Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Council
WikiProject icon This page relates to the WikiProject Council, a collaborative effort regarding WikiProjects in general. If you would like to participate, please visit the project discussion page.
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Advice Pages inclusion criteria must be met[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Could these words be added to the sentence below: "or criteria for information must be met to be included in articles".
  • "However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, "or criteria must be met for information to be included in articles"...
  • Reason: I have encountered projects that have set guidelines/criteria to meet to include information in articles, and use the criteria to reject information, regardless of other editors or regardless of WP:NPOV. The projects may be trying to minimize what they consider "trivia" or not realize they are violating WP:NPOV or think they can override WP:NPOV with a "Local Consensus" for information the project dislikes. CuriousMind01 (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Created a request for comments new section below CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help on assessment set up[edit]

I feel frustrated. I have already set up assessment systems twice (successfully), but this time, there is a problem with my set up and I can't find out what is wrong. It is probably an obvious mistake somewhere but I already spend a couple of hours on that and still can't figure out what the issue is.

Here is an exemple... Talk:Khayelitsha. As you can see... it displays the importance but not the quality... why ? My template is here : Template:WikiProject WikiAfrica Schools and the assessment page there : Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiAfrica Schools/Assessment. Why would not the quality appear ?

Thanks for your help ! Anthere (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I tried previewing the template using Talk:Khayelitsha and all looked good. Hit purge on the talk page and all was good. Just templates being templates and keeping you waiting. Cabayi (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Now... that is weird... ok.. (mind boggling). I agree the template on the article talk page looks good. Wow. You have a magic touch.
But the assessment page still does not show any quality assessment report. I just changed the quality/importance of Khayelitsha to force a reassessment in the next few hours and see if the issue is magically fixed. I'll check tomorrow. Thanks Anthere (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding a point in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide[edit]

Heya. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Purpose of WikiProject banner tags mentions that one can use tags to make a project-specific version of Recent changes by using Special:RecentChangesLinked. I'm a bit unsure how to do this though. Let's say I want to make a watchlist configured for WikiProject Politics, my first thought was that I would enter Template:WikiProject Politics into the search bar and check "Show changes to pages linked to the given page instead" or entering one of the quality categories like Category:B-Class politics articles (although that would require separate requests for each category). Doing so only returns the talk pages however, not the actual articles. I thought selecting "Talk" in the Namespace-dropdown and checking "associated namespace" would fix this, but it doesn't. Any advice or links to help pages? It seems like a really useful tool for projects. Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 16:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Automatic suggestion of topics to new drafts based on WikiProjects[edit]

Hi! I have submitted a proposal for a Wikimedia Foundation Project Grant to "automatically suggest WikiProject topics to new drafts". The proposal is called Automatic suggestion of topics to new drafts. View the proposal here and feel free to leave comments there! --Sumit.iitp (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Sculpture[edit]

Just an FYI, a handful of editors have watchlisted the WikiProject Sculpture page, and I changed the project's status from inactive to semi-active. I invite editors to help make improvements to this revived WikiProject. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment: WikiProject Advice Pages: Add criteria wording to the examples[edit]

The consensus is against including the proposed example.

Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed: In WP:ADVICEPAGE add to the examples, this example: "or guidelines/criteria must be met for information to be included in an article" as displayed here:

However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, or guidelines/criteria must be met for information to be included in an article and that other editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay.

Reasons: I have encountered projects that have set guidelines/criteria for editors to include information in articles, and editors use the guidelines/criteria to reject information, regardless of other editors and regardless of the WP:NPOV policy. The projects may be trying to minimize what they consider "trivia" or may not realize they are trying to violate WP:NPOV or may think they can override WP:NPOV with a "Local Consensus" for information the project dislikes. I think add the additional example will help educate project editors that the advice pages guidelines/criteria are not binding, as explained in the existing "However" paragraph and WP:NPOV cannot be overridden.

Additional thoughts are welcome.CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


  • Support I think adding the example will be useful to educate editors.CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Before we support or oppose... Could we get some examples of project advice where the type of behavior being discussed was an issue? (I'm not talking about giving these examples in the text... I'm talking about having examples here in the RFC, which we can use for discussion.) Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE CuriousMind01 is a tenacious edit warrior obsessed with adding "Criminal use" sections to firearm articles despite massive opposition. About two months ago he lost a discussion on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms by a 10 to 1 margin. Unfortunately, he has a win at all cost mentality. So, now in typical fashion he's ignoring consensus, forum shopping, wikilawyering, and gaming the system. He even attempted to unilaterally make this change himself, because he believes that silence equals consensus. He will most likely accuse me of personal attacks and harassment again for daring oppose him and pointing at his questionable behavior, a normal intimidation tactic of his. I will inform my fellow Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms members that he attempting to override consensus and make the Project meaningless. --RAF910 (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
    Please don't inject personality-based criticism and supposition/prediction; it's not helpful. See WP:ASPERSIONS. It just makes both sides look like editwarriors with an agenda.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  20:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as redundant, and because actual guidelines do apply, and because WP:SAL and MOS:LIST instruct us to set inclusion criteria for lists, at least when there's a pattern of adding trivia and cruft to them. The wording simply isn't right, and the rationale seems suspect to begin with. Guidelines (and policies) must actually be met for information to be included in an article. Inclusion criteria (when specified) must also be met for inclusion in a list. If the above comment is correct, and the proposer is only trying to insert one kind of section into one kind of article, this is already covered by "such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox" in the same passage; these obviously work vice versa, too; so the proposed addition would be redundant even if its wording were fixed.

