Welcome to roadip.com on July 6 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

WikiProject Council

General information
Main page talk
   To-do list
   Templates
Contacts talk

WikiProject guide
Introduction talk
   WikiProjects
   Task forces
   Technical notes

Resources
Assessment FAQ
Directory talk
Proposals talk
Newsletters talk
edit · changes

Archives


Contents

[edit] Bureaucracy

I see in a current MFD that a small number of editors believe that listing a WikiProject at /Proposals before creating it is actually mandatory -- which is obviously wrong, because any couple of editors that want to work together can declare themselves to be a project any day they choose. We're okay with being bold, and editors don't need "official permission" to collaborate.

But I can't decide whether it's worth explicitly mentioning that somewhere. It seems too trivial to include at the top of /Proposals; it seems too late to include it in the setup guide (unless perhaps very early). What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure it's worth making that point too prominent, since we don't necessarily want to encourage everyone to simply start new projects on a whim (that approach being the cause of our hundreds of dead projects). Perhaps something on the main WP:WikiProject page (e.g. "Editors may start new WikiProjects at any time, but are encouraged to propose them at [link] before doing so")? Kirill [talk] [pf] 15:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
That sounds like good (and wise!) wording. There are many very successful projects that have never gone through this process.
I think it's still a good idea to encourage that they be proposed before doing too much, and listing some good reasons for doing so, but it shouldn't be an absolute and required condition for starting a project. Projects are not like articles, where there are clear policies describing minimum notability requirements for the creation of an article, and where an AfD can occur based on clear policies. Even then, POV is not a legitimate reason to prevent the creation of an article. Unfortunately, the difference between a project and an article has been forgotten, and this Council project proposal process is being misused by certain editors to prevent the creation of a project they don't like. Projects are extremely varied and a group of non-involved outside editors should not be allowed to dictate the deletion of a project which has the support of its members. Only if the project actually and provably begins to violate policies or create disruption should an MfD occur, and even then it would be best to use the project's talk page in attempts to solve the problems. If that doesn't work, THEN an MfD might be justified. Prior censorship based on IDON'TLIKEIT and fears of unrealized dangers is totally unwikipedian. A project amounts to the userpage of a group of likeminded editors, and there is alot of freedom allowed on userpages.
I definitely support the inclusion of Kirill Lokshin's proposed wording. This will save alot of grief in the future. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think that MfD for projects should be largely restricted to inactive projects that are not reasonably expected to be revived in the future. A couple of rogue editors can do just as much damage in userspace as they can with an official-looking project page.
WP:WikiProject#Creating_and_maintaining currently says (as one of four points) "Make a WikiProject proposal if you're not sure about creating a new project, or aren't certain if anyone else is interested". Perhaps that could be expanded to name advantages of the proposal process, as well as indicating that it is an optional step. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Some editors believe it is required, and the very existence of the department may imply it to some. These are very strong reasons for stating prominently that seeking approval is not required. The Transhumanist    19:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. The conditional nature of this sentence makes it clear that it's not an absolute: ""Make a WikiProject proposal if you're not sure about creating a new project, or aren't certain if anyone else is interested." There are two situations there that can be used to make the decision for or against seeking advice at the proposal page. I can understand why some editors might not notice the conditional nature of that sentence. A clear statement needs to be included. Is it time to be bold and include Kirill Lokshin's nice formulation? -- Brangifer (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, or something similar; the exact words don't matter to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I have been bold and made a stab at it. [1] -- Brangifer (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. ("A lot", by the way, is always two words.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. I have lived in Scandinavia for too long, and it's screwed up my English! -- Brangifer (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Content versus non-content projects

