Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

WT:COUNCIL

A new class for Featured media

I just wanted to let you know that a new class for Featured media (Images, sounds and videos) has been created and added to allow WikiProjects to track the featured media. --Kumioko (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is kinda a big deal. Should we include it in the next WikiProject Report? -Mabeenot (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. If you want to see an example just take a look at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/United States articles by quality statistics. A couple of folks are going to be adding bannes to the applicable files over the next few days. There are other projects interested as well but WPUS is the first out of the shoot so to speak. --Kumioko (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WPConservatism has been using it for quite some time. They may be righties, but they're pretty savvy. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tool, bot?

Is there a tool or bot to create the recent changes list for WikiProjects? --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 00:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I know that there's a toolserver script to generate such lists (http://toolserver.org/~tim1357/cgi-bin/wikiproject_watchlist.py), but I'm not sure what, if anything, can create them on-wiki. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That bot just generates a list of pages transcluding a WikiProject banner, so in theory that same list can just be dumped to wiki, allowing the use of MediaWiki's built-in recent changes feature. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would you do that? --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 01:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how it works, but Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Recent changes shows the most recent changes to WPMED's articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is a bot for Recent changes. Its Femto Bot run by Rich Farmbrough. I asked him if he could do this for WikiProject United States and its been working quite well. If you take a look at the Members page of WikiProject United States you can see a list of the other bots we use as well as what they do and who runs them. There are several more requests pending for various things so if you check back from time to time you will see new ones added. Femto Bot creates the Recent changes page under the project so that the articles can be viewed through the link like WhatamIdoing gave as an example. --Kumioko (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Rich. Thank you all for helping. I appreciate it. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 01:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Bot request for assessing articles

Folks here might like to consider some of the ideas being kicked around at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Project_template_fixes_and_assessment. On the list is the possibility of a bot to repair articles that are incorrectly tagged as being "Redirect" class when they're not redirects, or a normal article class (e.g., "Stub") when it's actually a redirect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of WikiProject watchlists (alphabetical)

I think we need to update this listing of projects. It hasn't been updated since December 2010 and there has been a lot of activity with regards to deleting projects. I recommend if a project is deleted that it be lined out or marked in some way rather than just straight deleted though. That will help to keep track of those that succeeded and failed over time. --Kumioko (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That list is more than a list of WikiProjects; it is a list of WikiProject watchlists.

If your interest is in there being an up-to-date alphabetical list of WikiProjects, then I recommend that the list at http://toolserver.org/~svick/projects.txt be copied to the Wikipedia namespace as Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects (alphabetical) (shortcut: WP:LWPA), wikified, and updated weekly according to Wikipedia:Database reports/New WikiProjects. If your recommendation of lining out or somehow marking deleted WikiProjects on that list is applied, then watchlists of failed WikiProjects can be simply deleted from the list of WikiProject watchlists. Maybe User:Svick and User:Tim1357 can collaborate on Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects (alphabetical).

—Wavelength (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[I am inserting the underlined text.—Wavelength (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)][reply]

Possible revitalization of the core biographies group

I have made a few comments on the talk page of the main Biography WikiProject about the possible expansion of the core biographies group to include more articles. There is a significant problem with the proposal however. There is a very good book on Human Accomplishment which lists some 4,002 of the most influential and frequently discussed people in some areas of human endeavor. It however omits lists of people in business, sports, government/politics/law, religion, and some other topics. There are a few other books listing the "big names" in at least some of those fields, and a published series by Gale which includes some 7,000 biographies. So far, there hasn't been much if any response on the talk page, so it might well be a dead matter, but I was wondering if anyone here might be willing and or able to maybe help to see if the group can or should be revitalized, and, if so, whether they would be willing to help do so. John Carter (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Biography WikiProject has probably been the most spectacular failure in the history of Wikipedia. How many articles has the project bannered? A million or more? How many articles has it edited? None in the fields in which I am active. IMO the project needs to be completely revamped to concentrate on technical editing and style matters relating to biography. --Klein zach 03:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original motivation of the Biography project involved, at least to some extent, BLP related issues. There are now separate groups and noticeboards for that specific topic. However, during the time that there were individuals willing and able to spend a significant deal of time working with it, I believe it was rather effective. The problem is, basically, finding such people, and that is the big problem for a lot of projects. But I do think that perhaps a specific group for the most significant biography articles, some of which might not necessarily be related to many if any other active groups, might be one of the few ways to bring real attention to such articles. John Carter (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least in my own opinion, one of the ways to make projects more likely to be successful, and maybe make it easier for interested editors to develop relevant content, would be if the main topics of the group have one or a few highly-regarded reference sources of comparatively easy accessibility to a lot of editors which could be used to help determine which are the best sources relevant to the topic, give some idea of the current consensus regarding content, etc. Honestly, in general, such sources are difficult to find, or even print, on a topic like "biography" which pretty much by definition has relevant content containing, for at least some articles, every day. Maybe one way to make it more effective would be to make its content contributions centered on some articles which are included in such reference sources, maybe like the two I mentioned above. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question that won't die

