Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scottalter (talk | contribs) at 00:40, 18 February 2013 (→‎WikProject category categorization: any one else?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    WikiProject Council
    Overview Council page
    Coordination
    Directories

    Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
    Shortcut

    WPCANADA

    WP:CANADA is requiring the replacement of the banners of other projects without the consultation of the members of those projects. Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Assessment says that WPTORONTO, WPMONTERAL, WPVANCOUVER, WPOTTAWA banners should be removed and replaced. There has never been such an agreement. Indeed when the WPCANADA banner was expanded with the city projects as a flagged additional project there was not supposed to be a replacement drive, as seen in the old page version. Why can't projects use their own banners, why are we forced to use WPCANADA's banner? When WPCANADA added these projects to their banner, it was without the consent of the projects in question, or even informing them. Now, WPCANADA seek to replace these banners without the consent or even informing them that this is even happening. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not seeing where CANADA says to replace banners for the four cities. In fact, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Assessmentthe page in your link seems to respect the four cities in their choice to have a separate rating. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just would like to correct the IP's comments - dont like guess work or dishonesty. We have had many many talks on the matter starting in 2007 till 2010 - I will agree not all liked the idea of merged templates - but here we are years latter still moving forward with this idea. You will note that the City projects still have there banners.Moxy (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A simple check of the talk archives for the four city projects show no notice given about replacement of their banners with the WPCANADA banner. The archives do show that the four city projects were added without the consent of the city projects. Further "Ones labelled Half Done may use either the Canada banner or their original banner." shows a replacement drive by WPCANADA, since it wouldn't be "half done" without being under a replacement drive. A discussion amongst only WPCANADA people without discussions with the various city projects would be a move without consultation of the city projects. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We have even tlak about redirecting the tlak pages (to no avail) What is your intention with the post? Are you expeting thoses that participate and work on the projects to change eveything that has taken place since 2010- beause you came along and did not like what has happend?Moxy (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion on redirecting the talk pages DID NOT INFORM the city projects at all. That is clearly imperial hubris is nothing is. To eliminate the city project's own discussion areas without bothering to post a message saying that another project was about to destroy its community area is the height of high handedness. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Could we get you to look more carefully before commenting - as again your assertion is wrong - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ottawa#Proposal to redirect Canadian related project talk pages - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vancouver/Archives/2#Proposal to redirect Canadian related project talk pages.Moxy (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A similar discussion is archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Archive 16#Scope of WikiProject United States (January 2011).
    —Wavelength (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Previous discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council/Archive_15#WikiProject_Canada at the time the projects were originally added to WPCANADA shows no move towards replacement of the banners, but now the instructions at WPCANADA shows such at the very least, an implicit drive to replacement with the Half Done labelling. It was at the end of 2010, so after the so called discussions, which never occurred at the city projects (check their talk archives), and which came to the conclusion that the city project banners would not be replaced. If the drive from 2007-2010 is for replacement from a WPCANADA point of view, and without consultation of the city projects, and at the end of 2010, it was agreed to not replace the city project banners, but now we have a claim originating from 2007 that such a drive is taking place, how is the appropriate action? This shows years of non-consultative replacement by WPCANADA. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What outcome are you looking for here - reverting of thousands of edits for many mnay editors over years? Some sort of actions for thoses that have actualy worked for and on the projects your tlaking about? Pls explain what YOU think the rest of us should do.Moxy (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly, the restoration of the city project banner on all High and Top importance articles, since they are almost always considered low importance by WPCANADA, and the city importances do not appear at all under the WPCANADA banner without expanding them, and are not colour coded unlike the WPCANADA importances, so clearly degrading the usefulness of those ratings since they have low visibility. I would like to do that for all mid-importance articles as well, but Top and High are should all be restored. Also all articles where the only taskforce activated is the city projects should revert to just having the city projects banner, since there's no point in a WPCANADA banner if the only project involved from the WPCANADA bouquet is that of the city projects. Since many of these city-only activated WPCANADA banner instances are not really of Canada wide concern, being primarily local concerns (hence only having the city switches activated) there's not really a point in having the WPCANADA banner. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As a person that participants and maintains this projects - I am simply not sure about the above assessment. Articles like Ottawa would be relevant to both projects as with many articles like List of National Historic Sites of Canada in Ottawa or National Capital Region (Canada). If projects like Ottawa had more involvement I would say this sound good - but this is not the case. If we were to have less templates on a talk page all ratings would be seen like at National Capital Region (Canada) - the problem we have is to many tags on talk pages that is confusing for our editors. Moxy (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles like Ottawa have multiple taskforces signed on, so would still have the WPCANADA banner. But since it is the TOP-importance article for WPOTTAWA, it should have its own banner displayed. Many articles that are high or top importance to a city project end up with a low importance at the WPCANADA banner, and the city importances do not show up when the banners are collapsed, so it makes it appear to editors that those topics are not important to the city projects at all. This would mean that discussions about those articles might not have notice passed to the city projects (or WPCANADA for that matter, since it's rated as low importance) and might occur at say WPSHOPPINGMALLS. Shopping malls are important to the local community but in the national scheme of things are not important. The use of the WPCANADA banner obscures the importance to the local community, and makes it look like the locally focused wikiproject thinks it is unimportant as well, even if it's rated Mid or High, because under the collapsed banner view, that doesn't show through. Since this type of topic would only be important to the city project and not any other project on the WPCANADA banner, there's not real benefit from the WPCANADA banner as it just hides the relative importances, and makes the city project something that doesn't matter, thus reducing activity there, and reducing notice given to members of the project and WPCANADA as well, since those members of both the city project and WPCANADA won't have every page watchlisted, but a notice going to WPSHOPPINGMALLS may be missed by editors focused on local shopping malls. Whereas as a highly visible high-importance may garner a notice to the city wikiproject. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 06:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As an editor who is uninvolved in Canadian affairs, it appears to me that there is a rather simple solution to this whole thing. Tweak the WPCanada banner so that the importance labels appear for each subproject/taskforce. You could even have a small color-coded swatch for each of these. My limited experience with the Canadian projects showed me that most of the subprojects are far from active, so having some cooperation in tagging and assessments would be beneficial. –Mabeenot (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for presenting a solution - Sounds more then logical to me - I would support this concepts.Moxy (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WPMED's banner is set up to list separate priority/importance ratings per task force, and that might make a reasonable model. Scott Alter's the go-to guy for WPMED's banner, and he's really nice, if someone needs to ask for help doing the same thing. Otherwise, BannerMeta's talk page is probably the best place for such questions.
    In general, WPCANADA can't force the removal of any other group's banner—but whether to have a separate banner is a decision for each of those groups, not just one person. If the unregistered editor believes that it's really important to have separate banners, he needs to go talk to each group and get the entire group to decide that they really want to maintain separate banners. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the words WAID. This page is on my watchlist, I wasn't following this specific discussion until my name popped up. I gave it a quick read through, so here's my outsider opinion looking in. Just to summarize, the "cities" projects believe that WPCANADA is trying to minimize the other projects' roles by using 1 encompassing banner instead of several. First, you need to consider the purpose of WP banners. Is it really to "advertise" the importance of the page to the project? How many readers not previously aware of WikiProjects look at just one banner on a random talk page, and think "this article is really important, so I should edit it"? My guess is close to zero. WP banners might lead a reader to the Wikipedia namespace world of WikiProjects. If a reader gets this far, they'll investigate the various projects and settle on what interests them. My belief is that the purpose of banners is two-fold. 1) to say that a specific group of people are interested on working on the article (so a reader can join, if interested) and 2) to automatically categorize the article by class and importance/priority. Existing members of a project are not searching through talk pages to find out which articles the project prioritizes - they go right to the assessment tables, categories, and toolserver.
    So with that mindset, looking at the WPCANADA banner situation, I don't see why everything couldn't be within {{WPCANADA}}. Almost all articles within the scope of a Canadian city project are likely to be within the scope of WPCANADA. Functionality-wise (links to project pages and article categorization), there is no reason not to merge. But from an advertising perspective, a city project would be relegated to a task force line. With the formatting of {{WPBannerMeta}}, there is minimal customization available of a task force line. I'm not involved in the programming of that template, but I have used it extensively. AFAIK, the image on the left cannot be "dynamically" changed. However, the text stating "This article is supported by x (marked as x-importance)." can be customized. Since it takes any markup, a background color should be able to be applied to select text. So if you want "x-importance" to have a background with the corresponding importance color, that could be done (although I don't think this customization should be necessary to a project). --Scott Alter (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Lacking MOS

