User:Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 has evidently decided he doesn't like the religion labels on a lot of articles, and in particular has gone through the presidents changing "Episcopal" to "Episcopalianism" (and perhaps making similar changes for other religions). I've left him a message, but at the moment I have to go off to church. If someone would like to take up the reversions it would help. Mangoe (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The New Georgia Encyclopedia ("NGE") has authorized Wikipedia to import and/or merge ten articles, which I have copied to project space, including Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/New Georgia Encyclopedia/Jimmy Carter. Our goal is to get these articles in top shape and merge or move them into mainspace as quickly as possible. If this turns out well (as I am confident it will), the NGE will permit us to import their remaining body of over 2,200 well-researched and well-written articles, which could pioneer a trend for other private owners of encyclopedic content to release their materials into our corpus. I would deeply appreciate any help that we can muster in merging in the NGE Jimmy Carter materials. If there is nothing that can be merged in, we should make an affirmative determination about that as well. Cheers! bd2412T03:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Harry S. Truman for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Geschichte (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
As detailed in last week's Signpost, WildBot has been patrolling Wikipedia-Books and searched for various problems in them, such as books having duplicate articles or containing redirects. WikiProject Wikipedia-Books is in the process of cleaning them up, but help would be appreciated. For this project, the following books have problems:
The problem reports explain in details what exactly are the problems, why they are problems, and how to fix them. This way anyone can fix them even if they aren't familiar with books. If you don't see something that looks like this, then all problems have been fixed. (Please strike articles from this list as the problems get fixed.)
Also, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of books (title, subtitle, cover-image, cover-color), and gives are preview of the default cover on the book's page. An example of such a cover is found on the right. Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class U.S. Presidents articles should have covers.
This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 22:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot(owner • talk)22:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Systematically Getting All President Articles to GA
Would anybody like to do this with me? We can do it starting from the most recent, that would be Bill Clinton. --Iankap99 (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Mass religion changes on Presidents
User:Adherent of the Enlightenment 10.0 has evidently decided he doesn't like the religion labels on a lot of articles, and in particular has gone through the presidents changing "Episcopal" to "Episcopalianism" (and perhaps making similar changes for other religions). I've left him a message, but at the moment I have to go off to church. If someone would like to take up the reversions it would help. Mangoe (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The New Georgia Encyclopedia ("NGE") has authorized Wikipedia to import and/or merge ten articles, which I have copied to project space, including Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/New Georgia Encyclopedia/Jimmy Carter. Our goal is to get these articles in top shape and merge or move them into mainspace as quickly as possible. If this turns out well (as I am confident it will), the NGE will permit us to import their remaining body of over 2,200 well-researched and well-written articles, which could pioneer a trend for other private owners of encyclopedic content to release their materials into our corpus. I would deeply appreciate any help that we can muster in merging in the NGE Jimmy Carter materials. If there is nothing that can be merged in, we should make an affirmative determination about that as well. Cheers! bd2412T03:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Harry S. Truman for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Geschichte (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
As detailed in last week's Signpost, WildBot has been patrolling Wikipedia-Books and searched for various problems in them, such as books having duplicate articles or containing redirects. WikiProject Wikipedia-Books is in the process of cleaning them up, but help would be appreciated. For this project, the following books have problems:
The problem reports explain in details what exactly are the problems, why they are problems, and how to fix them. This way anyone can fix them even if they aren't familiar with books. If you don't see something that looks like this, then all problems have been fixed. (Please strike articles from this list as the problems get fixed.)
Also, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of books (title, subtitle, cover-image, cover-color), and gives are preview of the default cover on the book's page. An example of such a cover is found on the right. Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class U.S. Presidents articles should have covers.
This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 22:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot(owner • talk)22:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Systematically Getting All President Articles to GA
Would anybody like to do this with me? We can do it starting from the most recent, that would be Bill Clinton. --Iankap99 (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Psychonaut01:
I was glancing through some Executive Order stubs and noticed that they had been expanded out to include what looks like a heavy dose of Original Research and Opinion from the above user. Examples are Executive Order 10925, Executive Order 11246 and Executive Order 11375. I would advise someone with a better understanding takes some action to clarify some of the remarks as there definitely appears to be some synthesis.Koncorde (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Assessing president pages
Hey, I am new to wikipedia and I was wondering how president pages were assessed in order to determine their class rankings. I clicked on guidelines but it didn't say anything about it. Any info would be greatly appreciated.
