Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hampshire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Hampshire (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Hampshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hampshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Contents

Please read before testing Flow.[edit]

Thank you again for volunteering to help test out Flow. Please direct all feedback on the software to the Flow talk page to avoid distractions here. Thanks!

Please remember that this is early-stage beta software, and the intent of this trial is to get your feedback on what's missing and what needs to be changed. We urge you to give Flow a good-faith try – it can only become as good as you help us make it! – but if you find things not working out, we can stop the trial and return your conversations to a talk page. We'll be asking directly in 2/4 weeks whether you're happy to continue testing, but will greatly appreciate all the feedback you can give in the meantime. Thanks again! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, when I look at the "hidden" topic below - I'm not sure if that hides it from only non-admins, or it simply collapses the topic - it seems to have also hidden an image whose provenance is not clear. I can't see anything in the history that indicates the image was added after Flow was added. It is also enormous when the topic below is uncollapsed. I suspect the image is of somewhere in (you guessed it!) New Hampshire. Risker (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Risker: Yep, this is a known bug, and yes, it hides it, albeit not from non-admins - it's basically analogous to rollback. Anyway; as said above, I'd like to avoid polluting the Hampshire talkpage here, since the users of Hampshire are likely to, well, want to use it. The feedback is most welcome but it'd probably be best to relocate to Wikipedia talk:Flow with any further thoughts :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Okeyes (WMF): The Hampshire talkpage is the first project that uses
Flow - surely a thread commenting on how the new software works for them is not out of place? BTW I can't access the archive pages, the links in the Archive box don't work for me - the box content doesn't even show as text. (Tested both in Firefox and Chrome) Diego (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Diego Moya: I tried clicking on the link to the archives and it seemed to work fine for me. (Firefox)
Hmmm I was intending to respond to Oliver, not sure why is addresses it to Diego. Hold on, my bad, Diego was responding to Oliver, so I did want to respond to Diego, which I did. S Philbrick(Talk) 02:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Sphilbrick: The initial comments about archiving relate to the fact that this page originally had one of the standard "filing cabinet and archive list" icons at the top. It was impossible to access the archives that way. Maryana came up with a workaround that gives a blue link in the header material. Risker (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, Okeyes, my point there was that there's an image on this page and I have no way of knowing whether or not it was there before the change, whether it was put there as a test, whether it was put there by someone who normally participates in the project and it accidentally got caught in your "hiding" - which is in no way analogous to rollback; it's analogous to hatting. Remember, the page history also is completely uninformative. Risker (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Risker: It was put there by MZMcBride, after the switch (or else it couldn't have been included here). It wasn't an accident. Jorm (WMF) (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC) (Edited by Legoktm (talk))
Risker: Well, as you can see from the blankness of this page, the only things live on Flow-enabled pages are things that were created after Flow was enabled. The reason for the lack of clarity is twofold; first, we're still working on unifying topic and page history so that it will be more informative, and second, hiding obfuscates the original author of the posts. These are, as said known bugs. I hope this more expansive comment helps. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hence my comment that I could not tell how it got there, or whether or not it was something that ought not to be included in the "hiding". The page history doesn't include the edit that inserted it. Risker (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Risker: Yup - the lack of a real history page is going to be a major problem. Unfortunately, AFAIK there is no way that they can bring it back and make the Flow software work as a real wiki page, so don't expect it to be fixed anytime soon. Diego (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Diego Moya: Er. Did you see my comment above about how we're building a real history page? ;p Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Okeyes (WMF): I must have missed it :-/ I still find the Flow structure confusing. No way to tell what I have read and what I haven't - I tend to use history diffs for that. :-P (And of course, the huge amount of wasted space between posts don't help at all to find the content to read - too distracting). Diego (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Diego Moya: The font size for indented replies seems to be slightly smaller. Is that intentional?
And is there only one level of indents? Okeyes' reply to Diego isn't indented. Diego's reply to Okeyes isn't either. In a longer dialogue that could become confusing.
Lines of text don't wrap to fill the window's available width.
When typing, the lower edge of the text box and the Cancel, Preview and Reply buttons underneath wobble.
It's kind of distracting to the eye. Andreas JN466 04:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Diego Moya: This reply is to Diego's post above starting "Risker: Yup". Andreas JN466 04:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Jayen466: This reply is to my own post starting "This reply is to Diego's post ...". I note that it is not now apparent to which of Diego's posts I was replying in that post. Andreas JN466 05:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Diego Moya: This reply is to Diego's post starting "Okeyes (WMF): I must have missed it." Andreas JN466 05:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Jayen466: Now, if I had not quoted the beginnings of Diego's posts, would Diego have been able to tell which one of their posts I was replying to in each case? Andreas JN466 05:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Diego Moya: In other words, if Diego had five posts above, and I were to say, Diego, I totally agree with that, would he know which of his posts I was agreeing with? (This post was made by clicking on the Reply link under Diego's post starting "Risker: Yup ...") Andreas JN466 05:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Jayen466: Perhaps you would enjoy running your tests on an actual test page, such as this one. Jorm (WMF) (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Jorm (WMF): For the record - I got an email ping that you had replied to my post. In fact, you replied to Jayen466's post. So let's see what kind of email notice results from my replying to you. Risker (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Jorm (WMF): Well, it says at the top of this page,
"This WikiProject has volunteered to help test the Flow extension, a new piece of discussion and collaboration software. Please discuss the software itself at Wikipedia talk:Flow, so that this project can continue its work without extra distraction."
(I would have liked to put the word *test* in bold, but couldn't.)
So I thought this *was* a test page, given that the linked WT:Flow page does not have Flow enabled, and none of the discussion above seemed to be about the business of WikiProject Hampshire.
May I suggest you add the link to the actual test page you want people to use to the header above?
For the record, I got a notification that Jorm had mentioned me on this page. Andreas JN466 13:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the image mentioned by Risker, although I doubt it was related to New Hampshire. S Philbrick(Talk) 02:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sphilbrick: OK, now I see the image and it is New Hampshire. How odd. S Philbrick(Talk) 03:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Sphilbrick: Oh. I could've sworn this was the New Hampshire WikiProject talk page. I thought Flow was being deployed to WikiProjects Breakfast and New Hampshire, but I think it's actually WikiProjects Breakfast and Hampshire. Close, but no cigar, hrmph. MZMcBride (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there is a lot of space on this page being wasted - large margins to the left and right are just plain white. And I find the font quite large and the space between posts too much - but otherwise I like it! Sorry if I sound like I'm moaning, I just want to test this for myself. ~~~~ JAGUAR  23:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Don't use '~~~~' any more, I get it... this is going to take some getting used to! JAGUAR  23:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a horribly jarring experience, speaking as a confident, computer-literate and experienced Wikipedian. Goodness knows what effect it will have on novices, who have only just learned to use regular talk pages, I don't believe such testing should be carried out in the live workspace, and that if and when flow is introduced, it should happen no all talk pages at once. Until than testing should be done only in sandbox pages. ~~~~ Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


