Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
What's a WikiProject?
A WikiProject is a group of people who want to work together. It is not a subject area, a collection of pages, or a list of articles tagged by the group.
How many WikiProjects are there?
There are approximately 2,600 WikiProjects and task forces. This includes all Wikipedia-namespace pages (other than subpages) that begin with "WikiProject" and WikiProjects and task forces with assessment categories. However, most WikiProjects lack active participants.
What's the biggest WikiProject?
Nobody knows, because not all participants add their names to a membership list, and membership lists are almost always out of date. You can find out which projects' main pages are being watched by the most users at Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProject watchers.
Which WikiProject has tagged the most articles as being within their scope?
WikiProject Biography has tagged about 1.29 million articles, making it more than three times the size of the second largest WikiProject. About ten groups have tagged more than 100,000 articles. You can see a list of projects and the number of articles they have assessed here.
Which WikiProject's pages get changed the most?
See Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by changes. These changes may have been made by anyone, not just by participants in the WikiProject.
Who gets to decide whether a WikiProject is permitted to tag an article?
That is the exclusive right of the participants of the WikiProject. Editors at an article may neither force the group to tag an article nor refuse to permit them to tag an article. See WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN.
I think a couple of WikiProjects should be merged. Is that okay?
You must ask the people who belong to those groups, even if the groups appear to be inactive. It's okay for different groups of people to be working on similar articles. WikiProjects are people, not lists of articles. If you identify and explain clear, practical benefits of a merger to all of the affected groups, they are likely to agree to combining into a larger group. However, if they object, then you may not merge the pages. For less-active groups, you may need to wait a month or more to make sure that no one objects.

19th Century Music[edit]

I am putting out some 'feelers' here about a new project. This genre is quite significant, has its own core of composers, musicians, lyricists, publishers, archives, festivals. This time period is quite fascinating and it includes the creation and performance of abolitionist songs, temperance songs, the songs of Stephen Foster and his ilk, and civil war songs. I believe this grouping of articles could very well use some improvement and collaboration for improvement on this topic. Any feedback is welcome. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Please see MOS:HEAD (sentence case) and WP:CENTURY.—Wavelength (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Barbara, Just wondering if this proposed WikiProject is US-centric? Ottawahitech (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
As a general rule of thumb, if you don't already know two or three editors who are interested in that area, then there's no point in starting the WikiProject. It would be more practical and successful to join an existing group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing, I know you believe that wp:WikiProjects are people. but... there are also a lot of w-proj tools available to projects that make them of interest to those who are not necessarily a formal part of the project. So, building a new project even without the help of others, can be useful? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me
If you don't know of people who would actually use those tools, then there's no point in setting them up. Making those tools actually work requires tagging thousands of articles. For the typical established editor, that's weeks of work that doesn't result in direct improvements to articles.
I don't (ever) care about whether anyone is "a formal part of the project". I care about whether they are participating. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


I just discovered that one can request a photo for articles belonging to wp:WikiProject Canada by using this parameter needs-photo=yes in the wproj banner. Shouldn't this be standard for all WikiProjects? Just wondering out loudthanks to Northamerica. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

Ottawahitech Yes, and more broadly, it would be nice if WikiProject Banners were more standardized. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Ottawahitech, to be honest, this information shouldn't be encoded in WikiProject banners. Adding too many features to a template causes them to become bloated and too difficult to maintain. Harej (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech, Bluerasberry, and Harej: I know nothing about banner template maintenance or the hazards with banner template bloat, but as a non-techie, I'd support an initiative to standardize the banners, and would love it if needs-photo=yes worked in all of them. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rosiestep and welcome to WikiProject Council, the central location for discussion for editors who are involved in setting up/maintaining wp:WikiProjects, I think. Please feel free to post any questions comments you have and hopefully there are experienced wproject-editors here who can help. Thanks for pinging me, by the way. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

Looks like this parameter is also available to wp:WikiProject Biography.

It's available in many, probably most. The question is whether it's preferable to have it in the WikiProject banner, or if you ought to use the plain old {{Photo requested}} template instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject X[edit]