ATTENTION: I am asking all editors interested to join me in revamping Millard Fillmore's article. It is in bad shape. If you know anything about him or are willing to research and contribute consider this a call to action! Let's get to work. Thanks!--Schwindtd (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Also I am thinking about starting an "Unknown Presidents" task force. The following Presidents would be included:
Our Mission: To expand the knowledge of the "Unknown Presidents." Specifically getting all these articles to GA class or higher.
Let me know what you think. --Schwindtd (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
U.S. Presidents articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the U.S. Presidents articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
Guys, if we are committed we could get all presidents up to GA level systematically. If we work together on the most recent one that isn't GA, each one would take a week tops. Would anybody like to do this with me? We can do it starting from the most recent, that would be Bill Clinton.--Iankap99 (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I have just finished a GA review of Rutherford B. Hayes and have notified the nominator User:Schwindtd. However, I see that he is semi-retired and on wikibreak. Perhaps other members of the wikiproject would be available to address my concerns while the article is on hold, so that it can be promoted to GA. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Merge three noticeboards
I have started a proposal to merge three United States related Noticeboards into one due to all three having no, or extremely limited activity, in the last year. I believe this will invigorate the noticeboard if we keep any of them at all. I propose merging:
Please provide comments here (including support or oppose). Comments are necessary to ensure that this does not intefere with ongoing efforts. If no comments are received in 7 days I will assume there is no problem and proceed with the merger. --Kumioko (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
George H.W. Bush and Jennifer Fitzgerald
There is a discussion going on currently on H.W.'s talk page regarding the addition of content on Fitzgerald to H.W.'s page. I would really appreciate some of your opinions on the matter. Thanks Much!--UhOhFeeling (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
United States related Tag and Assess proposal
There is a proposal on WikiProject United States to task Xenobot with tagging and assessment of articles that fall into the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States. Please take a few moments to provide your comments about this proposal.
Hello, WikiProject United States Presidents/Archive 5! We are looking for editors to join WikiProject United States, an outreach effort which aims to support development of United States related articles in Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!
I am hoping to get some help from the knowledgeable folks here in order to get an article on Jennifer Fitzgerald ready for the main space. Here is where it is located currently, User:UhOhFeeling/Jennifer_Fitzgerald. Please feel free to edit away. If not, any advice on how to make this a solid article would be much appreciated. What would probably be the greatest help is adding more solid ref's. Thanks much. --UhOhFeeling (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
A consideration for cross project consolidation of talk page templates
I have started a conversation here about the possibility of combining some of the United States related WikiProject Banners into {{WikiProject United States}}. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please take a moment and let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Suggested policy change to the tagging of non article items
Let's Get It Out There! Help me Reveal the Lives Of U.S. Presidents
I noticed, in my opinion, that they don't include ALL of the trivia and secret lives of the presidents. Join me in the new "Get It Out There" task force to reveal this. Together we can make their secrets known. (Open membership on December 31, 2010 Type Get It Out There!)Aruda556 (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I just completed a substantial edit here; main improvement is added references and clean up of reference/footnote formats. The article still needs a lot of work. Carmarg4 (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Casliber recently posted a suggestion on the talk page for WikiProject United States about getting the US Wikipedians Collaboration page going again in an effort to build up articles for GA through FA class. See Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM. After several days of work from him the page is up and ready for action. A few candidates have already been added for you to vote on or you can submit one using the directions provided. If you are looking for inspiration here is a link to the most commonly viewed articles currently under the scope of Wikiproject United States. There are tons of good articles in the various US related projects as well so feel free to submit any article relating to US topics (not just those under the scope of WPUS). This noticeboard is intended for ‘’’All’’’ editors working on US subjects, not just those under WPUS.