Unassessed articles[edit]

I've noticed the unassessed article count is currently sitting at 43. I've just been through and assessed all those but unfortunately it looks like the page to get the bot to update immediately is currently down. Hopefully next time the bot runs we should be back to zero unassessed articles though. WaggersTALK 15:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


This page is not a sandbox[edit]

I've just added the red box ("This page is an early adopter...") to the page header, below {{Flow-enabled}} as we've been getting a few more test edits. I'm aware the header area is looking quite busy - perhaps we should remove the "To do" template. Any thoughts? WaggersTALK 13:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC) (Edited by Baffle gab1978 (talk))

Waggers: Good idea! I've merged the two, so that WPBreakfast can benefit, and it's shorter overall. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Waggers: Much better. Thanks WaggersTALK 08:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you make the wikiproject banner hide itself? It doesn't add anything for the reader, afaict. Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The wikiproject banner is redundant to the title. Could that go? (posted yesterday but lost to the ether?) Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hroðulf: Done. WaggersTALK 10:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


WP Netley proposal[edit]

FYI, there's been a proposal to create a WikiProject Netley, see the proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Netley 70.24.244.161 (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Bit of a strange idea if you ask me - too localised for a project. It would make a lot more sense for it to be a task force of this project. We haven't really gone for task forces yet.

That said, even then I think it's too localised / arbitrary a subject area. A Borough of Eastleigh task force would make more sense to me (along with similar task forces for the other council districts). I'd be interested to know what others think. WaggersTALK 12:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello sorry for very late reply, I'm the creator of WikiProject Netley. I could make it less localised and make it a task force for you if you want at a later date. I think the WikiProject is a good idea because most articles about Netley and the local area are not very good as they are Start or Stub class.

Thank you

-JoshCooler- JoshCooler (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


Update on Flow trial: what's new, what's next[edit]

Greetings, WikiProject Hampshire!

Now that you've had a chance to use Flow in your discussion space, we wanted to check in and see how you feel about the current set of features.

Recap of work to date

As a quick recap, in the past 4 weeks, we've updated the visual design and behavior of some of our features per your and other users' feedback:

  • permanent reply and edit buttons instead of hover buttons
  • moderation actions and permalinks moved into a menu instead of appearing on hover
  • darker body text
  • tighter spacing between posts and topics
  • third level of indentation for posts (code currently live on mediawiki.org and set to kick in here later this week)
  • found and fixed many bugs

Check out the screenshots of the first iteration and the second iteration of the visual design/UI of Flow, to see our progress.

What's next

We're still just getting started with the visual design and features of Flow. We're currently working on an overhaul of our frontend code and design, which will make it look better across multiple screens (large and small) and more browsers. You can see the early stages of this work in this prototype: http://area51.yar.gs/wmf/flow1/#, including a new navigational feature to the right of discussions. In addition, we'd like to do the following in the next month or so:

  • add in-board search feature (you can see it in the prototype above)
  • add a feature to summarize and close topics
  • add the "thanks" feature for posts
  • continue improving moderation, history, and watchlist items
Do you still want to help?
  • If you'd like to keep using Flow here, let us know what you'd like us to prioritize next that would make it better for you! We're interested in hearing what new features you'd like to see, as well changes to the existing features and design.

If you'd like to end the trial and return to using a talk page here, just let us know, and we can return your Flow posts to wikitext. Whatever you choose, thanks for trying out the software and helping us improve it! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Quiddity (WMF): Thanks for the update. One of the reasons I thought this project would make a good candidate for adopting Flow early was because we're a relatively quiet project in terms of talk page volume, so testing something new wouldn't be too disruptive. The flip-side of that is of course that by being a relatively low volume talk page we haven't been able to fully put Flow through its paces.
That said, I think it's working very well here. It's much easier to post comments here than it used to be with the old Wikitext interface, and I think the improvements to the layout are excellent. The permanent reply button in particular is an important step forward.
I'd like us to continue using Flow here as there seems no good reason not to.
I think the in-board search feature is an important new feature to have. What would be really useful is if it would also the pre-Flow talk page archive. It's not such an issue for this project but I can think of other talk pages where the same topics come up time and again, and people are asked to search the archives before repeating the same conversations over again. WaggersTALK 13:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


Fareham / Welbourne[edit]

Hi folks. I've noticed there's a bit of a slow burning battle going on at the Fareham article, related to this talk thread. It seems to be proceeding in reasonably good faith so far but I'll try and keep an eye on it. Would appreciate it if other project members do likewise. WaggersTALK 12:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


Basingstoke GAR[edit]

Just a heads-up that Basingstoke (currently listed as a good article) is having its Good Article status reviewed. If you'd like to take part in the review, or (even better) take any necessary remedial action, please do so. As one of the most prominent settlements in the county the article merits High Importance on our scale, and it would be good to make sure our top/high importance articles are as good as they can be. WaggersTALK 13:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


Template:Hydrology of Hampshire[edit]

I've created the above navigation template; any help with adding it to the relevant articles, and adding new ones (I'm sure I've missed some of the wetlands articles and we must have more notable ordinary watercourses) would be much appreciated. WaggersTALK 11:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Now wouldn't it be useful if we could click that link (or if we didn't have the dead as a dodo flow test here anymore)... Fram (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Fram: If I'd included the link in the text instead of the heading, you would be able to. My bad. WaggersTALK 06:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

{{Hydrology of Hampshire}} — HHHIPPO 19:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I've now added the template to all the linked articles but there may be more relevant articles that we need to include on the template. WaggersTALK 07:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


GA article being reassessed: Basingstoke[edit]

(Topic title edited by ―Mandruss , — HHHIPPO)

The following was posted on the project page since this talk page doesn't seem to be editable for everybody:

Please transfer to talkpage

There's a problem for me with the talkpage: I have no edit facility there, so I'm posting this here - please transfer it to the talkpage.

GA article being reassessed: Basingstoke

Basingstoke was reviewed and listed in Aug 2007. It has been tagged with sourcing concerns since June 2012. I have done a GAR, which indicates that the article doesn't meet GA criteria. The main contributors have been notified, though are unavailable, so work has not been done. Following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, this WikiProject is being informed as editing assistance will be needed to prevent the article being delisted. See Talk:Basingstoke/GA1 for more details. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC) — HHHIPPO 19:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, this is mentioned in the "Basingstoke GAR" topic below.