I have been asked a few times to help fix some projects that have been affected by WikiProject X's new layout. Have been asked to add the navigational templates, current discussion section and tools back ....and fix all the white space....but have been waiting to see if the project even gets off the ground..or realizes people want these things. Where can these projects talk about this? eg Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Technology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red intro is all messed up..let alone all the white space. -- Moxy (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Moxy. Thank you for your assistance. While Wikipedia talk:WikiProject X might be a more precise venue, this page will also work. I will add a note on that talk page to cross-reference with this section.
I apologize for the troubles from the interface. They are prototypes and we specifically picked low-activity projects where the level of disruption would be minimal. (Women in Red is a case study of deploying it anew to a project that ended up becoming very popular... in the process, exposing some of the technical issues.)
Some of the issues with white space are caused by the awkward mix of old and new. The newer sections that we designed specifically is meant to use as much of the space as possible (though I understand this doesn't work consistently from browser to browser). Indeed, the replacement of the vertical table of contents with the horizontal icon row was to make more economical use of space. The older sections were simply plucked into the new design, which explains the inconsistency.
For the visual/interface problems (whitespace, unreadable intro, etc.), screenshots would help. We are aware of an issue with Internet Explorer 11, for example.
If there are specific tools people want, we do want to know. WikiProject X is only as useful as the feedback it receives. Thank you again for your help. Harej (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, please, talk about this. There is so much we need to fix, and the more you can bring to light that's affecting things, the more we have to work with to fix it. We're doing our best to work with both old and new here, but this is a huge task. -— Isarra 19:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for posting this, Moxy. I have seen WikiProjectX wp:Wall of text posted on umpteen wp:talkpages, but have not been able to engage the editor behind these postings in meaningful discussion. So thanks for opening up the discussion here. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me
As you mention Women in Red, we have had a serious issue with the membership feature which has only now been restored after problems since September. One of the problems now, even after reactivation, is that people cannot easily edit their profiles and in any case would prefer something much simpler. Can we not use a more traditional approach to members on the basis of all the other WikiProjects and the approach used for the WiR editathons?--Ipigott (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
@Isarra, more on this issue at Women in Red. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking for guidance[edit]

As a template editor and active here I keep getting asked to revert the removal of films and now actors and writers from musicians and other navboxes. But I have been reluctant to do this because in the past the members of WP:Films edit war over this claiming ownership over all templates with films in them saying that NO films should be listed in navigational aids pointing to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Navigation. I am not sure how one project can run around all over removing these valid links claiming that one type of article cant be linked despite our guideline one the matter (WP:ADVICEPAGE). I am not sure how impeding our readers ability to navigate articles is helpful...but they really think this is a good idea....looks all to be based on the fact they dont like all the templates at the bottom of pages. What is the best way forward here....what do i tell people asking for help and how can we stop all the problem raised by the projects aggressive stance that they know best. -- Moxy (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The same thing that has happened to Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers is happening to WP:Films ,,,as in people are going out of there way to avoid this project from seeing there work. WikiProject Composers has the problem for years now that people will not tag new composers articles with the project banner so members there dont see we have people avoiding adding "any navboxes" not just ones with films to actors articles because they say the film project just removes the template and removes the links aswell.....people are saying its best they dont see them to begin with. Having people go out of there way to avoid a group of editors is never a good can we solve this problem. -- Moxy (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps anyone interested in these subject areas can join the WikiProjects and ask for a review of these policies, as generally, one has "standing" if one is actually a member. If it seems that the WikiProject is not providing for an open discussion of their policies (given reasonable wait for a response), then perhaps start an RfC on the WikiProject's talk page (or in a more neutral spot) -- with this, if there is any WikiProject policy that is out of line with Wikipedia-wide policy, this can act as a corrective given there is a consensus. This is all just my understanding of course. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 22:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
(Offtopic) one has "standing" if one is actually a member I have posted to many w-projects without becoming a member, and in my experience most active w-projects appreciate input. Some are extremely helpful (WP:WikiProject Architecture comes to mind), and a few are hostile. Ottawahitech (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me
I was talking about best practices -- if you want to improve your chances of being taken seriously in a WikiProject. Certainly, many WikiProjects these days are starving for input, from members or non-members, and so will welcome it. It seems to be the case here (and thus on-topic) that the WikiProjects in question might tend to be hostile to what are differing views. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 10:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Not glad to see one of these template editors ban today..but this may get the others to look at what there doing and how much a problem it is. Content editors are getting more and more upset. -- Moxy (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Link please -- I'd like to see what has happened with that. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 17:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
@Moxy:, me too. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me
Hes editwar block is over ... I think the best thing we can do for our editors is to inform them of the problem like I did here. I hope letting people know there is a problem will stop all the questions all over. -- Moxy (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Moxy, it's been a few weeks since your last update. How is this situation now? If we need to, we can expand ADVICEPAGE to use the explicit example of navboxes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

No luck...mentioned it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Time to look at what is best!! ....all i got was a run around....playing dumb. -- Moxy (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
It's clear you got "the brush off", with others implying/pretending that your issue wasn't something significant. You may have no choice but to start a site-wide discussion about it. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 14:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I have some ideas about how this could be addressed. I think it might be helpful to provide a more thorough explanation of the freedoms that WikiProjects have (e.g., to decide what they are interested in, to organize their pages, to write essays, etc. – all of these freedoms are only extensions of what we offer every individual editor), and the rights that they don't have (e.g., to demand that their advice be followed by the rest of their community). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
That would be a good idea.. edit like this do not help our readers navigate the in fact impedes direct navigation causing readers to have only "run around links" to find cast members, creators and writers. There is no thought to those with accessibility issues ...making people have to click multiply times to find someone (every click is hard for some) and having to load huge pages (not all have fast internet nor unlimited data allowances) to find said info. Not to mention the fact many many readers navigate to the bottom of pages to find said info at a glance. Some edits are just odd to me ....I think most are done in good faith...but without realizing why we have nave templates to begin with. -- Moxy (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


What WikiProjects can and can't do
Yes No
  • They're groups of editors, so we treat them like we would treat an editor.
  • The equivalent of userspace in "Wikipedia:WikiProject Example" pages
    • Use it for in-group communication, like you would use a user talk page.
    • Use it for drafts, lists, and notes to yourself, like you would use a sandbox or user subpage.
  • If your group is good at something, then you'll get respect, just like individual editors get respect for their expertise.
  • The group gets to pick which pages it wants to support, just like individual editors.
  • They're groups of editors, so we treat them like we would treat an editor.
  • You can't overrule the whole community.
  • You can't dictate your group's preferences about infoboxes/navboxes/citation styles/anything else to editors at any article.
  • WikiProjects don't own articles.