    I apologize if this is the wrong place for this but, I will try to keep it brief in comparison to the resulting problems of a missing MOS. I made an attempt on the talkpage for the specific needed MOS here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Dutch_and_German_surnames_van_.26_von The resulting problem without this seemingly minor guideline has left an opening for a particular editor to WP:hound my edits based on their misinterpretation of a guideline. I get it - when it comes to making little difference between upper and lower case "V" in a Dutch surname. In fact I totally agree with the other editor that stated "it is no big deal". The problem starts when after I either start an article or work within one and I use the proper lower case "v" that very same editor follows my tracks and contributes only by capping the "V" or changing namespaces the same way. Basically saying the proper way is in their mind "wrong" so they change it unilaterally to fit their mis-interpretation. The editor has repeatedly claimed that surname is "Anglicized" but has fallen short when asked for references to support their theory....JGVR (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This sounds like it should be at WP:DRN or WT:MOS. You may find more help there. --Izno (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a post at MOS and the other editor refuses to participate in DRJGVR (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was deliberate in my link. One of the ways to get help is to ask for people to weigh in on a question. Leaving a link at the main WT:MOS page that you would like feedback on your topic is a way to do that, so long as your request is neutrally worded. And if the user is really hounding you, then you will undoubtedly be able to get some help at ANI or elsewhere. This is still the wrong page to be asking for help at. --Izno (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    A-class cats

    See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_16#Empty_A-class_categories for a proposal to delete about a thousand empty A-class categories. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this a wikiproject?

    Wikipedia:Consumer Reports calls itself a wikiproject, but it does not manage any articles. Should it be reclassified? RockMagnetist (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The various cleanup projects don't manage articles either. Personally, I think that WikiDepartments should be revived as a distinction from WikiProjects. ARS, GOCE, FUN, WikiProject Templates, WikiProject Categories, WikiProject Redirects, WikiProject Deletion, would then be WikiDepartments. Thus Consumer Reports would become a WikiDepartment. But as there is no distinction currently, I don't see how this is different from various other things I just listed that are called WikiProjects. -- 70.24.246.233 (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:PROJ: "A WikiProject is a group of editors that want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia." Is there a group of people at that page who want to work together to improve Wikipedia? If so, then they're a WikiProject. It is not necessary for them to call themselves "WikiProject ____". (If they're not in the directory, you should feel free to add them.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Input needed on activating an importance parameter

    Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment does not have the importance parameter activated. A number of editors have express surprise about it. See Template talk:WikiProject Environment and Template_talk:WikiProject_Environment#Display_importance for the !voting. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Some projects have intentionally chosen to leave out the importance paramater as it can lead to friction between editors with different opinions about an article's importance. "Importance" is inherently a subjective opinion. Roger (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. But it seems we have almost got a consensus but the admin is not altering the protected template because there has not been enough recent discussion. It seems we don't have many actives editors at WikiProject Environment so there is not a lot of discussion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Done -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Project task force to do lists

    You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:WPBannerMeta/hooks#Project task force to do lists. -- Trevj (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48 -- Trevj (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    WikProject category categorization

    Spurred by recent discussion about how to categorize the eponymous WikiProject categories (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science#Parentage and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 24#Category:WikiProject Medicine descendant projects), I'd like to propose an improvement to the WikiProject categorization within Category:WikiProjects. Currently, WikiProjects are categorized by a combination of "type/descriptive" (as in Category:Science WikiProjects) and parentage. Some projects can be found within a descriptive category, while others require searching through categories of other WikiProjects to look for your target project. I believe that an eponymous category for a project should only contain content that a project would like to manage...a completely separate project should not necessarily be within a different project's category hierarchy. Not all projects claim to have "parents" or "children", but "related" projects. Often, when a project's category needs to be categorized, it is just dumped in the main category of another project.

    Rather than forcing a project to have parents and children to facilitate categorization, why not make categories for the headings in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. Essentially, the Directory is a categorization of projects by topic, so why not have the categorization parallel this? We already have many of the topic categories in use (Category:Art WikiProjects‎, Category:Culture WikiProjects‎, Category:Environment WikiProjects‎, Category:Geographical WikiProjects‎, Category:History WikiProjects‎, Category:Humanities WikiProjects‎, to name a few). This way, all of the projects categories can be easily found by category, no guessing is required as to parentage, and every project can have control of all content within their project's eponymous category. I realize this would be a large undertaking, but as the projects are poorly categorized now, it is something that can be slowly phased in, one topic area at a time. --Scott Alter (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If there is a "parent" WikiProject with a category (e.g. Category:WikiProject Fauna), the new category should be made a subcategory of that as well.

    I'm just providing this for context, not in support of any particular viewpoint. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I think reducing clutter in eponymous categories is not a very important issue. As much clutter occurs because there is no consistency in choosing what should appear in the parent category - the wikiproject main page, the eponymous category, or both.
    I think the biggest advantage of this proposal is that it leaves projects free to choose the most appropriate categorization. For example, in the Directory there is a table of Geosciences wikiprojects, but there is no WikiProject Geosciences and therefore no Category:WikiProject Geosciences. But is this is worth the effort involved? First, a lot of wikiprojects should be notified about this discussion so that there is a clear consensus for change. Then, if there was consensus, someone would need to do the recategorizing. That's a lot of work. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Any other thoughts? I don't think it is a major issue, but it is something that occasionally comes up. And each project should be able to decide how to organize its eponymous category. I don't want to change how projects organize their own pages - just how the eponymous categories are categorized. Therefore, this shouldn't require the consensus of all WikiProjects. I think it is akin to reorganizing the Directory - something that is within the scope of the Council and discussion should be here. If no one else has any suggestions, I may just be bold and give it a shot within some of Category:Science WikiProjects as a start - specifically the health-related projects, which I contribute to. --Scott Alter (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Database reports/New WikiProjects

    I recommend that all watchers of this page also watch Wikipedia:Database reports/New WikiProjects.
    —Wavelength (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Redundant WikiProject?

    I think the wiki project Wikipedia:WikiProject Kingdom of Hungary, that was created a couple of days ago, is unnecesary. We already have a wiki project named Wikipedia:WikiProject Hungary and I don't see why we would create a wiki project for each form of government of a country.