Editors here may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should_WikiProjects_have_a_maximum_size.

NB that the question is "Should we prohibit any single group of editors from caring about more than ____ number of articles?", not "Should we prohibit more than ____ number of editors from working together?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree why would we limit our editors from collaborating in anyway? As noted on the Council-guide bot alerts notifications for deletion, RfC, disputed etc.. will be seen thus participated in by many projects and more editors. All this is a plus. Founding principle #4 say - creation of a welcoming and collegial editorial environment. Jimbo has stated in the past - Wikipedia's success to date is entirely a function of our open community'. So lets let our editors decide what they would like to collaborate on and in what way. Moxy (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project proposals: Not required but recommended

There should be something worked into the descriptions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals which indicates that proposing a project there is absolutely not a requirement for creating a new project, but rather a place to determine if there are others out there interested in working on the same topic. There are quite a few active projects which were never run through the Council, and the Council is overstepping its bounds if it is seeking to monopolize the WikiProject creation process. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

It's important to emphasize that proposing a project on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals is highly recommended even if it isn't mandatory. There are fewer and fewer new projects that are viable. Almost all subjects are now covered. --Klein zach 14:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if your last claim can be supported as you keep proposing and supporting deletion of the very projects you claim already exist. I already answered your first claim in my comments. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What we are looking for here is positive contributors. The statement above and others (above here) were you are going out of your way to insult all those involved in one of the biggest projects is not a good approach. You are more then welcome to your own opinions but it gets tiresome to see your negative attitude towards the projects all the time. Are you sure this is an area of Wikipidia that you really would like to help Kleinzach? All your contributions are greatly appreciated just wish you approach the projects in a different light.Moxy (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell who you're directing your comments at, but if it's me, I'm certainly not going out of my way "to insult all those involved in one of the biggest projects" (and I'm not even sure which project you mean). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was not clear it was meant for Kleinzach. Moxy (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy: You've started at least two projects without proposing them: WikiProject Santana and WikiProject The Supremes (both now effectively inactive). If you oppose the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals process then please just say so. --Klein zach 01:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You keep puting your foot in your mouth - Yes I did make them by request for the 10 time- and its to bad you killed them as fast as you could. You have stated in the past you hate this type of music so is this why you tag the projects inactive after 5 months? Pls read the guide and understand it!!!!.Moxy (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy: All completely untrue. I've never even heard Santana — let alone expressed an opinion about him/them. --Klein zach 01:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nihon Joe, we've gone back and forth over exactly how to present it. The proposal process is not mandatory.

However... a large proportion of the proposals are from inexperienced editors—people who don't even realize that they are proposing to create projects that already exist, for example. The track record for "projects" started by emboldened but inexperienced individuals is extremely poor. They seem to think that all they have to do is make a page and tag a few articles, and suddenly they'll have dozens of friends helping them. It simply doesn't work that way. They're disappointed by the lack of response and often end up leaving Wikipedia.

So if we explicitly tell them that the proposal process is strictly optional, then they might be more likely to skip it, and thus lose out on critical feedback (like "That project already exists").