(Following on from 'Bureaucracy' discussion to which this was originally posted): Would it be possible to distinguish between content projects (which rarely do any harm whether they are active or not), and non-content projects involving oversight, bots etc which can have an impact on a large number of pages before anyone notices that they exist? I'm in favour of some kind of control on the latter type (but not the former). --Kleinzach 06:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Bots are not WikiProjects, and are controlled by WP:BAG.
Can you name an example of a WikiProject that has "oversight"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. I thought I was asking a clear enough question. OK, let me try to put it differently. A 'content' project is one that concentrates on creating and developing articles on a given subject. Gastropods for example. These rarely do any harm. For that reason — following on from the discussion ('Bureauracy') above to which my response was originally posted — I suggested that 'content' projects shouldn't have to go to Proposals. Examples of 'non-content' projects are those that edit or 'check' articles under the scope of other projects, rather than creating their own. These obviously have a much wider impact on WP, hence my comments above. So what do people think? --Kleinzach 06:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I understand the way you're dividing the projects; I deny that a "WikiProject Serial Comma" has any more "oversight", authority, or (ultimately) impact than editors that don't form a formal wikiproject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing: "I deny that . . " Deny? I don't get it. Why the hostile tone? Do you have a particular agenda here or do you imagine that I have one? What's the problem? I'm obviously missing something here. --Kleinzach 00:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not hostile, and I don't consider "deny" to be a hostile word. I "declare untrue, or to refuse to accept the existence, truth, or validity of" your implicit assertion that a non-content project like Wikipedia:WikiProject Article rescue, Wikipedia:WikiProject External links, or anything else on the list -- or even this very WikiProject itself -- actually has any authority that is not granted to every single editor. If you and I decided that the serial comma should be implemented in all articles, or that it must be excised from all articles, then the creation of a page titled "WikiProject Serial Comma" would not either permit us to impose our choice on other editors, or increase our editing rate for doing so.
These projects may, in rare instances, be platforms from which challenges to existing standards are launched (e.g., people that dislike WP:AFD congregate at the article rescue squadron), but most of them scrupulously follow the existing standards, and their "oversight" or "authority" is limited to exactly the same thing that any other editor could do.
My only agenda is finding the balance between those rules that are necessary for good management and those rules that promote bureaucracy. I assume that you, too, want to do what is best for Wikipedia, or you wouldn't have bothered leaving a message here at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, dear. I was hoping you would get off your horse before continuing this conversation. Apparently not. You seem to know the whole gamut of OMGWTFBBQ etc, even if you forgot to indent. The observation that projects making extensive use of automatic processes have greater outreach than projects that work individually on articles apparently annoys you. I have no idea why. Anyway, enough of that. It takes two to have a discussion. I wonder if someone else would like to comment on my suggestion. --Kleinzach 04:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't "forget" to indent; I prefer this style for conversations involving only two editors, since it doesn't waste so much of the screen real estate.
A non-content project is not synonymous with a project that employs automation. Is your actual concern with projects (or editors, even if not formally organized as a wikiproject) that use bots? I suggest taking that issue up with WP:BAG. It might be appropriate for them to stop assuming that "members of a WikiProject support..." is the same as "the community in general support..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] May I borrow your brain?

Here are the goals of the OOK WikiProject:

  1. Increase awareness of readers of the existence of the outlines on Wikipedia
  2. Complete the existing outlines
  3. Create an outline for every subject that is extensive enough to benefit from having an outline (core subjects and major or extensive fields). There are thousands of these.
  4. Recruit as many editors to work on these as possible (we need thousands of editors working on these)
  5. Get a link to the main outline page or links to the major outline subject areas displayed on the Main Page (in addition to the portal links at the top of the page)
  6. Increase the OOK to higher quality than Britannica's Outline of Knowledge (published in its Propaedia volume).

How can we achieve these goals?

Any ideas you might have would be most appreciated.

I look forward to your replies on the OOK WikiProject talk page, especially concerning #4 (recruiting).