The next item I intend to start updating is Portal:United States if anyone is interested in helping. Again this is not specific to WPUS and any help would be greatly appreciated to maximize visibility of US topics. The foundation has already been established its just a matter of updating the content with some new images, biographies and articles. Please let leave a comment on the Portals talk page or let me know if you have any questions or ideas. --Kumioko (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Because this project was not included, I am bringing up the popular pages tool here. This tool makes it very easy to track three of four balancing dimensions when selecting articles for showcasing at a portal - quality, importance and popularity. When tracking the fourth dimension, topic, the related article lists tool (such as for U.S. article lists tool) also might be useful by filtering on categories of interest.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
{{cite journal
|author=John Smith
|year=2000
|title=How to Put Things into Other Things
|journal=Journal of Foobar
|volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4
|arxiv=0123456789
|asin=0123456789
|bibcode=0123456789
|doi=0123456789
|jfm=0123456789
|jstor=0123456789
|lccn=0123456789
|isbn=0123456789
|issn=0123456789
|mr=0123456789
|oclc=0123456789
|ol=0123456789
|osti=0123456789
|rfc=0123456789
|pmc=0123456789
|pmid=0123456789
|ssrn=0123456789
|zbl=0123456789
|id={{para|id|____}}
}}
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}03:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Most of the presidents are remembered on at least one stamp. There appears to be a concerted effort underway on the part of philatelist editors to highlight this in the presidential articles. Multiple stamp images are being added to some articles, and in some cases even new sections added devoted to the detailed stamp representation for the president. My own opinion is that the stamp feature is not germane to the article and should not be emphasized – if not eliminated entirely. Most recently this has, in my view, taken up a completely inordinate amount of attention and discussion with Lincoln. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I've fought this stampcruft and will continue to do so on the other presidential biographies. It's not really a bunch of philatelist editors, though, it's just that one guy. --Coemgenus13:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
It's quite frustrating. I understand the loss of perspective, but don't know the answer. Sometimes Im ready to let it lapse into an edit war and lock up the article.Carmarg4 (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Such an extreme aversion is not at all warranted. US Postage has been included on many of the presidential pages in the context of the history associated with them. None of it goes into 'stamp collecting' issues. The advent of US postage involves honors, congressional debates, the Postmaster General, a cabinet member, and other history often involving historical events. Currently at issue is the placement of the first Lincoln postage stamp, issued exactly one year to the day after Lincoln's death. This was the nation's first Lincoln postage stamp, directly prompted by Lincoln's untimely death. It was a national memorial stamp, issued by the U.S. Government and was met with great fanfare across the nation, given the nature of Lincoln's death. This image was included to the Lincoln page more than a year ago where it was viewed by thousands of viewers a day with no issues until just recently. This is the "nonsense" that is being referred to above. Lincoln is as common to U.S. Postage as is George Washington, and my attempt to briefly mention this as part of Lincoln's legacy and present at least one postage stamp image has been reverted with no response to the various points made in the discussion -- the same points I have made here. It would be helpful if other members of this project would come to the Lincoln talk page and offer their insights on this matter. The Lincoln page is currently undergoing major deletions and revisions out of concern for page length. While page length should be a consideration it doesn't justify the removal of much of the material. Deletions and revisions are occurring at the hand of one editor mostly at a pace and frequency that doesn't allow time for assessment and discussion. This also needs to be addressed. We all want to improve the article, but the manner in which some attempts have been made needs to be addressed by other historians/editors. Gwillhickers (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Your argument is disingenuous. There are stamps in other articles because you put them there and edit-warred with anyone who disagreed. That's not some sort of encyclopedia-wide consensus, it's just image spam. --Coemgenus08:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The only pages that I have ever come close to "edit warring" are the Benjamin Harrison page, and now the Abraham Lincoln page because of the reverting of good faith edits without discussion, or without completing the discussion. After a two month long discussion on the Harrison page, you as the primary objector, your arguments failed, all of them, consensus weighed in and we were allowed to keep/include the first Benjamin Harrison stamp on that page, in legacy, where it rightfully belongs. I believe this would explain your disgruntled manner and less than accurate accounts here in this discussion and is why you are attempting to manipulate the consensus process now. Hopefully this matter will be solved by a fair and confirmed consensus, not by the digressive characterizations you attempt to substitute for actual debate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
My arguments didn't "fail", you just refused to listen to them. There was no consensus, just a truce between your opinion and mine because no one else cared enough to pay attention to Benjamin Harrison. Lincoln, fortunately, is more popular. --Coemgenus10:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
There were many people who weighed in, consensus was split and varied, with you and one of the friends you approached the only ones wanting to eliminate the stamp images entirely. Your claim that I got my way simply because I didn't listen is too funny to even entertain. Please let me know if you ever find anyone who will entertain that idea any longer than it takes to read it Coemgenus. In the mean time, please do not try to impede the consensus process. There is a fair chance consensus will agree with your opinion regarding US postage and presidents, why not wait and see? I can deal with an unfavorable opinion. How about you? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I have always accepted consensus once it has been established, even when the result went against me (as it often did when I was a less-experienced editor). This time will be no different. --Coemgenus11:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Suggestion to pull this project under WikiProject United States
It was recently suggested that this project might be inactive or semiactive and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. After reviewing the project it appears that there is some active discussions on the talk page and some content updates to the project page but being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. This discussion is intended to start the process of determining if the project members are interested in the project being added to the projects supported by WikiProject United States. --Kumioko (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
It's barely active. Many of the members don't edit Presidents' articles much at all, and there's no activity in terms of collaboration. I was thinking of organizing a peer review process, but I haven't done it yet. Having the support of a larger Wikiproject might help get things moving on presidential articles. --Coemgenus16:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I was also wondering if it might be beneficial to merge this project and presidential elections but I don't know much about that projects activity either. Obviously there are positives and negatives but they are closely related. I also noticed that it seemed like the same 10 or 15 people editing most of the presidents and doing most of the work and some of those aren't even members of this project. They may not even know about the project. As a side note this came up because WPUS is going to be doing an article improvement drive soon (I'm shooting for the Septober timeframe) to build up some more Featured articles and the 2 primary candidates at the moment are Presidents and States. Possibly both. I am going to leave a message about the discussion on the active participants talk pages to get their input. --Kumioko (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I would agree that the presidents project seems to be inactive at best. There are a number of editors with whom I collaborate regularly on individual article talk pages. We have encountered a couple of issues which concerns most if not all of the presidents. See above postage stamp issue. The project could perhaps be most effectively used in responding to and concluding calls for consensus on issues that relate in particular to the presidents.; although, it must be said this is counterintuitive to the open venue. I agree a philosophy of "use it or lose it" is appropriate. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure how the Wikiproject works, however, I would keep the Wikiproject U.S. Presidential Projects until each President gets at least a GA status. My view is that the project can focus on 18th and 19th Century Presidents, then go onto 20th and 21th Century Presidents. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify knowone is asking to eliminate the project or for it to stop improving the articles on the presidents. Just that a collaboration between the projects would be beneficial. The president articles are typically considered high to top importance for WPUS as well as this project and there are several members of both projects who actively edit them. --Kumioko (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that WikiProjects US Presidents should be included under the WikiProjects United States Umbrella -- Sorry Kumioko, don't know where to put this! SenatorSteve (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, merge with the elections project (which never should have existed apart from this one) and put the merged project under Wikiproject:United States. It's win-win. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
So on the topic of merging the 2 presidential related projects (which I am not sure will be approved yet just cause the other presidential elections project needs to approve with that as well) which name should it take? Or should it merge titles as well? Maybe something like Presidents and presidential elections (but thats a bit long). --Kumioko (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe, I left a discussion note on the projects talk page so lets see if there is any interest on that project and we can go from there. --Kumioko (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I would not be against the merging of the two projects. Thanks for the clarification, Kumioko. There has been allot of progress, in my opinion, in getting the Presidential articles to GA and FA status. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems like there is sufficient agreement to add this project to the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States but not to merge it with the presidential elections project based on comments on that projects talk page. I am going to leave this open for a little longer to see if anyone else comments but I am going to start the process but it will take a few days to complete. If anyone has any questions please let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
I have just completed a major edit of "Andy", as I have been reading Trefousse. A review would be warranted, to make sure I have not gone too far with details, and ideally to add more references. I have not reviewed reference formats and other technicals, though I did work on the images. Hoppyh (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll take a look over the weekend. The Trefousse book is excellent, so I'm glad you started with that as a source. Johnson can be difficult. If you use the really old sources (pre-1960s, say) you'll get a lot of bizarre Dunning School stuff. But modern sources are limited. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
The blackout is an erroneous interruption to our hard work here
There are alot of us working hard on these various articles and the interruption from the blackout is not helpful. Neutrality is the hallmark of the WP platform and should not be compromised. I do agree in opposing some provisions of SOPA and PIPA; but the WP Foundation should handle their response to this as well as other political and legislative issues without co-opting the website with an unproductive and counterintuitive result. Hoppyh (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Ulysses Grant
I have just completed a major edit and a review might be warranted. I have not reviewed technicals or reference formats, though I did work on some images. Hoppyh (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
More opportunities for editors to access free research databases!