For others, I assume that experienced editors already know basic facts, like MILHIST already exists, or that a single person can't be a WikiProject unto himself—and that IAR is policy. IMO those editors can and will boldly create whatever groups they want, without us needing to hang out a sign that says "Editors are permitted to work together without written permission from the participants in WikiProject Council". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think wording it as "strongly recommended, and here's why..." would work. If people choose to ignore it, and half-create a project which then promptly dies, it can be deleted. I don't think we should be implying (as the current wording does) that it is required to go through this process. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont we make it clear the process will help find collaborators because it will be seen by those involved with other projects. Tell our editors its not at all mandatory, while at the same time implying is a great benefit to do so. thus is a process that can help them get members.Moxy (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the "...and here's why..." part of what I was suggesting above. :) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mason County

This looks more like an article, but I'm no expert on WikiProjects. It's created by a new account.... Dougweller (talk) 07:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was basically a copy of our article by a sockpuppet, so deleted. Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of sub project pages

I see that a few of our project editors have been nominating there own sub pages for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. This I would say is not the best way of going about this. This sub pages should be dealt with by the projects themselves (as they know best). Projects are free to delete their pages after a deletion discussion. They simply need to talk about it, come to a decision and then apply {{db-xfd|votepage=link to closed deletion discussion}} and/or one of the other templates of this nature located at G6. Technical deletions - Uncontroversial maintenance. I think we should add this info to the guide on how to deal with sub-pages that this projects think are useless. Any thoughts? Should me make a special template for this process?Moxy (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It certainly is preferable for projects to manage all their own pages, but project editors should be allowed to make Mfd nominations if they feel there is some advantage to using this process, because the project is inactive or whatever. --Klein zach 08:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your saying - you agree they can delete them on there own without going to Mfd, but you dont want to let them know how to do so? I made no mention of stooping use of Mfd were appropriate. Moxy (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we still have over 1500 projects not counting subprojects and task forces. The reason this is happening now is because we just stuffed it in the garage and shut the door over the last few years and now its gotten to a point were we need to clean out the garage. Many of these have been long since forgotten, styles have changed, interests have changed. We need to do this housecleaning so we can focus on the projects and articles that need the attention rather than distract editors with non projects that are unlikley to be revived. --Kumioko (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about projects not having to go to Mfd to delete there own pages. I saying I think adding a note to the guide telling our editor that "if they like" they dont have to go to Mfd to delete there own pages. I guess I was not clear as to what I was proposing. Moxy (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you propose adding these points:

Projects with a page they no longer need or want may take the page to MFD.
Projects with a page they no longer need or want may alternatively (entirely their choice) use {{db-xfd}} to request deletion (or even have some participant who happens to be an admin delete it).

I have no objection to this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i was not clear - I should have made the proposal in the style you have just done. Yes what your saying it what i am proposing . Only thing is I think the {{db-xfd}} choice should be first. We should make it clear that projects are free to manage this sub-project on there own.Moxy (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps instead of telling them that they "should" use db-xfd, we will only tell them that it's quicker, simpler, and a more efficient use of the community's limited resources. I think that's likely to produce the results you want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes your correct - "they" should choose whats best for them.Moxy (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I often delete WikiProject Japan pages we no longer need or which are superceded by other pages. Without any MfD. Nominating for MfD is just process for process' sake, which is just stupid and pointless. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its only stupid and pointless because you don't like it. It has a purpose and that is to allow editors to help decide if a page should or should not be deleted rather than relying on one editor to do it. Also remember that MFD isn't exclusive to WikiProject pages but a variety of other things as well. --Kumioko (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with MfD, just not when it's used abusively (all the project pages being nominated which clearly should have been simply tagged with {{inactive}}, for example). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of people who dislike MFD. It's important that the process be made available and known to groups for two reasons, though: Not all WikiProjects have an admin in the house, and it's the place to go if they don't reach a clear consensus among themselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration

Trying to create member involvement for a collaboration at WPConservatism collaboration. Any ideas? – Lionel ^(talk) 02:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Proposal: to retain good writers we need better collaboration platforms