    However, "Criminal use" sections excluded in firearm models' articles not because of a wikiproject conspiracy, but because there's a legitimate WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at the articles, and more broadly, that such sections aren't encyclopedic, aren't WP:NPOV, and generally are WP:OR. We do not include such sections for any other kind of device (e.g. number of fatalities in auto collisions on particular car models' articles, or estimated number of kills performed in total by a particular model of military aircraft, or guesstimate of cancer deaths per tobacco company. There is no way to accurately do such stats. E.g. for a particular gun model, there isn't any reason to expect that news that happens to mention them will do so accurately or evenly; in fact we can be certain that firearms that are sometimes [mis]classified as "assault weapons" will be much more likely to be mentioned by name than common revolver, shotgun, or hunting rifle brands, because most Western news media are editorially dominated by liberals who are proponents of legislation and enforcement against "assault weapons".
     — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  20:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose per SMcCandlish. Disclaimer - I have been involved in several of the discussions mentioned above. Springee (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this end run around the consensus at the project. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- vague and redundant; not an improvement to the current text. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Articles on criminal acts regularly mention what items were used by a criminal in committing a criminal act or acts. But, the consensus has long been that unless a particular item became notorious due to the involvement in a publicized incident, the article on such particular items never mention the trivial fact that the item was used in a criminal act by happenstance. For example, white Ford Broncos are notorious due to the OJ case, but Ford Broncos are not notorious, meriting no mention for being a preferred getaway vehicle as it was just happenstance that a Ford Bronco was used by OJ. The fact that any particular firearm happened to be use in a crime is usually just happenstance, too. Only in rare cases do firearms become notorious. The consensus has been to eliminate trivia, and cruft in firearm articles with regards to criminal acts or heroic acts done with a specific firearm model. Wikipedia is not a list. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a perfect example of forum shopping. What’s next an appeal to Jimbo? --Limpscash (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose redundant --Info-Screen::Talk 06:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - At least as-is without more context. Moreover, those are not set in stone and can still be updated by consensus when it makes sense. —PaleoNeonate – 10:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


The fix for the guns wikiproject's PROJPAGE is to reword it to state that there is a general consensus against inclusion of such sections, then cite previous discussions as evidence, rather than trying to state a "rule" against it and claim that it's a "guideline". The (pardon the pun) bulletproof approach is to host an RfC on the question at WP:VPPOL. It will be a WP:SNOWBALL against inclusion of OR-based, PoV-pushing factoids on "criminal use" and will put the matter to bed pretty much permanently, being a more solid consensus record than several previous discussions at individual articles, and much better than a WP:CONLEVEL-failing discussion at the wikiproject page which will have been dominated by pro-gun editors (I am one, so that's not a criticism, just a statement of the statistical obvious).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  20:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding User: CuriousMind01 vs User:RAF910 and issues with which editors to this discussion may have been involved. ----RAF910 (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The vast majority of WikiProjects are inactive. However, some WikiProjects are active, with excellent participation and collaboration.
I have examined the comparative activity of a representative sample of about 200 WikiProjects and have found that activity directly correlates with the project scope. The larger Wikiprojects have a greater chance of being sustainable in the medium to long term.
I have also found that a smaller WikiProject is more likely to maintain viability if it is a 'Task-force' within a larger WikiProject, than if it is isolated.
There are many hundreds of advice pages, incomplete to-do lists, lists of resources and other useful data which is effectively abandoned in isolated and difficult to search project space.
In some cases, people are editing in areas where there is/was a project, without any knowledge of the WikiProjects existence, this reduces the likelihood of an article having a relevant WikiProject banner applied to it, which further reduces the viability of the project.
There are currently over 2000 WikiProjects, it is estimated the average user is only aware of a fraction of them. Very few users include the full range of relevant WikiProject banners on a page when categorizing it.

  • Therefore I propose:
  1. All Inactive WikiProjects with limited scope are moved into larger WikiProjects to become task-forces.
  2. All new WikiProjects are recommended to incorporate as a task-force where they appear to have a limited scope also covered by an existing project.
  3. Various long-inactive WikiProjects are archived within larger WikiProjects where the information may be of use to existing editors.
  4. WikiProject banners with very limited usage are merged with a more active banner.
  5. Documentation is created to assist users in adding relevant WikiProject talk page banners to new articles.

Dysklyver 14:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

While this sounds like a great idea, it is probably unworkable as the drama surrounding the state WPs shows when they were transferred as taskforces into WP USA. Today WP often do show no or very little activity on the project pages, but the bot generated worklists are very frequently used. Agathoclea (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I am generally intending to keep the projects which have working bot lists as is (they are still active, even if marked otherwise), in theory we would keep most the active pages (determined by pageviews) as is, and consolidate historical guidance and discussion into simpler UX formats (With assistance from WikiProject X) where appropriate.
I see little point in worrying about geographical WikiProjects, they are relatively stable, indeed this is mainly to get opinions on the mass merging of the very small WikiProjects that never had much chance of viability. Obviously every merge will have to be discussed separately and this might take some time to work through. Dysklyver 10:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Strong oppose as an infrequent recoverer of projects that have been tagged - as either defunct, inactive and also as quiet and any other appellations - I believe the logic is basically flawed. In most cases projects can be recovered without merging or changing - the effort to close or force close of quiet projects is counter productive in most cases - more effort should be to recover projects - supporting processes to encourage people to become involved. Methods in ascertaining whether a project is active or inactive are highly subjective - and show that editors who get involved in this process have not in most cases ever spent the time to encourage a 'recovery' rather than close down or merge.
Also the strong oppose is when a single editor proposes such action - too much of wikipedia is changed by one editor on a mission against general practice - see the Catholicism project's current status and condition. If it is subsequently agreed by a large number of editors, similar to who attend RFA these days - different matter. JarrahTree 16:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
It probably wasnt obvious enough from what I wrote, but the part of the idea is actually to make semi-active projects More visible by including them prominently in active projects with an overlapping subject area. Another part of the idea is to merge several basically identical long inactive projects together in the hope that it will appear 'new' and 'interesting'. Both of these ideas are to make the projects more streamlined in preparation for WikiProject X. Anyway it seems easier to simply ask at each project rather than trying to do the whole lot at once. Dysklyver 19:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose As Jarrah Tree said, the logic is basically flawed. Also, the proposer tried to implement this on WP:WikiProject Espionage where it was opposed by me and one more editor as well (not JarrahTree). I am not sure how to put this in words exactly, but proposer's logic is not logical. —usernamekiran(talk) (pings not coming in, not going out) 15:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Nom Oppose After actually trying it out on a relatively obvious choice that I am reasonable knowledgeable about (WikiProject Espionage), it has become patently obvious that merging similar projects is just too difficult, indeed the only way of dealing with anything is probably to attract more editors to WikiProjects in the first place. I will continue working on what I started at WikiProject Espionage, but this idea is not otherwise going anywhere. Dysklyver 15:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Espionage[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Espionage has not been active for many years. It is considered semi-active since long. But this just regarding the project page, and talkpage. There are many users who refer to bot lists,vand some other means to find articles, and then work on it.

In last few days, A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver made some major changes (including page moves of project page(s), and redirects. Basically he was trying to apply his theory that he explained in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Problems. But now he has withdrawn the theory/attempt.

What I am here for is: what should we do with the proposal of "merger" of WikiProject Espionage, and WikiProject Mass surveillance? I think, "WP:ESPIONAGE" should be the name of the merger's result; as logically mass surveillance come under espionage. —usernamekiran(talk) (pings not coming in, not going out) 17:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a merger. Mass surveillance often has domestic implications whereas espionage is foreign-directed. If there was a merger (which I oppose) it would make more sense to call it "Government Intelligence Collection." Espionage and Mass Surveillance both fit into that concept. Still, WikiProjects exist as the consensus of editors choose to edit. We can't operate with a consensus of one editor. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually Government Intelligence Collection sounds pretty good, not least because this WP Espionage never included corporate espionage issues, therefore not being an entirely accurate title. We could use WP:GIC to include the scope of the (also seemingly inactive MilHist taskforce as well, bringing the whole set together. Dysklyver 18:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thats what I believe. Thats why I came here in the first place. In case they were/are merged, I think adding "government" in the title would not be 100% right, as there are many privately owned groups/organisations (excluding "front companies", and companies in which agencies have steaks/investment), these organisation provide services ranging from corporate espionage, political espionage, national/international/intra-national spying on government, among many others. But these are not government owned.
Anyways, I will start working on the "project" in around 20 hours from now. Once it has been stabilised, I will start working on reviving the project after around 2-3 months. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Update: @A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: you can find a brief/passing discussion about that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Espionage/Archive 1#Notability criteria for spies, and Intel officers?. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)