might help get a bit more attention to such articles. John Carter (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Although the word “importance” does indicate a somewhat subjective judgement, its use does not seem problematic to me. The ratings are still useful. If a specific biographical article has a high or low “importance” or “priority”, it does not logically follow that the person discussed is necessarily someone with a correspondingly high or low “importance” or “priority”. Wikipedia has Wikipedia:Vital articles and related lists. Please see “The 100” and The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, by Michael H. Hart and Time Person of the Year.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

In some cases, I would agree. I would also point to the various list of major figures in Human Accomplishment. But those are a rather select number. Also, on a bit of a tangent, I wonder exactly how the 1.0 Release list of 30,000 central articles is. I would assume that, to a degree, all of those articles would be some form of "top" or "core" importance. Maybe it could be broken down a bit further, like between Britannica's Macropedia and Micropedia articles, but it might very much help the development of those articles if we could somehow make it clear that any of those articles which clearly and directly link to tee central topic of a given WikiProject or task force were marked as such. Doing so might allow for greater differentiation between the "lesser' articles, as well as maybe help get more people to work on the selected articles. John Carter (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:India articles with comments

Category:India articles with comments, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. This relates to a WP1.0 assessment category used by WP:INDIA, and the discussion has broadened into a wider consideration of such categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Dance

I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dance and I haven't seen much activity there. It seems like a subject that should be more active. Just need some advice on how to get this up again. Sorry if I posted this in the wrong area. Thanks! ReelAngelGirl If I do somthing wrong please let me know 00:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You're in the right area, and it's great to see your enthusiasm. Some suggestions about getting WPDance twirling again can be found here. Good luck! – Lionel ^(talk) 12:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Ravidassia

McKinseies (talk · contribs) could do with some guidance setting up Wikipedia:WikiProject Ravidassia. There's a duplicate page Wikipedia:WikiProject:Ravidassia and a number of talk pages with ill-formatted wikiproject banners - you can find them from Special:Contributions/McKinseies or by looking at Category:WikiProject banners. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Pls help us to start the wikiproject Ravidassia from contributors who can work on it.115.252.127.119 (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)