During the Wikipedia in Higher Education summit (I was following along on Twitter via the #wihed hashtag) what Sue Gardner said about Wikipedia's coverage of the social sciences and humanities rang true for me. I've been trying hard to get some teamwork and collaboration going to help improve weak history articles (history, especially history outside of the United States and Europe are weaknesses at present) with limited success. With WikiProjects largely abandoned and useless as tools for collaboration, my only success has been through talk pages and the wikipedia-en IRC channel. So, I've created this proposal that–extrapolating from the Wikimedia Strategic Plan to 2015's call for more social and collaborative tools–aims to change the way collaboration works on Wikipedia: Proposal: Moving beyond moribund WikiProjects to a new platform for collaboration. Click the proposal for more on the WHY and the WHAT and the HOW.

This is the proposal summary:

In order to reverse the troubling trend of editors leaving Wikipedia (i.e. improve the recruitment and retention of new writers) it's necessary we move beyond moribund WikiProjects to new platforms for collaboration. This is already addressed, in part, by the "strategy:Attracting and retaining participants" portion of the current Wikimedia Strategic Plan. My proposal deals with how we get from where we are now (in en.wikipedia, littered with moribund WikiProjects) to where the Strategic Plan takes us: the introduction of more social/collaborative tools to the Wiki, including "Users would be able to join topical groups, based on their editing interests (e.g., “18th century American history)". My proposal is about how we get from here to there.

It's just a start, but your thoughts are appreciated at Proposal: Moving beyond moribund WikiProjects to a new platform for collaboration --NickDupree (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we need to promote collaborative editing. We needn't rearrange the deckchairs however as we already have the existing tools to do this. We can prominently show how to monitor recent changes of articles tagged with a wikiproject tag or some other subset. Now if I can just figure out how we did it....it can be displayed more prominently on wikiproject directories. I think creating new subject collaboration platforms is a very bad idea - we already have them for a vast number of topics and subject areas, the key is revamping (hence (1) add recentchanges with subset and (2) show folks how to tweak that to find their own recentchange subsets to monitor, and (2) folks can always monitor contribs of others tehy want to help with. 04:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