The quest for getting Wikipedia editors the sources they need for articles related to U.S. Presidents and other subjects is gaining momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for right now:
Credo Reference provides full-text online versions of nearly 1200 published reference works from more than 70 publishers in every major subject, including general and subject dictionaries and encyclopedias. There are 125 full Credo 350 accounts available, with access even to 100 more references works than in Credo's original donation. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
HighBeam Research has access to over 80 million articles from 6,500 publications including newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias. Thousands of new articles are added daily, and archives date back over 25 years covering a wide range of subjects and industries. There are 250 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
Questia is an online research library for books and journal articles focusing on the humanities and social sciences. Questia has curated titles from over 300 trusted publishers including 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, and newspaper articles, as well as encyclopedia entries. There will soon be 1000 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the next-generation idea to create a central Wikipedia Library where approved editors would have access to all participating resource donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea, add your feedback to the Community Fellowship proposal to start developing the project. Drop by the talk page of User:Ocaasi, who is overseeing these projects, if you have any questions.--JayJasper (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Curious about creating a Gerald R. Ford task force or WikiProject
Hello, my name is Michael Barera and I'm (barring the unforeseen) going to be named Wikipedian in Residence at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library later this month. I'm very interested in creating a subject-specific task force or WikiProject in an effort to organize and coordinate efforts between the various people involved in the Ford collaboration (including members of the Ford Presidential Library and Museum, the Michigan Wikipedians student club, and other interested and dedicated Wikipedians who are involved remotely). I'm curious if you think it would be more appropriate to create a task force under this WikiProject or a standalone WikiProject (like the Barack Obama one) for Ford. Because there aren't nearly as many articles concerning Ford as there are Obama, my initial thought was to go with a task force under this WikiProject, but we would really like to tag, assess, and create/improve all articles relating to Ford (ie, more than just the Ford biography that is under the scope of this project). Please let me know what you think is best, but I would like to reiterate my desire to create some sort of project or task force that is completely subject-focused and open to any interested editors. Thank you so much and do take care! Michael Barera (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Bot run to auto assess some of the Unassessed articles
There is a discussion here for a Bot to do an assessment run through the 2000+ Unassessed articles that currently fall under WikiProject United States and the projects supported by it. Please post any comments or concerns you might have there. --Kumioko (talk)
Discussion to remove the Automatically assessed logic from the WikiProject United States template
Greetings, there is a discussion regarding removal of the logic used to populate Automatically assessed article categories from Template:WikiProject United States. Most of the categories (over 220 Wikipedia wide) were deleted in February 2013 because they were empty. These categories were previously populated by a bot that hasn't run since 2011 and the categories aren't used. Removal of this uneeded/unused logic will greatly reduce the size and complexity of the WikiProject United States template. Any comments or questions are encouraged here. Kumioko (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Lest there is any confusion for people who don't speak the same language, the words "logic used to populate Automatically assessed article categories" refer to the feature that was supposed to allow this WikiProject's template to "inherit" class and importance ratings from other WikiProjects. Kumioko says that there are no longer any bots performing the function that formerly copied those ratings. --Orlady (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