What else can we add that describes this in concrete terms? I don't mind if you or anyone else adds things to this table; it might help organize our thoughts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

So two things we can do to move forward...first the chart above outlining do's and donts and a site wide discussion. I will start an RfC at the policy page this week. Any suggestions on the wording that would be best for a I dont want to single out any one editor or group as was done here...just want to see if the community believes a project/group of editors have the right to omit a certain type of articles for navigation guess is no but lets see what others say and the reasons behind the actions thus far. -- Moxy (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
pls see Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Banning articles from navigational aids -- Moxy (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I guess the RfC is not done well....i will simply continue to inform editors about the projects POV when they inquire about it.....I also think its a good idea that MOS:FILMS makes note of the POV. -- Moxy (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
It appears you got pretty good advice regarding the construction of the RfC. I would advise dispassionately determining where the issue you see originates (maybe not the WikiProject after all) and pinpoint that in an RfC if necessary, but perhaps trying discussion in the best spot first. It seems that there could be instances where adding films to a navbox could be useful, but adding all of them won't be. I would suggest making this less a conflict against the WikiProject and more about getting to the bottom of the technical issue involved. Be a surgeon, not a warrior.  :) Stevie is the man! TalkWork 14:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I am done with the whole topic...its clear my concerns are being dismissed and/or misunderstood all over. I dont even edit these types of articles or templates. Just a point of contention that keeps coming up by other editors at help desks and user talks... that I was trying get a definitive reply.....I did..its clear ... its fine to omit articles from navigation in this one else sees a problem. If template editors and project members really think that movies and actors etc.. have no place in navigational aids not much can be done as they are the ones new editors will have to deal with when trying to edit these templates and articles. Best to simply make note of the POV in the MOS...need to mention that not just films and actors...but also producers, creators and writers should be omitted all over. -- Moxy (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
No matter what you do on this matter, you'll have to get consensus agreement. Might be best to drop it completely if you don't want to work through all that.Stevie is the man! TalkWork 17:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I think its best others update the MOS this time I have stated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Add info about films and creators etc.. -- Moxy (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

What else can we add that describes this in concrete terms?[edit]

What happened at wp:WikiProject Breakfast may be added (after the dust settles), but I am not the best person to explain it ( I may be biased):

  • WikiProject Breakfast was a testbed of wp:Flow
  • The trial was shut down by consensus of non-participants in the project
  • I tried to object, unsuccessfully to removing the Flow trial from WikiProject Breakfast.
  • For those who are interested and have lots of time on their hands see:User_talk:Ottawahitech#Flow_.2F_projectbreakfast_RFC

Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Ranking contributors to pages in a WikiProject[edit]

Is there anyway to rank editors by number of contributions to pages included in a WikiProject? Extra credit would be to limit it to a period of time, like the last six months. I am not interested in showing such rankings in WikiProjects I'm involved in, but rather I would like to use this information to analyze who to invite to become members. Thanks for any ideas. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 22:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure how they did it, but if I remember correctly Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine not only did this ranking a couple of years ago, but actually thanked the "winning" editors on their respective talkpages. I am sure whatamidoing will be be able to elaborate. Ottawahitech (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me
Thanks for the lead! I inquired over there. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 22:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
@Stevietheman: I followed you to :WikiProject Medicine (hope you don't mind) because I am also curious to find out how they got their stats. Did you ever figure it out? BTW interesting statistics here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Stats Ottawahitech (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Directory#Edit counts of subject-area editors. That's where I think we can get useful data if some requested changes are implemented. The WP Medicine stats are much more than I need, and I would likely have to spend a lot of time programming to generate what they did, but I really don't need much more than what's provided in the WikiProject Directory, and it already lists the editors who have recently touched pages in my project. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 12:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The 2015 stats have been posted: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Stats.