    Even now Wikipedia:WikiProject Hungary is kind of inactive, I don't think we should split it TransylvaniaRomania (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:WikiProject Kingdom of Hungary was started by User:AnyWay5000, who may be unaware of the existence of Wikipedia:WikiProject Hungary. Please mention this anomaly to that editor.
    —Wavelength (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt it, cause all the articles that he included into the project already belonged to Wikipedia:WikiProject Hungary. So he most probably saw the banner on those talk pages. TransylvaniaRomania (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A WikiProject is a group of people, not a subject area. If there are two groups of people, then they may continue to work separately or they may merge together, exactly as they choose. If there aren't two groups of people, then there actually aren't two WikiProjects. There's just someone pretending to be a WikiProject (very probably because he doesn't realize that a WikiProject is defined as being "a group of people" and not "a page that says 'WikiProject' at the top"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you recommend me to ask User:AnyWay5000 to leave his new single user- project and join Wikipedia:WikiProject Hungary, where there are more participants? Is it a appropriate action if I remove the banners that he added to different articles? TransylvaniaRomania (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to always assume good faith, but I would like to point out that there is a dispute ongoing at Talk:History of Vojvodina which originated with a user trying to remove WP:Hungary from the page. This has escalated to a bunch of socks adding various WPs willy-nilly to the page and/or trying again to remove WP:Hungary. And, strangely, about the same time these socks appeared, User:AnyWay5000 appears and creates WP:Kingdom of Hungary as his first edit... and it promptly gets added to Talk:History of Vojvodina. (Apparently the Serbians would prefer that to WP:Hungary.) Sigh. Brianyoumans (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, this is now the subject of a thread at WP:ANI. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifically, this thread.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject Kingdom of Hungary at WP:MFD. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for comment on physical determinism

    To clarify the usage of physical determinism, I have posted a request for comment. Brews ohare (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Are WikiProjects Language Specific or do they Overlap?

    Hi there. I've been engaging in discussion with the WikiProject Medicine community and have a couple questions that pertain to the logistical landscape and ability to intercommunicate with specific WikiProjects in different languages within Wikipedia. I'm posing the question here because I'm assuming the Council has a broad view of the community landscape and you may have gotten these sort questions before.

    But before that, here is some background on my experiment, which I hope to build-out with community buy-in. The project is intended to collaborate with others to surface and generate knowledge as it relates to Regional Variations in Standards of Care; regions are intended to be country-specific and standards of care means how disease states are tackled and treated in different regions. Many countries view and tackle disease states differently (whether it be due to cultural, societal, economic or other reasons, and this type of information is not readily available for all to view in one standardized place). One can think of this looking something similar to the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care, but on a global scale. I've created mock-up articles that model the inclusion of Regional information and have vetted it past the community in WikiProject Medicine. Here are the mock-up articles I created: Epidemiology of Hypertension, Diagnosis of Hypertension, Management of Hypertension. In doing so, articles could potentially build out to discern the variations in health care that exist by country and by disease state. The questions below will help me better understand the constructs within Wikipedia that would allow one to connect Wikipedians from different countries on one specific effort.

    1. Is WikiProject Medicine specific to the English Version of Wikipedia?
    2. Or put another way, does each language have its own version of WikiProject Medicine?
    3. Or does WikiProject Medicine span across all Wikipedia language domains?
    4. Is there a tagging method that allows for people within those languages to partake in a regionally specific, yet globally collective project?

    My assumption, in the above, is that most Wikipeidans supporting a certain Wikipedia language domain currently reside, or at least better understand the variations, within that specific region of the world, respective of language.

    I appreciate your any feedback and guidance I can get to move forward. Thanks. GT67 (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like an interesting project. I hope you're aware that there are lots of inaccuracies in Wikipedia articles - although we're constantly working to improve them!
    1. Yes. Have a look at the bottom of the navigation bar on the left of WikiProject Medicine - you'll see links to medicine wikiprojects in other languages.
    2. See 1.
    3. See 1.
    4. None that I'm aware of.
    RockMagnetist (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:KIS label

    Your WP:Keep It Simple label, {{User label WPCouncil}} is in danger of being deleted. See (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 6#Template:User_label.) If you still want it, you may wish to move it to project space, perhaps a redirect page Template:Label_WPCouncil or Template:Label_WikiProject_Council by placing {{db-move|Template:User label WPCouncil|[[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 February 6#Template:User_label]]}} above the redirect. Also see {{user label}} for technical details. Feel free to review my planning page, User:PC-XT/KIS, and talk there if you have questions. PC-XT (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council&oldid=538798471"