Wonder why SilkTork (thought) they couldn't add a topic to this page - I guess the lack of an "Edit" tab was offputting and the "Start a new topic" box isn't hugely prominent. I'll mention it at WT:FLOW - maybe they can add a "new topic" tab where the "Edit" tab used to be. WaggersTALK 11:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


Assessment[edit]

Looks like there's been an influx of newly {{hants}}-tagged articles that need assessment. 130 at present with no class or importance! I'll get started... WaggersTALK 11:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

All assessed for quality now. We still have quite a few articles awaiting assessment for importance though. WaggersTALK 09:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


Portsmouth Wikimeetup[edit]

This is just a heads up to anyone who is in the area that the first Wikimedia meetup in Portsmouth will be happening on 29 June 2014.

Full details are on the event page on Meta at [m:Meetup/Portsmouth/1 m:Meetup/Portsmouth/1]. All are welcome, but please do not feel pressured into coming if it is not your thing.

For those not in the south Hampshire area, there are other meetups regularly around the UK and elsewhere in the world. The sidebar and footer on the linked meta page contain the list of planned meets. ~~~~ Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


Cleanup listing[edit]

There's a really useful tool that lists articles tagged by a wikiproject that have cleanup tags on them. Our listing is now up and running, and can be found here. There's also a link to it towards the bottom of our project page.

I can see this being a really useful way of improving the quality of WP:HANTS articles and focussing our efforts. WaggersTALK 07:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


July 10 Flow Update[edit]

Please see News and Notes, at Wikipedia talk:Flow#July 10 Flow Update, for the major update today. Feedback there is appreciated. Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


New Forest good articles?[edit]

Looking at the map of FAs and GAs, the one district of Hampshire that doesn't have any is the New Forest. Should we select an article to work on together to bring up to GA standard? Or perhaps there's a New Forest article that's already up to scratch that we should submit for GA assessment? What do you think? WaggersTALK 12:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Lyndhurst would be a good place to start? The content is mostly already there but could do with copyediting. Lyndhurst is looking in better shape compared to other towns such as New Milton and Fordingbridge. JAGUAR  15:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Back in 2006 the New Forest article itself was a good article nominee (but failed) - do you think Lyndhurst is a better bet? WaggersTALK 10:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

They seem both interesting targets, the New Forest needs a major cleanup and prose restructuring but Lyndhurst just needs a copyedit. The content is all there, it just needs cleaning up... I'll get to copyediting Lyndhurst tomorrow? JAGUAR  18:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, let's go for Lyndhurst WaggersTALK 14:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll start up improving Lyndhurst tomorrow. There are also no GAs in the Hart District. JAGUAR  17:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Good spot re Hart. Sorry I haven't managed to find time to spend on Lyndhurst yet but will muck in when I can. WaggersTALK 08:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


Old maps and views of the South-East[edit]

As you might have seen in the Signpost last week, there's currently a drive to go through the million 19th century images released by the British Library last year, and identify all the maps, with a view to their being georeferenced by BL volunteers, and then uploaded to Commons early next year. After the first week, over eight thousand new maps have been identified, with 40% of the target books looked at -- see the status page for the latest figures, and more information.

A part that may specifically interest this project is

c:Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection/Synoptic index/England - South East

which currently shows pink templated links for 309 Flickr book pages still to be looked at. (Though there are lots of other parts of England, and indeed of the world, still to be looked through as well).

Any help looking through these would be very much appreciated -- as well as the maps (and ground plans) for tagging, you may well also find other interesting or useful non-map views that may be worth considering or [:c:Commons:British_Library/Mechanical_Curator_collection#Uploading_to_Commons uploading] for articles on Hampshire and elsewhere in the South-East. (If uploading, please use the [:c:Commons:British_Library/Mechanical_Curator_collection#Image_descriptions ingestion template described here], which sets up some appropriate image templates and categories).

Thanks, Jheald (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC) Jheald (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the Hampshire stuff is done now but this is still a great resource to look at. I recently started the Grove Place article off the back of seeing an image of it in that collection and doing a little more research. I'd never heard of the place before seeing that image. I've also found some great images for other existing articles, such as Northam Bridge, King Edward VI School, Southampton and North Stoneham Park. I'm sure there are plenty more we can make good use of. WaggersTALK 15:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) ~~~~~ MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Any thoughts? I'm always up for trying something new (Flow being a prime example, and I think it's working really well for us). I think our main project page could do with an overhaul and maybe WPX will give us some good ideas for that. WaggersTALK 20:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, since there have been no other contributions to this thread I've taken the executive decision to sign us up, both as a pilot project and to the newsletter. If nothing else it'll be interesting to see how the newsletter and WP:FLOW get on! WaggersTALK 09:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

There's an interesting glitch at the intersection of MassMessage, Flow, and Notifications. Essentially, if you use MassMessage to deliver a newsletter, instead of coming from your account it comes from "MediaWiki message delivery," so you have to code your signature by hand. Except then you get told by the notification center "MediaWiki message delivery tagged you in a post" ... and it's just you signing your name on your own post. It's actually what happened for the first post in this thread; that's how I figured out which WikiProjects had Flow and which didn't! Harej (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


Assessment - importance scale[edit]

When assessing importance we've only really used {{Importance legend}} as a guideline before now, but that's still pretty subjective and our importance rankings aren't terribly consistent. So I've added some "rules of thumb" to the main project page. These are purely off the top of my head so I'm completely open to change (but let's discuss changes here rather than in edit summaries!) WaggersTALK 13:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


Royal Society of Chemistry blue plaque at Southampton Uni[edit]

Can anyone locate (by giving precise coordinates) or photograph the Royal Society of Chemistry blue plaque at Southampton University, as mentioned in List_of_blue_plaques_erected_by_the_Royal_Society_of_Chemistry#England, please? ~~~~ Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

There's a picture of the plaque being unveiled in this press release which we could potentially use under Fair Use if we can't find an image of the plaque in situ. Obviously a free-licence image would be preferable though. WaggersTALK 10:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 2[edit]

For this month's issue...

Making sense of a lot of data.

Work on our prototype will begin imminently. In the meantime, we have to understand what exactly we're working with. To this end, we generated a list of 71 WikiProjects, based on those brought up on our Stories page and those who had signed up for pilot testing. For those projects where people told stories, we coded statements within those stories to figure out what trends there were in these stories. This approach allowed us to figure out what Wikipedians thought of WikiProjects in a very organic way, with very little by way of a structure. (Compare this to a structured interview, where specific questions are asked and answered.) This analysis was done on 29 stories. Codes were generally classified as "benefits" (positive contributions made by a WikiProject to the editing experience) and "obstacles" (issues posed by WikiProjects, broadly speaking). Codes were generated as I went along, ensuring that codes were as close to the original data as possible. Duplicate appearances of a code for a given WikiProject were removed.