If you want to know who actually writes the articles, then you might take a look at mw:User talk:Johan (WMF)#Wishlist (and follow some of the links). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Thanks, but I don't know what to look for at that link - it doesn't jump to anything. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 11:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Argh, it was the wrong link. I've fixed it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Seeking active, well-structured WikiProjects to get ideas from in improving my WikiProject[edit]

I already know of the Military History and Medicine WikiProjects as being very active and nicely well-structured. Are there other strong examples I can look at as I make organic improvements to my WikiProject? Stevie is the man! TalkWork 22:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

For active WikiProjects, see Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by changes.
Wavelength (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
@Wavelength: the database report tells us it has not updated since 06 July 2015. Do you know how often we should expect it to update? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me
Ottawahitech, the main page (Wikipedia:Database reports) says that the run frequency is weekly. The banner at the top of that page says (in part): "If you have an urgent need for a report to be fixed, please indicate so on the Talk page so we can prioritize it higher."
Wavelength (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Wavelength. I posted a query at:Wikipedia talk:Database reports, and am crossing my fingers that it will bear fruit, but it looks rather deserted there, sigh... Ottawahitech (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me
I wish I had known about this sooner! Turns out my bot was inexplicably locked out of the database replicas on Tool Labs. But that's fixed now, and I am running the report as I speak. Harej (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


I am Pursuing the Deletion of The RenWeb ArticleJonnymoon96 (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnymoon96 (talkcontribs) 02:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

this part should be ∑F=ma=m dV/dt=∆mV

edited by mehrnaz from iran  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC) 

Notice to participants at this page about adminship[edit]

Many participants here are long-term, core editors who know Wikipedia well.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:PJTF name change[edit]

Just a quick update about the "Percy Jackson" task force of WikiProject Novels, which recently changed its name (and expanded its scope) to become the Rick Riordan Task Force. I just redid its listing in the directory. Please do not hesitate to change something if I inadvertently broke formatting. Thanks very much in advance. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject DYK (article alerts)[edit]

Did you know that:

  • Article Alerts' is a fully-automated subscription-based system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles tagged by their banner enter Articles for deletion
  • Article Alerts are updated daily by a BOT, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results
  • Article Alerts allow a certain degree of customization
  • User:B. Wolterding who coded the BOT was not permitted to operate it because he did not wish to disclose personal information which was required to operate a bot on the wp:tool server. He/she is now listed as a wp:Missing Wikipedian.

Source: Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Alerts in The Signpost Ottawahitech (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

The Toolserver (run by Wikimedia Deutschland) is also a "Missing Wikipedian", as of several years ago. (Wolterding declined to be identified to WMDE in 2008.) I wonder whether the WMF's Tool Labs has a similar policy. I've never heard of any such requirement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, as far as I know, you don't need to provide your identity to the Wikimedia Foundation for Tool Labs. Only situation I can think of would be for an NDA to get access to private information, but that pretty much never happens (and is unnecessary for most people). Harej (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject Gnosticism[edit]

I would really like to revive the proposed project Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Gnosticism. Separating articles that are gnostic/ completely firm with the genre/opposed by Christian and Judaic doctrines/ away from Wikiproject Christianity and Judaism which ignore such articles. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Linking to Wikiprojects on Meta[edit]


I'm not sure how this fits but there are several Wikiprojects on Meta that cover multiple Wikimedia sites, how best could these be listed within the Wikiproject directory? The ones I know are Wikiproject Education for Sustainable Development and Wikiproject UNESCO (which I made), WikiProject Chess and Wikiproject Roads.


John Cummings (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

John Cummings. a side project of mine is making sure that all the WikiProjects have proper Wikidata entries. Once this happens, the WikiProject Directory (after some updates) will be able to link to projects on other wikis. Harej (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Harej, Wikidata to the rescue :) John Cummings (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

From Voynich manuscript Solved by Bartender Karin Marie Olt copyright 4119-4258[edit]

WikiProject Women in Red[edit]

WP:WikiProject Women in Red (WiR) started as a stand-alone project and after a few weeks, became as task force of the newly-formed WP:WikiProject Women, at which time it became WP:WikiProject Women/Women in Red. We have not found many benefits to this move, but we have found that the move makes navigation within the task force cumbersome. So we want to explore making a change. As WiR's page design is handled by WikiProject X, I've discussed moving back to WP:WikiProject Women in Red with @Harej but I also discussed with him the possibility of WP:Women in Red, e.g. like WP:WikiWomen's History Month. Thoughts? (cc: @Ipigott, SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, and Victuallers:) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Whatever will simplify navigation and notification is what will get my vote. I don't understand the technical details or why one format is better over the others. What I know is that with the current set up, I do not receive notifications properly, (I'd say less than 1/2 of the page notifications). It seems as if each individual section of the project must be watchlisted to even attain a fraction of the notices. Then there is the whole situation where I end up somewhere I did not intend (Either at WikiProject Women, or at a dead end). Anything that will make it simpler will be an improvement, IMO. SusunW (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm with SusunW, anything that will make things easier for editors and navigation. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I certainly support making WiR a WikiProject in its own right and also hope for fundamental improvements in navigation. Now that Dr. Blofeld is less active on Wikipedia, the tie-up with WikiProject Women is more difficult to justify although I think we should still maintain the links to all the other women's projects we have on our main page. I also think WiR should progress from article creation to all other aspects of improvement up to GA and FA.--Ipigott (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't that defeat the object of calling it "women in red" if you plan on tackling GA and FA too? The name is intended to cover just missing articles is it not? Wouldn't it make more sense to just call it WP:Women and cover everything? You shouldn't feel like I have anything to do with it, WP:Women isn't my project, however much I did to get it running. Personally I think the emphasis should go more towards actual quality than quantity (though I do see a desperate need to even up the 15-85 percentage), or a least a project with seriously focuses on both. Yet you can't really have a Women in Red project which focuses on anything but missing articles, otherwise the name is redundant.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I have no problems with moving back if it makes things easier, but before we do so it might be worth taking another look at the project naming and scope. Should we be solely focusing on just missing articles or should we be working both on GAs/FAs as well as creating new articles. If so, why would we call in Women in Red etc. These are the sorts of questions I think need to be addressed here. If it's purely just missing articles everybody wants to work on rather than pursuing GAs on existing articles then that's fine and perfectly suitable of course.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The scope of Women in Red has always been new article creation focused on women's biographies and women's works, broadly construed. The scope of WikiProject Women is to unify women's projects under one umbrella, while focusing on article improvement (GA, FA), AfD responsiveness, new article creation, and so on. The current "task force" format within Wikipedia's "wikiprojects" doesn't lend for easy navigation within very active task forces, such as WiR. Maybe 1-10 years from now, things will be different. For now, though, Women in Red feels it would be easier to work on its scope as a stand-alone Wikiproject -- as it was previously --- rather than as a task force. I would make the move myself except that Wikiproject X has some programming incorporated into the WiR mainpage and I don't want to mess that up. Wikiproject X: let's make this split happen. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, in that case keep the Women in Red project solely focused on missing articles and keep pursuing GAs/FAs as part of the general women scope.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Received an email about this project asking what does it do? Was it related to The Woman in Red (1984 film) ....I said no its about making articles of missing content.....perhaps this could be more clear in the projects info. .....that is mention of red links--Moxy (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
@Moxy: Good point. I've just edited the lede to try and clarify the redlinks connection. If anyone wants to further tweak/clarify, please go for it! --Rosiestep (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
@Moxy: refer them to the Signpost article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-12-16/WikiProject report it explains exactly what we do. SusunW (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
@SusunW: If you add this signpost article about Women in red to Category:WikiProjects featured in The Signpost you will make this knowledge available to more readers. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
  • I think my comments on GA and FA have been misunderstood. What I was trying to say was that we should not stop work on the articles we create under WiR just because they have reached Start or C class or even reached DYK. We should be able to take some of them much further, first to B, then to GA and finally to FA. Many of the women whose biographies we have covered during our editathons or from our lists of red links deserve far better coverage. I know that SusunW is keen to work on quality improvement and so am I. If we can identify the articles we have created (thanks to those new templates we have for the talk pages), then I think WiR should also be credited with taking them to GA or FA. It seems strange to me that the project should be limited exclusively to article creation. But I like the catchy "Women in Red" and think we should keep it. If we decide to improve other articles on women up to GA or FA, then they should clearly come under one of the other WikiProjects on women including WikiProject Women itself. I hope Dr. Blofeld will agree with this approach.--Ipigott (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • "Being a task force" doesn't require using any subpages. If the page title isn't working, then you can move it to something that does work. Being a task force is supposed to save you some hassle with page tagging, template creation, and setting up bots. It's not supposed to force you to use a particular name. WPUS has many task forces, and they mostly don't use subpages as their names. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Restricting memberships of a Taskforce?[edit]

I can't find anything on whether that is possible. Perhaps they are all intended to be open to anyone to read about. I am attempting to set up a taskforce on a controversial subject and want to keep out the Troll types for the sake of clear thinking.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

My best guess is that memberships cannot be restricted in general, although some projects have niche positions that are elected by the membership. I don't think a subject-area taskforce would normally be seen as a niche position. I think you can get away with saying members must have an account, though. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 16:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I did not follow the wp:dramah at the time, but wasn't an editor who pushed for a project with restricted membership get banned from Wikipedia not too long ago? (I do not mean to start a rumour, just vaguely rememeber something like this -- please correct me if I am wrong) Ottawahitech (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
@Ottawahitech: I assume you're thinking about the "new" WikiProject Wikipedia, which happened about 4-5 months ago (you can find this version of the project in the page history). This project gave users different levels of membership as opposed to a simple "Members" list. The editor who created it, Tortle, isn't banned (in fact, they've never been blocked); they just aren't active right now due to (I'm assuming) real-life commitments. They're welcome to come back anytime (my opinion, at least). CabbagePotato (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
There are no provisions for invitation-only WikiProjects (including task forces). There are no provisions for banning individuals, except the normal WP:IBAN and WP:TBAN procedures, which can be used to stop any individual from talking to another individual, posting to a WikiProject's talk page, etc.
There have been very few problems with this in the past (fewer than I once predicted). The usual solution to the rare problem is for the good editors to abandon the WikiProject to the disruptive/angry/unpleasant/unwanted editor, but to keep working together – and possibly join or create a related WikiProject. (Think "I don't want to sit with the mean kid in the school lunch room, but the school won't let us make him move. Therefore, we will let him have the table that we used to sit at, and we will all go sit at another one.") This is ultimately a bad solution; therefore, I believe that it would be appropriate for WikiProjects to be able eject a would-be member if necessary. But as of now, no such procedure exists.
If your group is sufficiently small, you should consider keeping everything in your userspace; many editors would give you more leeway there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Being able to exclude people one disagrees with would lead to an obvious WP:OWN / WP:VESTED problem, and we already have far, far too much of that when it comes to wikiprojects (this problem is much of why we have WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy, and multiple sharply worded WP:ARBCOM decisions reminding wikiproject that they are just random editors agreeing to collaborate, not independent organizations making up their own rules, much less controlling particular content areas over which they claim scope). WP operates on openness, transparency, and collaboration. If an individual is being genuinely disruptive at a project, see WP:DR, and if necessary use WP:ANI to deal with the problem.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
However, in reality the people attracted to a particular wikiproject are not going to be random editors. If it was truly random they would nearly all not want to be there. A wikiproject on vintage cars would probably mainly attract enthusiasts or those wanting them off the road and probably a few others with particular interests. Whilst accepting not ownership of articles is a good principle, maybe it would work to accept ownership of interest areas in wikiprojects. In the Task Force I was thinking about there would probably be two or three or maybe more types of interested parties and I would not mind them all there if they would declare their interest. Unfortunately, from past experience in internet forums there would inevitably be some who would not declare and would play lots of silly disruptive games, which could possibly be dealt with but take way too much time.Jed Stuart (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Bringing inactive projects back to life[edit]

I just added an inactive project (Time) banner to Category talk:Lists of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2015. I then proceeded to Wikipedia:WikiProject Time and after checking the talk page decided that to change the project status to semi-active to reflect some activity that is taking place.

Just wondering if and when this information will be reflected in all the talkpage banners which now depict this project as inactive? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Ottawahitech, I believe that it will be fixed as soon as you undo this edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject watchlists[edit]

I vaguely remember that many w-projects used to have a watchlist which appeared as External links on the wikiproject page. See for example Wikipedia:WikiProject_Time#External_links. I also vaguely remember it used to be very useful tool.

I think all watchlists are now [dead link] and one of the editors User:Dispenser who used to do this type of work and is still around has moved on to other interests. Anyone here interested in this topic? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

If you don't mind using AutoWikibrowser, it's fairly simple to roll your own project watchlist. Check out WP:LOU/CP. The first two linked watches are based on a Watchall page (list of all pages in the WikiProject) I build using these instructions. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 16:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
@Stevietheman: not everyone (this includes me) has access to AWB. Ottawahitech (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
@Ottawahitech: access to use AWB isn't required as you don't have to login with it to build the lists. All you need to do is install the AWB app. All that's required is a modern version of Windows to install it on. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 12:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Its still works, just on another server because of the pricks at WMF don't allow redirects to third party servers (despite it working before they took over). They also don't like responding to email and take 6 weeks to restore service, but will immediately cut service off while writing that email to legal they requested you to write.
I updated Wikipedia:List of WikiProject watchlists (topical). — Dispenser 21:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Dispenser for fixing all wp:WikiProject Watchlists. I know you are busy, but can anyone explain the issue of third party servers to those of us who are clueless (me). Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me is my home server with a secure database connection to Wikimedia Labs. WMF and I have issues , like I want 24+ TB to archive links and they want to neuter the encyclopedia. They preach Open Source, then buy Google Apps licenses. Deny IP address access for privacy, then provide a public IP geolocation service. They talk about wanting a link checker, I mention I did it 8 years ago. They're just dysfunctional. — Dispenser 05:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a proposed simple change to the software that would make WikiProject watchlists a lot easier to maintain. See Phabricator ticket. Harej (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

user:Harej, Can you please explain in layman's terms what you are getting at? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
Ottawahitech, basically: there is a special page, Special:RecentChangesLinked, that shows you the recent changes for all the pages that are linked on a given page. For example, if "X" and "Y" are linked to from "Z", Special:RecentChangesLinked/Z shows you the recent changes for "X" and "Y". Many WikiProjects have categories that include all their articles, for example Category:WikiProject Ghana articles. But WikiProject categories technically categorize the talk pages, rather than the articles themselves. So you only get recent changes to the talk pages and not the articles. The ticket I linked to is for a proposed change the software that would show you the recent changes for the articles that correspond to those talk pages. This would allow WikiProject watchlists to exist with very little additional effort. Please let me know if there is anything else I should clarify. Harej (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


User:Harej, someone just created WP:WikiProject Democracy. The project appears to be about promoting the use of democratic methods on Wikipedia, i.e., WP:NOTDEMOCRACY stuff, rather than about improving articles on the subject. Can you make sure that it gets listed in the correct section of the Directory? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I added it to Category:Wikipedia WikiProjects, which is the proper category for non-content-related WikiProjects. Harej (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
user:Harej, What is the proper category for wp:content-related WikiProjects? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
Ottawahitech, any of the subcategories of Category:WikiProjects by area (or their subcategories) will do. The exception is Category:Wikipedia WikiProjects which is reserved for "meta" WikiProjects that are not directly content related. Though I would like to at some point rename the category and give it a clearer name. Harej (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Using AlexNewArtBot[edit]

Just wondering if anyone here has experience in setting up and running AlexNewArtBot for their project. Is it worth the trouble? What does it do? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Winningest in sports articles under discussion[edit]

Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"winningest" in sports articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 6[edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg
Newsletter • January 2016

Hello there! Happy to be writing this newsletter once more. This month:

What comes next

Some good news: the Wikimedia Foundation has renewed WikiProject X. This means we can continue focusing on making WikiProjects better.

During our first round of work, we created a prototype WikiProject based on two ideas: (1) WikiProjects should clearly present things for people to do, and (2) The content of WikiProjects should be automated as much as possible. We launched pilots, and for the most part it works. But this approach will not work for the long term. While it makes certain aspects of running a WikiProject easier, it makes the maintenance aspects harder.

We are working on a major overhaul that will address these issues. New features will include:

  • Creating WikiProjects by simply filling out a form, choosing which reports you want to generate for your project. This will work with existing bots in addition to the Reports Bot reports. (Of course, you can also have sections curated by humans.)
  • One-click button to join a WikiProject, with optional notifications.
  • Be able to define your WikiProject's scope within the WikiProject itself by listing relevant pages and categories, eliminating the need to tag every talk page with a banner. (You will still be allowed to do that, of course. It just won't be required.)

The end goal is a collaboration tool that can be used by WikiProjects but also by any edit-a-thon or group of people that want to coordinate on improving articles. Though implemented as an extension, the underlying content will be wikitext, meaning that you can continue to use categories, templates, and other features as you normally would.

This will take a lot of work, and we are just getting started. What would you like to see? I invite you to discuss on our talk page.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Harej, your following objectives sound good:
  1. WikiProjects should clearly present things for people to do, and
  2. The content of WikiProjects should be automated
Can you please provide us information about what is already there in this respect? (and can you please fix the indents of your previous message) Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
Ottawahitech, our pilot projects (see Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Dashboard) are experimenting with new designs that aim to do those two things. This new design is combined with some automated task lists from SuggestBot and Reports bot. While this approach makes progress on those two objectives, it does so while making the pages harder to maintain unless you have a strong knowledge of the templates. Thus we will be working on a WikiProject infrastructure that is easy to set up and maintain (for those WikiProjects that want such a thing). Harej (talk) 07:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
@Harej: There appear to be more problems than what you are letting on. For example wp:WikiProject Women in Technology which appears right at the top of your "dashboard" has no template-project banner and as a result no articles can be added to the project. I brought this to your attention on Dec 9, 2015 -- but there has been no progress. See:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Technology#WikiProject_template. Sorry to be blunt, but it appears you are more interested in collecting money from WMF than actually providing value? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me Please don't shoot the messenger
@Ottawahitech: There are indeed multiple glitches and areas where things could be better, including things I can't recall off the top of my head. I track issues on this work board and I add to the work board as necessary. The situation with the Women in Technology project is that it was created specifically to test the new design. I did not have time to fully flesh it out as a WikiProject, including the requisite talk page banners, as I am focusing more on the overall system than that specific WikiProject. If the Women in Technology participants are interested however I would be happy to get talk page banners deployed. But in general I am less interested in "how do we get talk page banners easily deployed for any WikiProject" and more interested in "how do we let WikiProjects add articles to their project, regardless of whether they want to spam talk pages with banners"? The planned extension should be making progress on that while still allowing banners for those WikiProjects that find them to be useful. Also, if there are other bugs you see, please let me know. Harej (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Could the navigation bars please be added by default to the "WikiProject articles by importance" and "by quality"-categories[edit]

Example categories: Category:Top-importance history of science articles | Category:B-Class Open articles | Template: Template:Category importance

I don't know why this isn't done by default already. Is there any advantage of that not being added by default to any "WikiProject articles by importance" and "by quality" category?

These navigation bars are really essential for browsing WikiProject articles (especially for newcomers) - and that in turn is a major necessity for effective WikiProjects.

There are multiple ways this could be done. There could be a change made to Wikipedia so that the bars are added right when the WikiProject is created. I don't know if these "by quality" and "by importance" categories are created once a WikiProject is created (if they aren't they probably should). But in the case that they aren't and that there's a good reason for that the navigation bars could also be added once the categories are created by the user. And if nothing helps even a bot could do it (which is probably needed anyways to add the navigation bars to the already existent categories).

If there are multiple navigation bars and you want to leave it to the WikiProjects which one they choose I'd say that the navigation bars can still be changed once they're added by default and for the already existing "by quality" and "by importance" categories there could be a detection if the category already has some other navigation bar set.

Not sure if this suggestion would be better off at the village pump or elsewhere (if so - where?) and whether or not this is already on WikiProject X' radar.

What do you think of this?