The Transhumanist    19:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Cannabis

Not sure if this is the best place to mention this or not, but I just wasn't sure about where to place WikiProject Cannabis in the project directory. The topic is a plant, but also covers aspects of science (biology and even chemistry), politics, and sociology. I have not yet added the project to the directory, but feel free to do so if a preferred section can be determined. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 00:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Pages by Number of Project Banners

Does such a category or list exist? Could it exist if it does not? I believe that a number of pages are over-bannered and I know that there are pages whose banners need to be put into a shell. On days that real life keeps me occupied I may only fix 10-15 banners (listas parameter) but I will see at least one page on those days where a shell is appropriate.

On days when I get really tired of discerning a valid listas parameter I could drop in on such a category and throw on a shell. WARNING:When a collapsed banner is appropriate I am not going to use {{WPBS}} with the collapsed=yes parameter. {{WPB}} has been re-programmed so that it is nearly equivalent to that and should be valid. It is certainly easier to apply. I will delete all the number parameters for numbers greater than one.)

Sound fair?

JimCubb (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure whether this is possible with categories; but here's the top-100 by number of banners, excluding pages with WPB or WPBS. This is extracted from a database dump. (Note: data might be slightly outdated, and there might also be some false positives.)
Hope that helps. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! It is almost perfect. A category would have been better but I understand why that could not be so.
In a little over an hour that included breaks, I have put {{WPB}} on every talk page of the articles on the list that has more than 7 banners. Many of the talk pages had no comments. Some of the articles were stubs and a few had notability concerns. I ignored the concerns.
I should be able to take care of the rest by the weekend.
JimCubb (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Revitalizing the WikiProject Council

The WikiProject Council seems to have become rather catatonic over the past months, so I think we need to take a look at how we can revitalize it a bit and turn it into something with a more productive role within the overall WikiProject community.

I've come up with a few ideas that we might consider pursuing, ranging from the fairly trivial to the grandiose and time-consuming; they're listed below, in no particular order:

  1. Remove the membership listings, both from the main page and the separate contacts page. I don't think these have ever really been useful for anything akin to what regular WikiProjects use membership pages for—the Council isn't really a WikiProject, and doesn't normally need to keep track of who's participating—and they seem to be cluttered up with people who are inactive, gone, or no longer interested in the group. If we eventually need to have a listing of contacts for particular types of assistance or something along those lines, we can develop one; but I don't think a general guestbook of everyone who's visited the page and thought it sounded interesting is really useful to anyone.
  2. Change the name to something less formal-body-like ("WikiProjects' Roundtable"?); the original use of "Council" was driven by a somewhat different conception of what this group would become, and isn't really applicable now that this is more a central forum than a fixed body.
  3. Clean up the Guide to WikiProjects. A lot of the text remains unfinished, or is now obsolete. More generally, I'd suggest that we take a look at reducing the length, and turning it into more of a "best practices" document than an exhaustive philosophical examination of everything that a WikiProject might decide to do.
  4. Create a newsletter that would be distributed to individual WikiProjects, and would cover news relevant to WikiProjects, developments and ideas that various projects had come up with, and so forth.
  5. Start hosting roundtable discussions on topics that affect WikiProjects (and particularly WikiProject organization and infrastructure); e.g. "what's the best way to set up an article collaboration?" or "how does a project write a style guide?".

Comments on any of these items would be very appreciated, as would any other ideas for getting more benefit out of this group. Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