We found 52 "benefit" statements encoded and 34 "obstacle" statements. The most common benefit statement referring to the project's active discussion and participation, followed by statements referring to a project's capacity to guide editor activity, while the most common obstacles made reference to low participation and significant burdens on the part of the project maintainers and leaders. This gives us a sense of WikiProjects' big strength: they bring people together, and can be frustrating to editors when they fail to do so. Meanwhile, it is indeed very difficult to bring editors together on a common interest; in the absence of a highly motivated core of organizers, the technical infrastructure simply isn't there.

We wanted to pair this qualitative study with quantitative analysis of a WikiProject and its "universe" of pages, discussions, templates, and categories. To this end I wrote a script called ProjAnalysis which will, for a given WikiProject page (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek) and WikiProject talk-page tag (e.g. Template:WikiProject Star Trek), will give you a list of usernames of people who edited within the WikiProject's space (the project page itself, its talk page, and subpages), and within the WikiProject's scope (the pages tagged by that WikiProject, excluding the WikiProject space pages). The output is an exhaustive list of usernames. We ran the script to analyze our test batch of WikiProjects for edits between March 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015, and we subjected them to further analysis to only include those who made 10+ edits to pages in the projects' scope, those who made 4+ edits to the projects' space, and those who made 10+ edits to pages in scope but not 4+ edits to pages in the projects' space. This latter metric gives us an idea of who is active in a certain subject area of Wikipedia, yet who isn't actively engaging on the WikiProject's pages. This information will help us prioritize WikiProjects for pilot testing, and the ProjAnalysis script in general may have future life as an application that can be used by Wikipedians to learn about who is in their community.

Complementing the above two studies are a design analysis, which summarizes the structure of the different WikiProject spaces in our test batch, and the comprehensive census of bots and tools used to maintain WikiProjects, which will be finished soon. With all of this information, we will have a game plan in place! We hope to begin working with specific WikiProjects soon.

As a couple of asides...

  • Database Reports has existed for several years on Wikipedia to the satisfaction of many, but many of the reports stopped running when the Toolserver was shut off in 2014. However, there is good news: the weekly New WikiProjects and WikiProjects by Changes reports are back, with potential future reports in the future.
  • WikiProject X has an outpost on Wikidata! Check it out. It's not widely publicized, but we are interested in using Wikidata as a potential repository for metadata about WikiProjects, especially for WikiProjects that exist on multiple Wikimedia projects and language editions.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing! If you have any questions or comments, please share them with us.

Harej (talk) ~~~~~ MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Topic:Sdxauohvvrq5i7fy&topic_showPostId=sdxauolwv85fzk1a#flow-post-sdxauolwv85fzk1a

Almost was at the Issue. ~~~~

@Jimbo "Wales" Reverto, III:

Goose 2602:306:396F:F4B0:F48E:D369:CCAA:FE82 (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


Notice: Data loss and recovery[edit]

Hi all. Investigation is ongoing into a data-loss that was reported yesterday (phab:T95580), which seems to have been caused by a maintenance script updating the database. This affects all topic titles and post contents on this board prior to 11 February 2015. The Operations team is currently assisting with data-recovery from backups. We'll post more information here when we have it. We apologize for not having full information for you right now. Post here if you have any questions; we'll keep this Topic updated when we know more. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: The developers have a plan for recovery. They're going to talk to a few more members of the Operations team, to confirm the exact details, and various options, before proceeding. That is estimated to be Monday at this point, due to various people being away for the weekend. For the current discussions, please continue as normal! I'll update this topic again, when we have more information. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yowza. MZMcBride (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I'm happy to say that all of the data has been restored, so all of the old conversations on this page are back where they belong. We've fixed the problem that allowed the data loss to happen, so it won't happen again. Thanks for your patience, and let me know if you have any questions! DannyH (WMF) (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 3[edit]

Greetings! For this month's issue...

We have demos!

After a lengthy research and design process, we decided for WikiProject X to focus on two things:

  • A WikiProject workflow that focuses on action items: discussions you can participate in and tasks you can perform to improve the encyclopedia; and
  • An automatically updating WikiProject directory that gives you lists of users participating in the WikiProject and editing in that subject area.

We have a live demonstration of the new WikiProject workflow at WikiProject Women in Technology, a brand new WikiProject that was set up as an adjunct to a related edit-a-thon in Washington, DC. The goal is to surface action items for editors, and we intend on doing that through automatically updated working lists. We are looking into using SuggestBot to generate lists of outstanding tasks, and we are looking into additional options for automatic worklist generation. This takes the burden off of WikiProject editors to generate these worklists, though there is also a "requests" section for Wikipedians to make individual requests. (As of writing, these automated lists are not yet live, so you will see a blank space under "edit articles" on the demo WikiProject. Sorry about that!) I invite you to check out the WikiProject and leave feedback on WikiProject X's talk page.

Once the demo is sufficiently developed, we will be working on a limited deployment on our pilot WikiProjects. We have selected five for the first round of testing based on the highest potential for impact and will scale up from there.

While a re-designed WikiProject experience is much needed, that alone isn't enough. A WikiProject isn't any good if people have no way of discovering it. This is why we are also developing an automatically updated WikiProject directory. This directory will surface project-related metrics, including a count of active WikiProject participants and of active editors in that project's subject area. The purpose of these metrics is to highlight how active the WikiProject is at the given point of time, but also to highlight that project's potential for success. The directory is not yet live but there is a demonstration featuring a sampling of WikiProjects.

Each directory entry will link to a WikiProject description page which automatically list the active WikiProject participants and subject-area article editors. This allows Wikipedians to find each other based on the areas they are interested in, and this information can be used to revive a WikiProject, start a new one, or even for some other purpose. These description pages are not online yet, but they will use this template, if you want to get a feel of what they will look like.

We need volunteers!

WikiProject X is a huge undertaking, and we need volunteers to support our efforts, including testers and coders. Check out our volunteer portal and see what you can do to help us!

As an aside...

Wouldn't it be cool if lists of requested articles could not only be integrated directly with WikiProjects, but also shared between WikiProjects? Well, we got the crazy idea of having experimental software feature Flow deployed (on a totally experimental basis) on the new Article Request Workshop, which seeks to be a place where editors can "workshop" article ideas before they get created. It uses Flow because Flow allows, essentially, section-level categorization, and in the future will allow "sections" (known as "topics" within Flow) to be included across different pages. What this means is that you have a recommendation for a new article tagged by multiple WikiProjects, allowing for the recommendation to appear on lists for each WikiProject. This will facilitate inter-WikiProject collaboration and will help to reduce duplicated work. The Article Request Workshop is not entirely ready yet due to some bugs with Flow, but we hope to integrate it into our pilot WikiProjects at some point.

