Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inclusion

Module:WikiProject banner/doc
This page is a soft redirect.

Underhand Deletionist land-grab

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Expansion of CSD A7 (archived discussion

Trollderella 22:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't expressed an opinion yet, but how is it underhanded when open discussion is ongoing at both WP:CSD and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)? Superm401 | Talk 20:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

How do I sign up?

I'm a staunch inclusionist, every Joe, Tom, Dick, Harry and Bill gates should have their own article. How do Isign up for this project? And how can we advertise this project as it seems to have so few members? Loom91 13:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Just add your name to the list of members. Madeleined2 (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge

I stubbed this a while back, and Im glad to see it working somewhat. But I think it needs a lift and that requires a repurposing toward what its really about. I supported and still do support inclusion of facts, rather than censorship. Too much inclusion means divergence unfortunately, and I think we need to work to converge certain things for the sake of organizing them. I think people can get behind that. Integration isnt exclusive, but instead focuses on cross-linking and merging redundant articles in a way that makes development easier, and forking less interesting. Comments ?-Ste|vertigo 02:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

IMO those are completely different topics that shouldn't be combined. Good linking and splitting/merging is. if I'm not terribly mistaken, clearly described and little debated. In some cases it can form a workaround disagreements between "inclusionists" and "deletionists" by moving less relevant subjects out of articles to pages of their own. But it doesn't deal with the final question: to delete or to keep. Harald88 12:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion may in fact be different than Integration, which implies merging, and some reduction of redundancy. I was among the first outspoken "inclusionists" and was also the one who stubbed this project as a local outpost. This project doesnt appear to be goal-focused and therefore isnt doing anything. I suggest integrating into Integration, because in reality these arent so different, and inclusionism must be intelligent anyway, requiring careful editing, etc. -Ste|vertigo 15:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice goals but...

This project sounds less fix-focussed than [1], and I think of participating.

IMO, the currently applied deletion-by-vote is riduculous, resulting in deletion of stubs with potential, as well as maintaining articles that according to policy don't belong in Wikipedia (I'm against inclusion of subjects that are themselves inherently against WP policy).

It would be nice if the deletion process could be changed to a process that is stricly based on Wikipedia policy, together with one or two precisions of policy. But how to make that happen? It appears that none of the participants knows how this may be achieved. I fear that without a detailed action plan not much (if anything) will be achieved. Harald88 12:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, AfD is not a vote - that's why the old "votes for deletion" page was deleted! If consensus (as judged by the closing admin) has formed to delete the article, then it gets whacked. That's what "stricly based on Wikipedia policy" means! There is no definitive guide as to which articles should stay and which should be deleted, except for consensus in individual cases. Original research and dictionary definitions go, of course, but even there some debate is needed to determine whether something is really OR or if it's just incredibly obscure, or alternatively, to decide whether an entry has any potential beyond being transwikied to Wiktionary. For some suggestions about possible reform of AfD, there have been signs of movement at Wikipedia:AfD reform.

As for this project, I agree, it hardly seems a project at all. In fact it seems nothing more than an association. Now, WikiProject AfD Salvage I could sign up for - I've done a couple of AfD saves before. But there's a fine line here. If this project seeks to pursue its goals through a co-ordinated attempt to push inclusionist policies and flood AfD votes, then I don't think it would be too long before it arrives at WP:MFD. WikiProjects are meant to build article content, not be launch-pads for policies and vote-stacking, and the WikiProjects that have got into hot water have been precisely those. If, on the other hand, it aims to promote inclusion by encouraging editors to write the type of article unlikely to get nominated for deletion (verified and reliably referenced would be a good start), making rescue attempts of salvagable articles on prod or afd (and the simple truth is that a lot of nominated articles are junk, whether you are inclusionist or deletionist... but others are potentially valid, even if they need a complete rewrite), and integrating unexpandable substubs, then that's great by me. The only evidence I can see of any co-ordinated activity on these fronts, though, is over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Integration. I don't think the merge request was a bad idea at all - unless this "project" actually starts doing something then it isn't a project at all and ought to be renamed to reflect this. TheGrappler 03:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC) (In fact I'd strongly suggest renaming it even if it stays as a "project". It's utterly unacceptable to use WikiProjects to promote factions, whether on- or off-wiki. We already generate more heat than light when "keep" and "delete" votes collide... then by labelling ourselves as "inclusionist" vs "deletionist" - rather than acknowledging that there may be deeper or subtler underlying issues - we degenerate further. Building up Wikipedia structures and institutions to support particular factions and expecting no harm to come of it is naive. I have to say that AfD often infuriates me, and I can understand people holding grievances from the results. But to "fight back" under the reasoning that the best organized "team" is going to "win" is to turn Wikipedia into a battleground. This place is stressful enough as it is... TheGrappler 04:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC))

Some extra eyes?

I'm worried that there are some underhanded tactics going on on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeon Majesty - I'd appreciate some more eyes on the problem, please take a look if you have time, yours, Carfiend 22:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 13:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Members of this project may be interested in...

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Games - There is no evidence that any of these games harm Wikipedia (despite claims), indeed there is some evidence that at least some benefit the Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) 00:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletionists and the Gundam pages

On 1/10/7 several Deletionists proposed a total of 17 different mobile suits from the Gundam anime series for deletion[2]. While I do not think this is a deliberate attempt to overwhelm the already inadequate time taken in the deletion process, I feel this is the result. No previous attempt was made by any of the Deletionists to discuss this on any related talk page, though some have been harshly critical of WP:GUNDAMs efforts to clean up these pages, even though the group has been in existance approximately one month and none of the Deletionists made any attempt at cleanup prior to the mass posting of deletion recommendations. Personally, I think this would make an excellent test case to show the flaws of the existing deletion system, which makes deletion far too easy. Edward321 14:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

More Shotgunning of Gundam articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Moreschi

25 more today. Good faith is becoming harder to assume. Edward321 03:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Statistics of Interest

A couple days back, I reviewed some December deletion statistics. They may be of interest to this group. (Original posting was on Wikipedia talk:Deletion review.)

I just did some quick analysis of December deletion statistics. Deletion log entries are for all spaces (article, talk, User, Image, etc...)

• Rough deletion log entries (by approximate offsets, should be within 1K): 114,000 entries
• % of entries restorations: 2.02% (111 of sampled 5,500).
• Deletions: ~111,700
• Restores: ~2,300
• Net Deletions: 109,400
• Net Deletions/Day: ~3,529
• Deletion Reviews Opened: 210 (6.77 per day average, high of 15)
• Deletions Reviewed: 0.188% (ignoring the fact that some reviews are of keep decisions at AFD)
• Deletions overturned: 53 (excludes PRODs and overturns by deleting admin while DRV underway)
• Keeps overturned: 7
• Overturn rate: About 30%-33% for controversial items
• Deletions reviewed and overturned by DRV: ~0.05% (one-twentieth of one percent)
• Deletion overturns that were either a redlink or a protected deleted page in mid-January: 11 of 53 (didn't test for redirects), so at least 20% of deletion overturns end up deleted after a(another) round at XfD.

GRBerry 14:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this project dead?