All these sound good. I'd say each active wikiproject be contacted to ask a representative comment on issues generated here as well. This to gether an idea of how many active wikiprojects there are. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Gathering some statistics on project activity would definitely be a good thing, but I'm not sure we'll get a useful number just by looking at response rate, since a single editor noticing the request and coming here to comment doesn't really say anything about how active the rest of the project is. It may be better, if we can get some bot assistance, to compile some tables of WikiProjects and various activity measurements (articles being assessed, edits to project pages, etc.) so that we have some data to slice and dice. Kirill [talk] [pf] 08:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. I don't care one way or the other.
  2. I wouldn't bother: name changes are confusing; change is bad.
  3. I work on this every now and again, typically trying to add a missing section or address a problem that's been identified elsewhere. I don't consider it to be a very important document (because nobody reads the directions anyway), but I enjoy working on it.
  4. I'm not convinced that there's so much news that we couldn't simply use the Signpost. Spam is not helpful. Most members of most WikiProjects are unlikely to care about the contents of such a newsletter.
  5. I don't think there's much demand for this, and we don't want to encourage people to think that whatever's discussed is appropriate for their project. For example, if we did a "workshop" on style guides, then the number of style guides would increase significantly (bad) and a non-zero number of editors would decide that all good WikiProjects must have their own style guides (very bad), when the opposite is actually true (no project should ever write a style guide unless the general style guides are clearly insufficient and the necessary information cannot be added to the normal style guides). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
As far as #5 is concerned, I was assuming that core points like that ("no project should...") would be explicitly covered in the discussion; is there some reason why that wouldn't be the case? Generally speaking, I'm interested in encouraging more active sharing of best practices between projects; different projects have come up with different solutions to common problems, and I think it would be useful for everyone involved if people came together and discussed what the various effective approaches to project activity might be. Kirill [talk] [pf] 08:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What can be done immediately is update the guide. Then determine which projects are active, dormant or dead. Then try to get active projects involved in the Council.

A single style guide with optional items would be a very good idea. A single class-assessment guide with optional items would be a very good idea.

Change is not bad. Change is necessary. There is a medical term for a body that does not change — dead.

JimCubb (talk) 07:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • But a name change for the sake of a name change is just unnecessary work. In many ways, this page is a central WikiProject noticeboard, so it becomes active when there's a topic of interest. That said, I do think the Guide is trying to accomplish too much, so it would be more efficient if it were split into several documents. For example, it could be split into a) WikiProject startup and setup instructions; b) Best practices manual; c) Meta-WikiProject advice; and d) WikiProject structures. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 10:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Having multiple documents is a good idea; that might alleviate some of the lack of focus that parts of the current one have.
    • As far as names and noticeboards are concerned: if, as you say, what we have here is really just a discussion forum, what would be the impact of simply merging this page back into the core WikiProject page and centralizing the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject? The council/roundtable/etc. would notionally continue to exist as the collection of people discussing things on that page; but, assuming that we don't want or need a formal body at this point, are there any drawbacks to reducing the number of active talk pages? Kirill [talk] [pf] 15:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, the WikiProject talk page is not very active at all, so people are more used to coming here than going there, I guess. So merging it there doesn't strike me as particularly useful. The most active pages, at least WikiProject-related, are WT:1.0/A, WT:1.0/I and WT:COUNCIL, along with the multiple Village pumps.
      • That said, my understanding of the Council is that it was more of a meeting place than an organizational body... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Would the (current) inactivity still be an issue if the pages were merged? I assume that if WT:COUNCIL were to redirect to WT:WP, anyone coming to start a discussion on the former would just do so on the latter. In practical terms, I'd like to reduce the number of active WikiProject-related talk pages insofar as is possible; the current setup means that we don't really have a central forum, since a lot of discussions are split among various pages.
        • It may be worth considering whether we can just assume, at this point, that bot-assisted assessment is a routine function of WikiProjects and amalgamate the 1.0 pages dealing with it here as well. Kirill [talk] [pf] 15:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else have comments or suggestions on any of these points? Kirill [talk] [pf] 05:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Policies applied to other Projects

Some editors tend to apply policies or guidelines developed in and for one project to other projects or to the subjects of other projects, often with disregard for the difference in topic and organization of the projects and sometimes somewhat forcefully (I'm not speaking of the thoughtful adaptation of one projects guideline to another projects needs). For example, the literal adaptation of WP:FILMPLOT to music topics which would fall under MOS:MUSIC, though they are quite different mediums. This seems highly inappropriate and that there should be a guideline or policy against this. Any help, thoughts, suggestions? Is there a policy or guideline against this some random place I haven't looked? Hyacinth (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs