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)

Help for WikiProject Sia?[edit]

Is someone familiar with setting up WikiProjects (specifically, quality assessment and WikiProject banners) able to take a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sia#Coding_help and see if the assessment categories are correct. There is also a discrepancy between the "Sia"-related and "Sia-Furler"-related categories. Thanks in advance to anyone who may be able to take a look. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 10[edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg
Issue 10 of the WikiProject X newsletter is here!

This month, we discuss the new CollaborationKit extension. Here's an image as a teaser:

CollaborationKit screenshot CreateCollaborationHub.png

23:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Pages that are NOT yet in a WikiProject?[edit]

Hello all - Please forgive me if this has been addressed elsewhere, but does anyone know if there is a link that identifies all articles, categories, etc., that are NOT yet part of a WikiProject? Thanks KConWiki (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@KConWiki: I don't think we currently have an automatic tracking system for that. Though the database scanner in AWB may be of use to you in finding those pages. You can do database scans without registering, but to edit the encyclopedia with AWB, you have to be registered. To qualify to register to use AWB on Wikipedia, you have to have 500 main space edits. If you do, then go to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser, and an admin will add you to the checkpage. The Transhumanist 19:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

There should be a way to assess quality for articles that do not fall under any WikiProject's purview. (Perhaps the WPBS should hold quality ratings and all talk pages should hold a WPBS) -- (talk) 06:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Default parameters in WP banners?[edit]

Should WikiProject Banners have defaults for class and importance settings?

I noticed a particular project default sets its importance to "mid" if you don't explicitly set it. This seems to make a hash of importance settings, rendering them useless.

-- (talk) 03:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

No. Null is a useful value, in that it tells us that an assessment has not yet been made, which may prompt a user to make one. Automatically filling in default values would mass produce false assessments, and that's bad. Now, if you created a deep learning AI that assessed articles' quality and improved its ability via training, then that's another matter. The Transhumanist 09:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at Template talk:WikiProject Highways about the Default Importance rating (default=MID); -- (talk) 06:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Consensus to remove banner for inactive WIkiProjects[edit]

I just wonder if there was consensus to remove banners for inactive WikiProjects? See Christian75 (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That seems a bad idea, since the banner already says "inactive", and if it ever became active again, people would need to go through and retag all the articles -- (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
It's also problematic because the banners (and associated categories) are important infrastructure for WikiProjects to determine what's in their "scope." It would only make sense to remove the banners if the WikiProject as a whole was being decommissioned.
I don't think the problem is inactive projects having banners per se. It's the banners themselves: they're noisy and obtrusive. I hope in the long term we build off of the work of the PageAssessments extension and build a specialized tool for tracking WIkiProject assessments. Harej (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Christian75: Thanks for staring this discussion. I was wondering the same thing. I don't like disappearing project banners. I've still been adding "WikiProject Sculpture" to talk pages even though the banner does not display. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Another issue is, what constitutes an inactive project. I personally use the bot output of a number of "inactive" projects for editing ideas. So while there is no chatter there is activity. Removing the assessment markers would be a detriment. Agathoclea (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Christian75, Another Believer, Harej, and Agathoclea: I agree with Agathoclea. There is also decentralized WikiProject activity. Quality assessment gets updated on each article's talk page. So if assessment is active, then by extension so is the WikiProject that set it up. And as Agathoclea mentioned, the same can be said for any WikiProject with automation. Many WikiProjects have an an automatic alert system (for announcing AfD's, etc.). The Tip of the Day project automatically posts its content day after day all over the 'pedia, and it can be months between posts on its talk page. Proofreaders have a template with which they can monitor the tip for the next day, and they can edit the tip directly before it goes live, without ever posting to the project's talk page. I believe WikiProjects with assessments or automated functions should never be tagged with "inactive". The Transhumanist 19:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this is a good point. And if I'm still adding "WikiProject Sculpture" banners to talk pages as often as I deem appropriate, is WikiProject Sculpture really dead? ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the scope argument is the strongest for keeping the WikiProject banners in place. They provide meta-data. The banners serve as broad subject tagging for articles, which can be very useful for automated processes. They are more encompassing than the narrower subject-based category links. Please keep them in place. The Transhumanist 09:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Agree with The Transhumanist, in every respect. Interest waxes and wanes, then waxes again on most projects. Keeping the framework in place is helpful. Jusdafax 19:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Movement Strategy[edit]

Hi all. I'd like to invite you to participate in the Wikimedia Movement Strategy discussions, about our movement's overall goals, "What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?". It's currently in the first stage, of broad discussion. There are further details in the related Metawiki pages (FAQ, lists of other simultaneous communities' discussions, etc).

I've posted at a few of the largest WikiProjects, but please do direct anyone you think might be interested, to the discussion. (Also, if you're interested in helping facilitate and summarize the discussions here, and to bring back here the summaries of what the other communities are discussing, over the weeks ahead, please let me know. Thanks. :) Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages bot[edit]

We're happy to announce that the popular pages bot is back up-and-running! The bot posts a monthly list of the 1,000 most read pages within a WikiProject and their assessment, for example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spiders/Popular pages. The bot began posting March 2017 data on April 2 to the 700+ WikiProjects that have already subscribed. Any new WikiProjects can opt-in here. It may take a few weeks to post all updates to all projects.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The page-view data includes both desktop and mobile data
  • Redirect page-views are now combined with the canonical page (e.g. views to Obama are added to Barack_Obama)
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement.

The Community Tech Team (via TBolliger (WMF) (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC))

Certainly wonderful news. Note though that Z-bot combined redirect page views, so that part is not new. Thanks everyone for their work on this. I'm awaiting pages for projects I'm involved with to fill in. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 23:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Idea: Add select talk page section to watchlist[edit]

I have another idea, most likely one that's been thought of before, but I want to write this out just to make sure. What if, instead of only having the ability to watchlist talk pages, you could add a talk page section to your watchlist? I'm sure this would be challenging to implement technically speaking, but this sure could be helpful. There are many times I post a message to an article's (or other type of Wikipedia page's) talk page, and I'm invested in a particular discussion, but not the page in its entirety, so I don't add the page to my watchlist. It's possible the discussion could continue without my knowing, if I forget to revisit the page. Is someone aware of this discussion taking place before, or have any thoughts? ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a perennial request. The likelihood of this being worked on is low given the WMF's provision of the Flow extension. An extension not enabled at en.WP, but you can see it at many of the sister wikis. --Izno (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, ok, thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal add quality criteria to WikiProject templates[edit]

Proposal adding a [show] link to the project templates.........see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Add quality criteria to WikiProject templates--Moxy (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


FYI, we're discussion MartinZ (talk · contribs) recategorizing WikiProjects unilaterally without discussion at WT:ASTRONOMY and I've opened a discussion at WT:COSMOLOGY as well -- (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

To EditSafe and StarryGrandma: in regard to our recent edits to Wikipedia:WikiProject, EditSafe, you need to explain how your edits are improvements to that page. Two editors, myself and StarryGrandma have disagreed with your changes. Please leave the status quo in place for now and tell us why you think your changes are better than the status quo.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  05:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)