Before I edited here yesterday, there have been three edits in the past 6 months:

1. (cur) (last) 20:16, 20 July 2008 Ewald (Talk | contribs) m (6,626 bytes) (→Participants: Added myself to the list) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 17:44, 3 May 2008 Guitardude3600 (Talk | contribs) (6,436 bytes) (→Participants) (undo)
3. (cur) (last) 20:31, 17 February 2008 Netkinetic (Talk | contribs) (6,360 bytes) (→Participants) (undo)

This project seems, if not dead, dying. Inclusionist (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

As you may guess I'm very much opposed. Although the two projects have some similar goals The Article Rescue Squadron is not inclusionist and, in fact have deletionists in our ranks. ARS has been successful, in part, because we don't ascribe to either. If this project is also in a lull then start reviving it. Banjeboi 00:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I asked for "people who haven't talked about the idea of merging before" because I knew your response. I think you make an assumption that ARS has been success because ARS doesn't ascribe to either theory, the tenants of both are incredibly similar. Inclusionist (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I guess you'll know my response. I'm no longer a member of ARS and was never a member of this project, but I oppose the merger. Presuming that benjiboi is sucessful in keeping ARS neutral on the deletion/inclusion spectrum, I may return. a merger of these two incompatible projects would make that impossible. Protonk (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Prot. You two following me here make a sock very tempting. I have to scratch my head at how exactly is Rescue Squadron and the inclusionist project incompatible? For those of you who don't know the history of the three of us: I attempted to merge three projects together yesterday, which these editors opposed. ANI, check users, and major wikidrama was the end result. Inclusionist (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. final warning. Retract that accusation or I'm taking this to AN/I. I have a clean conscience. I am no one's sock. Protonk (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Inclusionist, I too find that more than a bit offensive, to address one of the questions, ARS is a neutral project that is not about advocating agendas. We work to identify and save articles that have been slated for deletion. Our focus is limited to that and our template and project kept clear of inclusionist and deletionist POV as much as possible. When issues arise we deal with them and try to neutralize anything seen as POV one way or another. Banjeboi 01:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I for one would oppose this. Both the user name and the rapidity of this editor's appearance and desire to change and move big things makes me suspicious. The two groups can get on quite well as two groups. T L Miles (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of compilation series

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back to Mine: Adam Freeland

Basically, the state of the entire series of Back to Mine, DJ-Kicks, and Late Night Tales is such that if these articles were deleted, all those would be as well. The discussion here may not set any precedent but if these articles are deleted, those will probably be next. Feel free to express your opinion. - McCart42 (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Girl Scouts of Jamaica

Could a few people have a look around Girl Scouts of Jamaica for me. This was listed for deletion almost as soon as the first stub appeared, and has been under constant attack since. It's not an article likely to set the world on fire, but other than the fact that it is a new Association, I cannot see how the content is too far removed from other scouting bodies' entries - but I would appreciate a fresh set of eyes! DiverScout (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of new rules for the deletion of user pages

Wikipedia_talk:Userfication, editors on the talk page are discussing new rules for the deletion of user pages. travb (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability in WP:BK

Hello everyone. A discussion on whether multilanguage or international publication establishes notability is taking place in WP:BK right here. This is a meaningful opportunity to shape Wikipedia policy regarding this particular issue. I have also notified Wikiproject Deletion. Estemi (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Project members, you might want to check this out...

One of the WikiProject's short cuts, WP:INC has been nominated for deletion at WP:RfD. If you have anything you wish to say about this, please drop by and state your mind. Thanks, 147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

While this is probably not actually disallowed, I would like to remind you of the guidelines at WP:CANVAS. I think the argument you have given on behalf of WP:INCL is sufficient for the group; I don't see any more discussion coming from this source. -Zeus-^u_c 01:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As I am not a member of the WikiProject, I thought a civil notification is appropriate. If you are a member of this group, then I'm sure you'll discuss it directly with the other members of WikiProject Inclusion; if you are not, then neither of us are in any position to say what the members will or will not do. I do not speak for them; neither should you. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

List of films aired on Nickelodeon at AFD

List of films aired on Nickelodeon at AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films aired on Nickelodeon you might be interested. Kasaalan (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Alive?

This Wikiproject has the potential to be huge, but is it currently even active? The main page's edit history shows no edits besides participant sign-ups for months, and over a year since anyone attempted a substantial edit. The talk page has somewhat more activity, but still not what it could be. I'd like to enliven this project, including recruiting members, making a dynamic userpage template with current issues, and altering the main page somewhat. Any objections? - Draeco (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I say be bolled as no one has chimed in to object and it's been some time since you posted here. But if folks don't like your changes once you get started then they can chime in on this talk page. Resulting in either a temporary halt to your activities or a revert to the version before you started until some consensus could be reached. --Devin Murphy (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP discussion

This BLP talk discussion is about what possibly is the single largest proposal of mass deletion ever. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 09:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of all 86 actor templates created within 3 years by consensus of WP:ACTOR and other users

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Counter_arguments

Over 3 years WP:ACTOR and some other users accomplished a consensus over actor templates should be deleted, which resulted in 86 templates getting deleted created by dozens of other wiki editors [means users wikiwide put a consensus over creating actor templates], which is "a wikiwide actor template-ban" in practice mainly by a Project and its members. I will try taking this case to a higher platform to undelete all other deleted actor templates, what should I do to take such a process, where should I apply. Kasaalan (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If I undertand correctly that you are contesting a deletion of many templates, your recourse is Deletion review. - Draeco (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

New proposal

Wikipedia:Deletion advocacy is a new proposal by User:Harej, which would see deletion debates reduced to two advocates arguing a case in front of a judge. I bring this up here because it would significantly change the way we go about promoting inclusion of content here on Wikipedia. Thoughts? --Devin Murphy (talk) 07:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's say that I am going for the strongest and toughest possible oppose ever. This is one of the most senseless things I've seen in years. --Cyclopia^talk 10:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

About BS.Player

I've proposed a deletion review, but Wikipedians there seem to oppose my viewpoint, despite the fact that it was given five stars by Download.com, and giving five stars is like giving an award, only because other download sites seem to only give re-statement of official claims about its functions. Hope Wikipedians in this WikiProject give restore votes there (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 15).--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that we're not here to canvass keep votes. This does not help your position. Now, I don't know the article but I personally feel, from the amount of Ghits, that it shouldn't have been necessarily deleted. However deletion review is not a second AfD, and your arguments are absolutely weak. The closure was right -consensus was towards delete. You can ask to userfy the article in your user space, work on it, and then try to submit it again to delrev before moving it back to mainspace. --Cyclopia^talk 12:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability (software)

FYI: The discussion on Notability (software) has recently been restarted.--Oneiros (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB

Hi. I wonder whether WP:MOSDAB should explicitly make an exception to prevent erradication of external links from disambiguation pages.
To Michael Campbell (disambiguation), I had inserted this line:

• Michael Campbell, American, as 'Mike Campbell' singer, songwriter, musician, and - as 'Michael Champion' - actor
  

Surely, the guy should have had his own article, but I had no intention of spending the time to create it. At least the disambiguation page would now make readers aware of his existence, and the (as reference for a WP article fully admissible) external links would help an interested reader. Better than nothing, I thought - in particular as my line did not draw special attention and did not take more place than the most perfect solution (and even less server burden).
Two editors who guard disambiguation pages however, on turn undid my insert because WP:MOSDAB is against putting external links in a disambiguation page. Thus, I eventually did create a very short article Michael Campbell (musician and actor) and modified the disambiguation page by the book. But I resent having to spend hours instead of minutes, only because style is held above valuable information. So, I drew their attention to this concern, see User_talk:Tassedethe#Michael Campbell (disambiguation) and a discussion developed.
Please, do NOT add to the discussion. But do consider how to prevent editors from forcing out useful content by sticking to style guidelines.
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-07-02 09:54 (UTC)

Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process

There needs to be better checks and balances in the process of how articles are currently nominated for deletion, to prevent notable topics from being deleted without actual qualification per Wikipedia article deletion guidelines. This is a significant problem, because it is very likely that notable topics are being injustly deleted. It's easy to nominate an article for deletion and then type five or six words and wait to see if an article will be deleted, whereas it takes more time to refute nominations. Perhaps there should be more sophisticated criterion to nominate articles for deletion. As it is now, anyone can nominate any article without providing a just rationale for doing so, and can instead simply base the nomination upon basic, generic and inspecific statements such as "doesn't pass general notability guidelines", while not specifically stating which parts of the guidelines they are supposedly referring to. If nobody comes along to correct an injust or baseless nomination, the article is then deleted based upon unqualified, general statements that don't actually correspond with the required source searching per WP:BEFORE prior to nominating an article for deletion. This definitely makes it very easy for people to censor Wikipedia, for whatever subjective reasons. Here's how it's done: an article is nominated for deletion and an AfD entry is created, a generic rationale is provided to misqualify the deletion without actually checking for reliable sources to establish topic notability. Afterward, if nobody comes along to correct the faulty nomination, the article is deleted. It's also easy for people to message one-another to delete articles, often per an "as per nom" rationale, while disregarding the actual notability of topics. If nobody comes along and provides an objective analysis to refute the deletion of an article in which the topic is actually notable, nominated per generic statements and without the required source searching prior to nomination, then the article disappears. Hopefully Wikipedia can introduce better checks and balances to prevent this type of easily accomplished, simple censorship. One idea is to include a requirement prior to article nomination for deletion in which the nominator has to state, or check-box on a template, that they've performed the required minimum search in Google Books and in the Google News Archive required by WP:BEFORE, and in Google Scholar for academic subjects, as suggested in WP:BEFORE. This would be a simple addition to the AfD nomination process that would add significant integrity to the process, and would also encourage users to follow the proper procedures.

Please place responses regarding this matter here on this WikiProject Inclusion Discussion page below, rather than on my personal talk page. In this manner, other users can view and respond to responses. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Please refer to: Wikipedia talk: Articles for deletion — Checks and Balances in the Articles for Deletion Nomination Process.

Freedom of Association x Wikipedia:Canvassing

(I should clarify that this post was originally written in Portuguese and translated by google translator, which is why some parts may be difficult to understand)

Dear Comrades Inclusionists of Wiki-en.

Reported that on January 2, 2012 took an initiative to create an Association of Wikipedians Inclusionist of pt-wiki.

On the same day came on the Esplanade proposal to raise the test Wikipedia: Requests to the recommendation, the proposal is now about to enter vote

I object that this test is elevated to this high because I think it would prevent some Wikipedians dissatisfied with political campaigns wiki do to change these policies, which restrict the Freedom of Association of Wikipedians.

In this context I inquired as Wikipedia: Canvassing affects the acting of Association of Wikipedians Inclusionist.

Report that such a response is important for the discussion of the proposal described above.

You can respond in English that I read with Google Translator.

Texto original em português:

Liberdade de Associação x Wikipedia:Canvassing

Prezados Camaradas Inclusionists da Wiki-en.

Relato que em 2 de janeiro de 2012 tomei uma iniciativa tendente à criação de uma Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians of wiki-pt.

No dia mesmo dia surgiu na Esplanada proposta elevar o ensaio Wikipédia:Solicitação à recomendação, atualmente a proposta está prestes a entrar em http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Vota%C3%A7%C3%B5es/Recomenda%C3%A7%C3%A3o_sobre_solicita%C3%A7%C3%B5es votação]

Me oponho que aquele ensaio seja elevado a essa elevação pois entendo que ele impediria que wikipedistas insatisfeitos com alguma política wiki fizessem campanhas para alterar tais políticas, o que restringiria a Liberdade à Associação de Wikipedistas.

Nesse contexto indago como Wikipedia:Canvassing afeta a atuação da Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians.

Informo que tal resposta é importante para o debate da proposta acima descrita.

Podem responder em inglês que eu leio com o Google Translator.

Raimundo57br da wiki-pt I have no record here.--189.61.126.175 (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Join inclusionists

Your invitation template has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI, the result of the deletion discussion was the the existing content of the template should be moved to the template documentation for {{Inclusionist}}. Since then, {{Join inclusionists}} has been recreated as a more obvious WikiProject invitation. DH85868993 (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Inclusionist-cleanup

{{Inclusionist-cleanup}} has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Inclusion at Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review of List of chess-related deaths

A 12 year old article was recently deleted on very spurious grounds - review here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_July_12

Any contributions welcome --Zymurgy (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

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)

WikiProject X is live!

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)

new idea for inclusionism

hi everyone. I have just made the following proposal which I feel relates directly to some ideas of Inclusionism. i hope you'll feel free to take a look at this idea, and to add any thoughts if you want. thanks!!

it is at: Idea Lab:new namespace: Chronicle, for recording events comprehensively.

thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Susan Nesbitt

I AM RESPONDING TO THE IDEA OF INCLUSIONISM -

NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO BE "INCLUDED" IN

 E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G   ALL OF THE TIME ....

SOME OF US "WEIRDOS" LIKE TO

  C-H-O-O-S-E   WHAT WE WANT TO BE INCLUDED WITH.

SUSAN NESBITT

PITTSBURGH, PA

Above text (attributed to 2600:1:91c0:188d:7f82:f730:4f82:52c2) transferred from the project page by: Thewellman (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Status as of 2020

It looks like there are no inclusionists in village pump. Is WikiProject Inclusion dead already? 84.120.7.178 (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:Thewellman)

Hello, Thewellman. Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion is believed to be inactive. It looks like you sympathize with inclusionism, but do not take an active role in this project. Thus, I will move you to the list of inactive participants after a month. Feel free to move back to the list of active participants when you are ready to contribute. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:84.120.7.178)

I have noticed your seemingly non-inclusive activity regarding the WikiProject Inclusion membership list. I'm puzzled as to why you regard me as inactive, and where you found that activity criteria. Thewellman (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:Thewellman)

Where do you want to have this discussion? 84.120.7.178 (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I have transferred our discussion to the WikiProject Inclusion talk page to invite comments by other project members. Thewellman (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

In this edit[3] 84.120.7.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) declared themselves to be the maintainer of this project. I am in the process of removing all "maintainer"-related edits. An editor is not allowed to take over a wikiproject and start removing people without first having a discussion on the Wikiproject talk page and asking whether the other participants want a "maintainer", much less electing that user. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

J 1982, Jpbowen, and Nutiketaiel, now is the time to prove that you are active participants. Thewellman, this is your chance to prove whether you are an inclusionist. We have this evidence:

1. Guy Macon is in favor of deleting on notability grounds.[4][5][6] Do you remember Base58, Mitar?[7]
2. Guy Macon removed himself from this project.[8]
3. I requested access to non-notable articles, an inclusionist proposal.[9]
4. You can see inclusionist editing style in my work at 2017 Summer Universiade.[10][11][12]
5. In this discussion at reliable sources noticeboard, Guy Macon took a deletionist position whereas I took an inclusionist one.[13][14]
6. My maintenance of this project has been through slow and steady editing; this is inclusionist behavior. Guy Macon has undone work quickly[15] without an effort to recover useful edits[16][17][18] or checking participants that have not edited Wikipedia for a year;[19][20][21] this is deletionist behavior.
7. Guy Macon has set up automatic archiving with parameters minthreadsleft = 0, minthreadstoarchive = 1, and algo = old(64d).[22] This configuration makes harder to detect inactivity of the project.
8. This project has been marked as inactive since 24 August 2020‎.[23] It is proof of the horrible state of the project.

The plan of deletionists is obvious: they pretend Wikipedia is unbiased by showing a healthy inclusionist opponent, but this opponent is weak or non-existent in reality. Are you going to let deletionists control this WikiProject? 84.120.7.178 (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)