eg: monitoring category:Birds of Australia and [1] Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Re-arrange the deck chairs?" The Titanic has already sunk, my friend. So many WikiProjects are dead as it gets, Dead Parrot dead. I don't see how a recent changes display would bring back any of the dead parrots, unfortunately. I think we all need to understand that WikiProject cadavers stacked 6ft deep have a stifling effect on collaboration. The Wikipedia in Higher Education summit emphasized the need to improve the social sciences and humanities; well, WikiProject History is so flatlined and unresponsive that their "Collaboration of the month" is from October of 2007 and no response from anyone on the talk page (and this is a WikiProject listed as active). Editors new and old are left to scream into the void if we do nothing. My proposal suggests that informal collaboration pages anyone can edit replace dead WikiProjects until superseded by the Strategic Plan's "topical groups." NickDupree (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All a wikiproject needs is a few new edits to spruce it up and list the tools prominently. The tags on talk pages serve to make cats to help track recent changes to articles. e.g Wikipedia:WikiProject United States has recently been renovated after some years inactive. The collaboration has seen some article improvements there. It can be done elsewhere. I have added historical notes to various collaboration templates to give folks some idea of what is/was active when - see Wikipedia:U.S._Wikipedians'_notice_board/USCOTM and Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM/History. If you are thinking history and social sciences, can you give me an example of one subject/topic area you were thinking of in particular (I bet there are a couple...) and we can examine what already exists as a case-in-point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject History, WikiProject China and WikiProject Chinese history are dead parrots and those are my interest areas. WikiProject History, designed as an important umbrella over the related WikiProjects, is dead and most everything under it is also dead! WikiProject History's "Collaboration of the month" is from October of 2007 and inquiries get no response from anyone. Those examples fit what you meant? --NickDupree (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approach to projects - I have been here a long time and over the years have seen projects do great things. Projects do not all function in the same manner. Yes some have lots of talking - but most seem to work in the fact they simply get like minded editors together. I am involved in many many many projects and find that most projects are just a "meet and greet" place that leads to people talking on each others talk and article pages over the project pages. So yes some projects have lots of action going on there talk page - while others are more of a "find a interested editor" type page. The proposal above seem to set some strict limits and looks like it would involve much more time spent evaluating projects rather then article and actual project development. However I do like it overall - an introduction of more social element and better functionality to Wikipedia, I believe are great ideas. Not all like the social side of Wikipedia, but its essential to our growth and future prosperity, as this younger generation is much more tech savvy. Will comment more on the page itself after I read more on this (you have given us lots of links and things to think about). PS great to see some forward positive thinking.Moxy (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but what is the substantive difference between the "collaboration pages" envisioned by this proposal and the WikiProjects they aim to replace? If the only distinction between the two is the level of structure or formality involved, then I see no real need for a complex process of deprecation and replacement; editors are already perfectly free to restructure an inactive project to whatever form they find useful. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 11:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, we've got to put ourselves in the shoes of editors new and old who have no idea where to begin to revive dead WikiProjects, for example, the prospect of restructuring something as large and encompassing as WikiProject History is so daunting that I don't expect it to ever happen; we do nothing, it's likely that their "Collaboration of the month" remains stuck in 2007 for eternity. It seems far more plausible to create a separate, informal collaboration page than to wait for a rebuild that–let's be honest–is probably never coming. --NickDupree (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I might not have been very clear. I'm not suggesting that any editor be required (or even expected) to revive a WikiProject's entire existing structure; as you correctly point out, doing so for all but the simplest projects would be quite daunting for the vast majority of editors. Rather, I would merely suggest that we not create an artificial divide between the collaboration pages you suggest on the one hand and the concept of a "WikiProject" on the other; a "WikiProject", after all, is at its core nothing more than a collaboration page (or set of pages) and the associated community of editors. There is no requirement that WikiProjects have some arbitrary level of complexity, so page you suggest would still, in my view, remain a perfectly legitimate WikiProject (albeit a more streamlined one than most). Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, what I worry about is a bewildering profusion of collaboration efforts, when trying to streamline and strengthen some might be a better place to start. A key part of wikiproject United State's reactivation was cranking the collaboration into gear for a few months. It might stick, it might not. Who knows. Now of the wikiprojects you mention, the China one seems to have some (albeit a low level of) activity. I have an idea...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's your idea, Casliber? I'm all ears. --NickDupree (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick. Your proposal has created a lot of conversation, which means regardless of the outcome, you've gotten the ball rolling on improving Wikipedia. I've interviewed over 50 projects for the Signpost and understand your frustration with inactive projects. I even keep a list of interesting projects I would like to interview someday should they ever become active again. But amongst all the ghost towns and decaying infrastructure, there are some thriving metropolises. Everyone points to WP:MILHIST and WP:OREGON as examples of successful WikiProjects, but I've also encountered the vibrant communities at WP:Ice Hockey, WP:Ships, WP:Ireland, WP:Birds, WP:Cricket, and WP:Mathematics. Take a look at those projects' talk pages or see how many people have responded to our interviews over the past year. I would say that WikiProjects as a concept are far from moribund. You note that WikiProject China and the related history project are not as active as they should be. I agree. But on the other hand, I'm planning an interview with WP:Croatia, a project covering a small, non-anglophone country that still manages to have a vibrant community on the English Wikipedia. The problems with WikiProject History, WikiProject China and WikiProject Chinese history may be related to the structure of those projects. It may be that we haven't worked hard enough to recruit people with interest in those fields. It may be that these projects simply need a jumpstart like the entire space-related field received in late 2010. It could be that things need to become more centralized or decentralized, something with which WikiProject United States is currently experimenting. I'm all for better collaboration tools, but let's not toss out a bunch of projects because certain topics/communities have not produced the results we wanted. -Mabeenot (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject templates question

I searched for information about this an cannot find anywhere. Can anybody please comment on the question I put up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:65.93.15.213

A minor article about astrology is suddenly put under the WikiProject Agriculture and also Astronomy and History of Science. No comment is left in the edit summary. I don't understand this. Is it normal? Maybe this editor is working in good faith, because in some cases the added project seems appropriate, but not always.. Why can anybody put WikiProject templates on Talk pages, even when they are not member of a given Project? MakeSense64 (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, the actions you describe aren't unusual. Tagging articles for projects is a fairly routine thing to do, so editors often don't make any special effort with regard to edit summaries; and many projects either do not have formal membership lists, or allow editors who are not on such lists to take part in project activities such as tagging and assessment.