Harej (talk) ~~~~~ MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Topic:Sfptvodwoeocxkx1 MZMcBride (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@MediaWiki message delivery: Hmm. MZMcBride (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


Wiki Loves Pride[edit]

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

  • What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
  • When? June 2015
  • How can you help?
    1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
    2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
    3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, [:commons:Commons:LGBT Free Media Collective Wikimedia Commons], [:wikivoyage: Wikivoyage:LGBT Expedition Wikivoyage], [:meta: Wikimedia LGBT/Interwiki etc].)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the [:meta:Wikimedia LGBT/Portal Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group], an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa --Another Believer (Talk) 14:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC) (Edited by Quiddity (WMF) (talk))

Something had gone wrong with the formatting of the above message - basically it's appearing to me as code rather than text. ~~~~ PamD 15:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

And for my next question ... how do I edit a comment of my own, eg to correct "had" to "has" - Flow doesn't seem to offer anything. ~~~~ PamD 15:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am noticing the problem as well and trying to fix my original post. Sorry! This is the first time I am using Flow. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@PamD: mouseover the "..." icon at right, to get a dropdown menu with "Edit" in it. (Also, no signatures are needed in Flow :)

@Another Believer: The default for Flow posts is now to use VisualEditor mode, but if you click the "</>" icon at bottom-right (whilst editing), then you'll switch to wikitext mode (and if you save in wikitext mode, then it will save that as your sticky preference for next time). Hope that helps. [Fixed, out of wikignome compulsion ;) ] Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Quiddity (WMF): And this is supposed to be an improvement? Unimpressed as yet. Two confused editors so far, clearly. Important options hidden under a trio of dots. Thank heaven I'm not trying to do this in mobile, I dread to think how difficult it would be on my small not-very-smart phone.

Why no indentation - it seems impossible to see what any input is replying to. Or is this thread a poor example?

Is there, or will there be, a Beginner's Guide to Flow? Of course there shouldn't need to be, if its aim is to provide a good user-friendly interface, but for experienced editors converting from what they're used to it might be helpful to offer some pointers. PamD 22:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Indentation was much discussed back when Flow was first being developed. Personally I find the "three dots" menu intuitive as it's exactly what's used on a lot of other sites. BUT per the banner message, this isn't the place for discussing Flow.

That said it's great to see some new features appearing :) WaggersTALK 22:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 4[edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg
Newsletter • May/June 2015

Hello friends! We have been hard at work these past two months. For this report:

The directory is live!

For the first time, we are happy to bring you an exhaustive, comprehensive WikiProject Directory. This directory endeavors to list every single WikiProject on the English Wikipedia, including those that don't participate in article assessment. In constructing the broadest possible definition, we have come up with a list of approximately 2,600 WikiProjects. The directory tracks activity statistics on the WikiProject's pages, and, for where it's available, statistics on the number of articles tracked by the WikiProject and the number of editors active on those articles. Complementing the directory are description pages for each project, listing usernames of people active on the WikiProject pages and the articles in the WikiProject's scope. This will help Wikipedians interested in a subject find each other, whether to seek feedback on an article or to revive an old project. (There is an opt-out option.) We have also come up with listings of related WikiProjects, listing the ten most relevant WikiProjects based on what articles they have in common. We would like to promote WikiProjects as interconnected systems, rather than isolated silos.

A tremendous amount of work went into preparing this directory. WikiProjects do not consistently categorize their pages, meaning we had to develop our own index to match WikiProjects with the articles in their scope. We also had to make some adjustments to how WikiProjects were categorized; indeed, I personally have racked up a few hundred edits re-categorizing WikiProjects. There remains more work to be done to make the WikiProject directory truly useful. In the meantime, take a look and feel free to leave feedback at the WikiProject X talk page.

Stuff in the works!

What have we been working on?

  • A new design template—This has been in the works for a while, of course. But our goal is to design something that is useful and cleanly presented on all browsers and at all screen resolutions while working within the confines of what MediaWiki has to offer. Additionally, we are working on designs for the sub-components featured on the main project page.
  • A new WikiProject talk page banner in Lua—Work has begun on implementing the WikiProject banner in Lua. The goal is to create a banner template that can be usable by any WikiProject in lieu of having its own template. Work has slowed down for now to focus on higher priority items, but we are interested in your thoughts on how we could go about creating a more useful project banner. We have a draft module on Test Wikipedia, with a demonstration.
  • New discussion reports—We have over 4.8 million articles on the English Wikipedia, and almost as many talk pages as well. But what happens when someone posts on a talk page? What if no one is watching that talk page? We are currently testing out a system for an automatically-updating new discussions list, like RFC for WikiProjects. We currently have five test pages up for the WikiProjects on cannabis, cognitive science, evolutionary biology, and Ghana.
  • SuggestBot for WikiProjects—We have asked the maintainer of SuggestBot to make some minor adjustments to SuggestBot that will allow it to post regular reports to those WikiProjects that ask for them. Stay tuned!
  • Semi-automated article assessment—Using the new [m:Grants:IEG/Revision scoring as a service revision scoring service] and another system currently under development, WikiProjects will be getting a new tool to facilitate the article assessment process by providing article quality/importance predictions for articles yet to be assessed. Aside from helping WikiProjects get through their backlogs, the goal is to help WikiProjects with collecting metrics and triaging their work. Semi-automation of this process will help achieve consistent results and keep the process running smoothly, as automation does on other parts of Wikipedia.

Want us to work on any other tools? Interested in volunteering? Leave a note on our talk page.

The WikiProject watchers report is back!

The database report which lists WikiProjects according to the number of watchers (i.e., people that have the project on their watchlist), is back! The report stopped being updated a year ago, following the deactivation of the Toolserver, but a replacement report has been generated.


Until next time, Harej (talk) ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


Candidate for pilot testing, round one[edit]

Hello, WikiProject Hampshire!

On the recommendation of Waggers, I am happy to announce that this WikiProject has been selected for the first round of WikiProject X pilot testing! Pilot testing candidates were selected on the basis for potential success of the WikiProject.

The goal of WikiProject X is to improve the WikiProject experience through research, design, and experimentation. On that basis, we've prepared a new WikiProject design template based around modules. These modules include features you are already familiar with, such as article alerts, but also new features such as automated work lists, a feed of discussions taking place on the 2,690 talk pages tagged by WikiProject Cannabis, and a new member profile system with opt-in notifications. The new design is available for your review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Hampshire/New. Please let me know what you think. (Note that some of the modules depend on output from other bots, meaning there will be some visual inconsistencies for now. I hope to resolve this in the long term.)

The next steps:

  1. If you are all satisfied with the design, I will implement it on the WikiProject page. Unless there are major points of contention, I hope to get this done by Friday, July 10.
  2. Using information from Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Hampshire, I will work on recruiting new members for the WikiProject. I will also reach out to your current listed members.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Harej Harej (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I am sure WikiProject Cannabis is great, but I don't know why you think WikiProject Hampshire editors can help ;) I guess there is a typo, and we will get to hear about Hampshire talk pages, not cannabis ones ! Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I meant the 2,690 talk pages tagged by WikiProject *Hampshire*. Harej (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Mind you, after walking along the Test at the Cleeves last week one could be forgiven for assuming that WikiProject Cannabis was relevant. Keri (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks Harej. This is very exciting.

My initial impression of the new page is that the design is very clean and clear - looks-wise, it's certainly an improvement on our current project page. Some of those new tools (new to me, at least) are going to be incredibly useful. You can probably see that we've never really managed to keep our tasks/things to do template up to date so having tasks suggested automatically is a big win.

I was worried that the "how to write an article about X" guidelines were missing but I see they're further down the page in the resources section. The way the new page is ordered makes a lot more sense - essentially putting the information that's most relevant to visitors to the project page towards the top, with resources for veteran project members further down.

I can only see one slightly negative thing, which is actually related to the "Related WikiProjects" tool rather than the page design but I'll mention it here. WikiProject Hampshire has a number of sister projects for the counties around us. Because our boundaries don't overlap we don't have (m)any articles in common, so the Related WikiProjects tool doesn't recognise that relationship. Although we operate more or less in isolation as WikiProjects, we do have a few things that we work on communally (for example all the portals for South East England counties use the same framework and together populate Portal:South East England itself).

That's not a showstopper by any means. In my view the new page is vastly superior to the existing one both in terms of layout and content. WaggersTALK 14:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, Waggers.

Regarding the sister WikiProjects, is there a list somewhere that I can use? It would be good to adapt it into either a standalone section or as an adjunct to the related WikiProjects list. Harej (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I've realised we don't currently list sister projects on the existing page, so I think I was getting confused! Portal:Hampshire uses the template {{SEERelatedPortals}} to list sister portals, but we don't have an equivalent on the project page - perhaps we don't need one. I suggest we go live with the prototype as it stands, and we can discuss the inclusion of sister projects later.

(We'd probably have to discuss whether to include all our fellow South East England projects, or all counties that share a border with Hampshire, or some other combination - not a conversation we need to have right now). WaggersTALK 07:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


Wikimedia Meetup Southampton[edit]

Hi all - just gauging interest. Would a Southampton/Hampshire Wikipedia:Meetup interest anyone here? -- samtar talk or stalk 21:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

There was one in Portsmouth recently - not sure how successful it was, does anyone that was there have a view? WaggersTALK 13:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


AfD[edit]

The Vadne (ferry) article has been nominated for deletion. ~~~~ Mjroots (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 5[edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg
Newsletter • October 2015

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

We did it!

In July, we launched five pilot WikiProjects: WikiProjects Cannabis, Evolutionary Biology, Ghana, Hampshire, and Women's Health. We also use the new design, named "WPX UI," on WikiProject Women in Technology, Women in Red, WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health. We are currently looking for projects for the next round of testing. If you are interested, please sign up on the Pilots page.

Shortly after our launch we presented at Wikimania 2015. Our slides are on Wikimedia Commons.

Then after all that work, we went through the process of figuring out whether we accomplished our goal. We reached out to participants on the redesigned WikiProjects, and we asked them to complete a survey. (If you filled out your survey—thank you!) While there are still some issues with the WikiProject tools and the new design, there appears to be general satisfaction (at least among those who responded). The results of the survey and more are documented in our grant report filed with the Wikimedia Foundation.

The work continues!

There is more work that needs to be done, so we have applied for a renewal of our grant. Comments on the proposal are welcome. We would like to improve what we have already started on the English Wikipedia and to also expand to Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. Why those? Because they are multilingual projects and because there needs to be better coordination across Wikimedia projects. More details are available in the renewal proposal.

How can the Wikimedia Foundation support WikiProjects?

The Wikimedia Developer Summit will be held in San Francisco in January 2016. The recently established Community Tech team at the Wikimedia Foundation is interested in investigating what technical support they can provide for WikiProjects, i.e., support beyond just templates and bots. I have plenty of opinions myself, but I want to hear what you think. The session is being planned on Phabricator, the Wikimedia bug tracker. If you are not familiar with Phabricator, you can log in with your Wikipedia username and password through the "Login or Register: MediaWiki" button on the login page. Your feedback can help make editing Wikipedia a better experience.


Until next time,

Harej (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


Reports bot content[edit]

I love the new project page layout and the idea of automatically updated content thanks to WikiProject X and Reports Bot. But so much of the content Reports Bot provides is completely irrelevant to this project, or in some cases just not working.

Discussions: currently I can see 4 listings, all of which are identical (a link to the "Dream Factory" discussion on Talk:Television Centre, Southampton). Aside from the annoying repetition, there are more recent discussions on other talk pages that are tagged with our WikiProject banner, yet these aren't showing up (examples include Shirley Parish Church, Farnborough, Hampshire, Mims Davies to name just a few). Hitting the Refresh button doesn't seem to have any effect.

Assess for quality / not tagged by the WikiProject seem to be ok.

All the other Tasks sections are populated mainly with articles that are not tagged by this WikiProject so shouldn't be showing up on our project page. Examples that I can see on the front page right now include:

Mentioning @Harej: as he operates Reports Bot and is involved in WikiProject X.

If these can't be easily/quickly fixed we'll need to decide what to do. Updating all these sections routinely by hand doesn't seem viable as we don't have enough active editors to manage that, but displaying incorrect information on our front page doesn't make us look too clever. WaggersTALK 09:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, Waggers.

The discussions list bug you point out is a known issue. We hope to figure out the cause of it soon.

The other sections are based on SuggestBot. Nettrom should have some insight as to why irrelevant content is being recommended. Harej (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Waggers: and @Harej:! Sorry about the late response to this, it's been a busy week.

If I understand you correctly, the problem here is that the suggestions include articles that are not a part of WikiProject Hampshire? This is something I've anticipated might be a problem, but I wanted to send out a round of suggestions and see if it actually came up before doing anything about it. The thing is, solving it might not be straightforward, but as I don't run a project I'm happy to hear thoughts on this.

The articles that SuggestBot suggests are all from "task categories" (documented here) because otherwise it will suggest articles that aren't in need of improvement. Due to this restriction, it sometimes suggests articles that are not clearly similar to its input set (in our case, articles assessed by the project). It will also not suggest the same article twice, which in turn means it sometimes have to pick an article at random from a task category.

I went through our logs and checked the articles Waggers listed, and they're either weakly related to the project, or randomly selected (which might be obvious, but it's good to know what went on behind the scenes).

One way to solve this is to only suggest articles from the project that are also in specific task categories. This has the benefit that it'll never suggest wrong articles. A couple of drawbacks are that it'll require the project to tag articles (e.g. if it needs more sources use {{Refimprove}}), as otherwise the bot has no articles to choose from. It'll also never identify articles that might be within the scope of the project, but which the project hasn't tagged yet, although IIRC, Harej has a program that looks for those already?

Curious to hear your thoughts on this. Nettrom (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


WikiProject X is up for renewal[edit]

First of all, I would like to express my appreciation for WikiProject Hampshire for testing the new WikiProject interface and tools. Thank you.

WikiProject X is up for renewal at the Wikimedia Foundation. We would like to continue working to make our existing tools better: to make them easier to use, and to integrate them with other Wikimedia projects, including Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. Please review our [m:Grants:IEG/WikiProject X/Renewal renewal proposal] and leave feedback.

As always, if you have any questions or feedback, please let me know on this talk page or the WikiProject X talk page.

Thank you again, Harej. Harej (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


Rose/Ageas Bowl[edit]

Just a heads-up that there's a new requested move for this article. This time I find myself on the other side of the fence to last time! WaggersTALK 09:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


Maintenance work[edit]

To let everyone know, I will be making a change to the {{Load WikiProject Modules}} Lua module, used on this project to render the different sections. This change involves, among other things, moving the different section headers out of the subpages and onto the main WikiProject page. This change will make the WikiProject easier to use and maintain. During this change, there may be a brief time window where the WikiProject page looks broken. Once the changes are finished, everything should be restored to normal. If not, purge your cache and it will work. If there are any bugs, please let me know promptly on my talk page. Thank you. Harej (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This work should now be done. Please let me know if there are any bugs. Harej (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking good :) -- samtar talk or stalk 08:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


Merry Christmas and Happy New Year[edit]

Have a good one all! Face-smile.svg -- samtar talk or stalk 15:38, 24 December 2015 (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)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


Call to enable Flow function in English Wikipedia as early as possible[edit]

I would like to call to enable user talks' Flow function in English Wikipedia as early as possible, thank you. Shwangtianyuan Talk Here 03:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Village Pump (proposals) would be the page for running that RFC. Actually is a Flow RFC currently being drafted by a few editors. A series of Flow pages have received consensus-to-delete, one page got consensus to end the Flow trial and convert back to Talk. The only two remaining Flow pages on EnWiki are this one, and the Flow Testing page. The current draft RFC is a proposal to completely *disable* Flow on EnWiki.
You're certainly welcome to initiate an RFC proposing broad activation of Flow, but I expected it would get SNOWed with Opposes. Alsee (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Shwangtianyuan, I don't think this is the right place to discuss it. A more proper venue might be Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Also a fair warning: Flow is a fairly contentious topic, so you will need to make a very persuasive argument. Harej (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 7[edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg
Newsletter • February 2016

This month:

One database for Wikipedia requests

Development of the extension for setting up WikiProjects, as described in the last issue of this newsletter, is currently underway. No terribly exciting news on this front.

In the meantime, we are working on a prototype for a new service we hope to announce soon. The problem: there are requests scattered all across Wikipedia, including requests for new articles and requests for improvements to existing articles. We Wikipedians are very good at coming up with lists of things to do. But once we write these lists, where do they end up? How can we make them useful for all editors—even those who do not browse the missing articles lists, or the particular WikiProjects that have lists?

Introducing Wikipedia Requests, a new tool to centralize the various lists of requests around Wikipedia. Requests will be tagged by category and WikiProject, making it easier to find requests based on what your interests are. Accompanying this service will be a bot that will let you generate reports from this database on any wiki page, including WikiProjects. This means that once a request is filed centrally, it can syndicated all throughout Wikipedia, and once it is fulfilled, it will be marked as "complete" throughout Wikipedia. The idea for this service came about when I saw that it was easy to put together to-do lists based on database queries, but it was harder to do this for human-generated requests when those requests are scattered throughout the wiki, siloed throughout several pages. This should especially be useful for WikiProjects that have overlapping interests.

The newsletter this month is fairly brief; not a lot of news, just checking in to say that we are hard at work and hope to have more for you soon.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


Aerial photography[edit]

Fort Monckton

The Hampshire Hub Partnership has released aerial photography of the entire county under the Open Government License. This is available to download via ftp://www.hants.gov.uk/ . The image to the right is a typical example.

This may be useful to Hampshire editors! Nilfanion (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

That's hugely exciting, thanks for the heads-up. I'm off to explore right now! WaggersTALK 11:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's a slightly easier way of navigating it: http://hampshire.geodata.soton.ac.uk/#/globe/layers/aerial WaggersTALK 11:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, that link is certainly easier to navigate. However I'd recommend using the FTP to obtain the final file for upload. Comparing File:Hurst Castle from the air.png to this, the uploaded file has obvious noise compared to the cleaner file on the ftp. Nilfanion (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've used that to create File:Overhead view of Hurst Castle.jpg. I'll mark the png version for deletion as a lower quality duplicate. WaggersTALK 09:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems the FTP site is now offline. The link I shared is still operational but as stated above, the quality isn't as good when downloading from there. WaggersTALK 13:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 8[edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg
Newsletter • March / April 2016

This month:

Transclude article requests anywhere on Wikipedia

In the last issue of the WikiProject X Newsletter, I discussed the upcoming Wikipedia Requests system: a central database for outstanding work on Wikipedia. I am pleased to announce Wikipedia Requests is live! Its purpose is to supplement automatically generated lists, such as those from SuggestBot, Reports bot, or Wikidata. It is currently being demonstrated on WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health (which I work on as part of my NIOSH duties) and WikiProject Women scientists.

Adding a request is as simple as filling out a form. Just go to the Add form to add your request. Adding sources will help ensure that your request is fulfilled more quickly. And when a request is fulfilled, simply click "mark as complete" and it will be removed from all the lists it's on. All at the click of a button! (If anyone is concerned, all actions are logged.)

With this new service is a template to transclude these requests: {{Wikipedia Requests}}. It's simple to use: add the template to a page, specifying article=, category=, or wikiproject=, and the list will be transcluded. For example, for requests having to do with all living people, just do {{Wikipedia Requests|category=Living people}}. Use these lists on WikiProjects but also for edit-a-thons where you want a convenient list of things to do on hand. Give it a shot!

Help us build our list!