--Fixuture (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for asking a dumb question, but what are wp: Navigation bars? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
@Ottawahitech: No problem - they are the bars on the top of the "WikiProject articles by importance" and "by quality"-categories which are used to navigate these categories - I linked a template right on top: Template:Category importance. --Fixuture (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
A bot to add {{category importance}} and {{category class}} to WikiProject assessment categories would not be a bad idea. Titoxd(?!?) 03:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
@Titoxd: Yes, I'm wondering why nobody has done it yet. Hoping someone who has already written a Wikipedia-bot reads and implements this (shouldn't be that hard). --Fixuture (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

"WikiProject Los Angeles Rams" / "WikiProject St. Louis Rams"[edit]

The pages and categories for this wikiproject are all screwed up, see Template talk:WikiProject St. Louis Rams ; can someone help fix them? -- (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I cannot find a WikiProject named WikiProject St. Louis Rams. Anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottawahitech (talkcontribs) 20:55, 23 January 2016‎
Some pages are located under Special:prefixindex/WP:WikiProject Los Angeles Rams others Special:prefixindex/WP:WikiProject St. Louis Rams and the categories are more messy -- (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking for Americans renouncing citizenship in records numbers in the assessment table[edit]

I posted this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Assessment, but it looks like a dead wp:Tasforce(?) -- so I am wondering if anyone here can speculate? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me


I am a member of the Nation of Gods and Earth's. I wish for other Gods and Earths to help me correct the information about us. However, help from anyone else is welcome. Contact me here on my Wiki acount or my email- . Thanks. Derp00765 (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Derp00765

@Derp00765: This talk page is about discussing WikiProjects in general. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion would be a better place to ask for the assistance you seek. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 15:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
@Derp00765: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion does not seem to be very active right now, so if you ask there and do not get an answer within a couple of weeks, please come back here and let us know and maybe someone will have more ideas on how to find others interested in the topic of Nation of Gods and Earths. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Clarification of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sia proposal?[edit]

Can someone confirm if there was ever a proposal for this WP? I can't find one. It looks like it has been fan created and there is only one member. There's never been a discussion for there to be a group of people to join it and be apart of it. It shouldn't exist; it's meant to be about the people involved to maintain it, not the existence of a page.  — Calvin999 23:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, seriously. You haven't gone through the procedure of getting votes in favour to allow its creation. You can't just create projects willy nilly. You have to create a proper proposal, define it's scope, show you have people who will be involved in its maintenance and regularly working on the articles in order to keep the project active and relevant. Other editors are then supposed to vote in favour or against the creation, depending on whether you have demonstrated that it is actually worth having the project. You've not done that. You've just made one up without permission and no-one is apart of the project except you, thus the project does not exist. As it is on the project page here, "If you do not have a group of people, then you do not have a WikiProject."  — Calvin999 23:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, well, I was bold and started a new project. Let's move on... ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Haha, well there's no one in the Wikiproject but you! So yeah that is a pretty big problem!  — Calvin999 23:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Right. Ok. Well, I am going to go work on other things now. Thanks for your concern. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Assistance with banner template?[edit]

Despite Calvin999's resistance (for reasons I fail to understand), I am attempting to build WikiProject Sia. However, I am having trouble enabling the article assessment features via Template:WikiProject Sia. Is someone able to help? I was able to get the importance categories set up. I would also appreciate the file, project, category, etc. categories as well. Thanks for any assistance in advance. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

My reasons are the rules of the WikiProject Council, just thought I'd make that clear.  — Calvin999 23:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok, great. If someone else is able to help, I'd appreciate a moment of your time. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Update for Statistics subpage[edit]

Greetings, For the Statistics subpage I moved the pie chart under the stats table. Doing this reduces the excess width issue for Wikipedia:WikiProject Council page. Regards,  JoeHebda (talk)  19:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Directory listing for WikiProject Invention?[edit]

Greetings, Wondering if WikiProject Invention is listed in the directory? Not able to find. If it is missing, could another editor, more experienced, please add? Regards,  JoeHebda (talk)  03:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

CfD discussion relating to divisive "membership" language creeping back in[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 31#"WikiProject Foo members" to "WikiProject Foo participants", again (it's just a discussion, not a move proposal at present).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


In here don't wikiproject asia (indonesian) why? Arifys (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Australia Directory listing needed[edit]

Greetings, At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Directory/Geographical#Australia I created a section heading with a temporary link to Portal:Australia/WikiProjects that contains many Australia-related WikiProjects. It is way beyond anything I that I know how to do, so I'm asking for help from another more experienced editor here at WikiProject Council - to create another directory page for Australia directory. Regards,  JoeHebda (talk)  21:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library[edit]

Been some talk about the Wikipedia Library project adding {{Research help}} in the ref sections of articles that leads to an essay....would love members here to chime in pls see Wikipedia talk:Research help . -- Moxy (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Please check my WikiProject proposal[edit]

Hello, I am BOTFIGHTER I gave a proposal for making WikiProject Statues. So I request Wikipedia Council to check it!RegardsBOTFIGHTER (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I need for more support please get your username on WikiProject Statues,in the support section please I need more support!BOTFIGHTER (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)