As for any specific concern regarding the validity of a particular tag, I would suggest bringing the question up on the talk page(s) of the project(s) involved. Mistaken tagging is reasonably common, and most projects are quite happy to examine the need for particular articles to be tagged in greater detail if the matter is brought to their attention. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 16:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article_tagging. There are some editors who do little except tag pages for WikiProjects. Generally, it's considered quite helpful, and having multiple projects tracking a page is desirable, although anyone could make a mistake. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good. That solves my questions. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects by size

I recently requested a sortable listing of WikiProjects by size (number of articles tagged with the project's banner) be added to the monthly database reports. Tim1357 made it happen and even produced some bonus data and percentages. The first set of results can be viewed here. Not surprisingly, BIO and MILHIST were at the top of the list, but what surprised me was everything at the bottom. Looking at the list gave me an interesting quandary: why are there so many projects with no articles at all? I know the Guild of Copyeditors and other behind-the-scenes projects don't need to assess articles, but WP:Kazakhstan should at least include Kazakhstan's article. Some of these have been reduced to task force status, but others may just have a broken banner template. It's certainly something we should have a look at. On a related note, there are several projects with only one or two articles. Is that really enough to warrant a WikiProject? Should we take steps to clean up some of these empty projects? -Mabeenot (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the others, but WP Kazakhstan certainly does have some articles. See Category:Kazakhstan articles by quality. User<Svick>.Talk(); 23:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it has something to do with Kazakhstan being grouped into the WikiProject Central Asia banner. -Mabeenot (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the statistics are correct; I get the sense that the report is based purely on pages including a particular template (and perhaps not accounting for redirects?), which presumably wouldn't show anything useful for cases where a project's categories are generated by some other banner (e.g. via a consolidated banner, through cross-project assessment, etc.). For example, the report shows MILHIST with 81,306 articles, but the actual assessment statistics indicate that the number is 114,904; the difference is, I suspect, due to a combination of template redirects and additional articles coming in through joint task forces with other projects. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having a sortable list is a good idea, but there are clearly some details that need to be worked out. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight doesn't appear at all; instead the defunct projects Space, and Human Spaceflight are listed. The correct information is already provided by the User:WP 1.0 bot, so why not just import that data into a sortable table? Mlm42 (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two additional WikiProjects that don't show up at all in this report are Wikipedia:WikiProject Appalachia and Wikipedia:WikiProject Myrtle Beach. The first of these is active; the second seems to be inactive. --Orlady (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Tim1357 was using an old database to pull this info. He's working with CBM to get access to the correct data. -Mabeenot (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check out these results. Did he fix the problem? -Mabeenot (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, yes, that looks much better. Mlm42 (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The results appear to be counting among them non-mainspace pages e.g. WP:VG only has about 25k articles, whereas the list claims ~55k. Was it intended to include all pages underneath a particular banner or simply the mainspace pages? --Izno (talk) 04:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's supposed to be all pages with a particular banner. Projects maintain many categories, files, portals, and other pages that ought to be counted. I suppose an additional column could be added to count only mainspace pages. -Mabeenot (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

using subcategories in WikiProjects

So I have a request here ready to move potentially thousands of pages to the Eclipses Wikiproject, but I'm thinking there's got to be a better thing than just having a huge article dump like that. For example Something that confuses me: Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186 has the Article space category "Solar eclipses". I would like articles like this (articles that are abouta specific solar eclipse) to have their own subcategory in the eclipse Wikiproject. Is this possible? Am I duplicating a structure that already exists? It's not clear to me how categories in Article space and WikiProject space relate, (and I'm trying to spare myself reading the wrong documentation) how to accomplish this. Thanks. --TimL (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]