The value of Wikipedia Requests comes from being a centralized database. The long work to migrating individual lists into this combined list is slowly underway. As of writing, we have 883 open tasks logged in Wikipedia Requests. We need your help building this list.

If you know of a list of missing articles, or of outstanding tasks for existing articles, that you would like to migrate to this new system, head on over to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Requests#Transition project and help out. Doing this will help put your list in front of more eyes—more than just your own WikiProject.

An open database means new tools

WikiProject X maintains a database that associates article talk pages (and draft talk pages) with WikiProjects. This database powers many of the reports that Reports bot generates. However, until very recently, this database was not made available to others who might find its data useful. It's only common sense to open up the database and let others build tools with it.

And indeed: Citation Hunt, the game to add citations to Wikipedia, now lets you filter by WikiProject, using the data from our database.

Are you a tool developer interested in using this? Here are some details: the database resides on Tool Labs with the name s52475__wpx_p. The table that associates WikiProjects with articles and drafts is called projectindex. Pages are stored by talk page title but in the future this should change. Have fun!

On the horizon
  • The work on the CollaborationKit extension continues. The extension will initially focus on reducing template and Lua bloat on WikiProjects (especially our WPX UI demonstration projects), and will from there create custom interfaces for creating and maintaining WikiProjects.
  • The [meta:WikiCite 2016 WikiCite] meeting will be in Berlin in May. The goal of the meeting is to figure out how to build a bibliographic database for use on the Wikimedia projects. This fits in quite nicely with WikiProject X's work: we want to make it easier for people to find things to work on, and with a powerful, open bibliographic database, we can build recommendations for sources. This feature was requested by the Wikipedia Library back in September, and this meeting is a major next step. We look forward to seeing what comes out of this meeting.


Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm very surprised that the lists of requests aren't being automatically pulled from existing maintenance categories and tags - there must be hundreds of thousands of articles with such "requests" already on them and it wouldn't be hard to pull those kind of lists from the Wikipedia API, but will take years to do manually.

I'm also surprised how "manual" the process of adding a request is - it involves quite a bit of typing. It needs to be as easy, if not easier, to add a request as it is to tag an article using Twinkle or add a category using HotCat. As things stand there isn't even a link to add a request when viewing an article, or a script or Gadget to add such a link to the Tools menu.

Without those things in place I don't see this catching on. Arguably we already have a centralised list of requests at Category:Wikipedia maintenance and its subcategories, which could be cross-referenced by WikiProject using CatScan or similar. I thought the purpose of Wikipedia Requests was to make that process easier, not to create a whole new industry (which incidentally seems to sit off-wiki). WaggersTALK 08:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


Check-in[edit]

Hello, WikiProject Hampshire! Just checking in. How has your work on Wikipedia been going? Have the tools and reports on the WikiProject been useful? Running into challenges using or maintaining the WikiProject? Anything you would like to see changed? Harej (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Harej, thanks for checking in. Overall I think the tools and reports are positive - it's certainly a relief to not have to manually update the project page. There are a few issues with the reports that I think have been mentioned previously, such as:

  • "Discussions" currently says it was last updated 5 months ago by you; when I click on [Refresh] that doesn't change, and nor does the report update. At present all four items in that report relate to the same article (George Bell (bishop)) and the discussions in question were last edited at least three months ago, yet looking through my own contributions I can see there are more recent discussions at:
  • Articles listed under the SuggestBot categories (Add sources, Cleanup, etc) aren't always in scope of the project but tend to be from "related WikiProjects". Since our top "related WikiProject" is WikiProject UK Geography that means the articles SuggestBot comes up with could be from anywhere in the UK rather than specific to Hampshire.

In terms of project membership, many who had "joined" the project previously have not taken the opportunity to rejoin since the implementation of WikiProject X, but we have seen some new members signing up. We don't tend to coordinate our activities as a project very well so it's hard to tell how active the other members of the project are, and it can seem that we're not very active - but actually we've seen several articles climbing up the quality rankings - over the last year we've gone from 9 FAs and 23 GAs to 10 FAs and 31 GAs for example. So it's hard to gauge the effect on involvement.

Now that the Requests feature is up and running we have a bit of work to do to start using it properly, and we need to do better at updating the Announcements section, but those things are down to us.

WP Hampshire was never the most active project and I'm not sure that WP X has changed that significantly (yet), but WPX certainly lowers the amount of maintenance needed to keep the project running and the reports have potential (but would be more useful if the couple of issues mentioned above could be resolved). WaggersTALK 07:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Happy to hear that it's made maintenance easier; that was certainly the overall intent. As for the discussions feed, it's been broken for the past several months (unfortunately). We should be getting around to fixing it as soon as we're done with the overall refactor of Reports bot. Likewise with SuggestBot, Nettrom has been working on making the recommendations more project-specific.

I am excited to see you're using the new Wikipedia Requests feature. Let me know if you run into any issues using it; it's quite new and has a lot of rough edges.

Let me know if you need help with anything else. Harej (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Great to see that the discussions feed seems to be up and running again. That's definitely a useful feature - good work! WaggersTALK 11:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 9[edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg
Newsletter • May / June 2016

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, featuring the first screenshot of our new CollaborationKit software!

Harej (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2016 (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)

Template_talk:Buildings_in_Southampton#Reorganisation[edit]

An editor has made some pretty drastic changes to Template:Buildings_in_Southampton which I think need some further discussion. Please join in at the link above. WaggersTALK 10:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 11[edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg
Newsletter • February 2018

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, with plans to renew work with a followup grant proposal to support finalising the deployment of CollaborationKit!

-— Isarra 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Can I send invitations to new members for your project?[edit]

Hi, I have been working on recommending new members for your project for a while, and have sent some lists to Waggers who was willing to help invite those recommended editors. I wonder if you mind me sending invitations directly for WikiProject Hampshire on your behalf to save time and efforts of yours? Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bobo.03: Hi Bobo, thanks for your work on this. Unfortunately I've been pretty busy lately so haven't been able to send any invitations myself, so if you're happy to do that I'd have absolutely no objections. WaggersTALK 09:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Waggers: Will do! Yeah, whenever you have a chance, please feel free to invite editors on the list, and let me know when you want to see more lists. I will also help invite some (but definitely not too many)! Bobo.03 (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Main article[edit]

I think it's a shame that the main article Hampshire relating to this WikiProject is not a Good Article (any more). Should it not be top priority? Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Review of Hampshire article[edit]

Further to my previous comment, I've put a review of Hampshire on Talk:Hampshire. Comments very welcome. Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggest bot is dead[edit]

We may as well remove these outdated reports from the WikiProject page. – Craig Davison (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Davisonio: Agreed.  Done WaggersTALK 09:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject[edit]

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background[edit]

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)