Council
This page relates to the WikiProject Council, a collaborative effort regarding WikiProjects in general. If you would like to participate, please visit the project discussion page.CouncilWikipedia:WikiProject CouncilTemplate:WikiProject CouncilCouncil articles

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Moved to #Request for comment: WikiProject Advice Pages: Add criteria wording to the examples

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Could these words be added to the sentence below: "or criteria for information must be met to be included in articles".

• "However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, "or criteria must be met for information to be included in articles"...

• Reason: I have encountered projects that have set guidelines/criteria to meet to include information in articles, and use the criteria to reject information, regardless of other editors or regardless of WP:NPOV. The projects may be trying to minimize what they consider "trivia" or not realize they are violating WP:NPOV or think they can override WP:NPOV with a "Local Consensus" for information the project dislikes. CuriousMind01 (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Created a request for comments new section below CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi there. As part of some interest I have in trying to update {{WikiProject United States}} to include additional states, I have been visiting the Wikiprojects for various US states because I know this has been a contentious template before. However, what I am finding is that many of them appear to be semi-active or inactive (I have tagged them as such as I have visited them). I don't know if there is some precedent or existing policy to deal with template changes that would affect semi-active or inactive wikiprojects, but if there isn't I would like to initiate a discussion on what sort of decision making process takes place for changes to templates or tools that impact semi-active and inactive wikiprojects. -Furicorn (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest it was quite clear the last time someone tried to do this, that trying to throw all the US state projects etc into one Wikiproject was not really workable. Other than tagging a whole bunch of stuff what benefit is there really to any states to be sucked into one large project so that talk of different states drowns out the talk of the state they focus on. It was a lets build my edit count really high by tagging project the last time this was attempted, what will be the difference this time? -DJSasso (talk) 11:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this is the best place to reach out to members of WikiProject Council? WikiProject YouTube has been nominated for deletion based on the use of a brand name in its title. I cannot find any guideline about the naming of a project, so I would be greatful if members would review the MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The MfD has been closed as speedy keep so no further action needed. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievably, there is no WikiProject or task force that primarily covers Tornadoes. How is that possible? I know there is a WikiProject Severe weather and a WikiProject Meteorology, but neither of them have a task force focused on Tornadoes. Don't you guys agree there should be at least a task force that covers this if not a full WikiProject? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could poll the talk pages of WikiProject Severe weather and/or WikiProject Meteorology to see if anyone is interested in participating in a task force. I assume those would be the editors most interested in the topic. If there were enough editors who wanted to start a task force, it would seem weird to me if the participants of WikiProject Council would have any reason to oppose? -Furicorn (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've been pointed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces before -Furicorn (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a lot of cases the work of such potential task forces is already done in a more general wikiproject and don't necessarily need a task force. Task forces really only make sense when the chatter from them on talk pages is drowning out the talk of other subjects in the more broad project. -DJSasso (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel frustrated. I have already set up assessment systems twice (successfully), but this time, there is a problem with my set up and I can't find out what is wrong. It is probably an obvious mistake somewhere but I already spend a couple of hours on that and still can't figure out what the issue is.

Here is an exemple... Talk:Khayelitsha. As you can see... it displays the importance but not the quality... why ? My template is here : Template:WikiProject WikiAfrica Schools and the assessment page there : Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiAfrica Schools/Assessment. Why would not the quality appear ?

Thanks for your help ! Anthere (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried previewing the template using Talk:Khayelitsha and all looked good. Hit purge on the talk page and all was good. Just templates being templates and keeping you waiting. Cabayi (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now... that is weird... ok.. (mind boggling). I agree the template on the article talk page looks good. Wow. You have a magic touch.

But the assessment page still does not show any quality assessment report. I just changed the quality/importance of Khayelitsha to force a reassessment in the next few hours and see if the issue is magically fixed. I'll check tomorrow. Thanks Anthere (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heya. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Purpose of WikiProject banner tags mentions that one can use tags to make a project-specific version of Recent changes by using Special:RecentChangesLinked. I'm a bit unsure how to do this though. Let's say I want to make a watchlist configured for WikiProject Politics, my first thought was that I would enter Template:WikiProject Politics into the search bar and check "Show changes to pages linked to the given page instead" or entering one of the quality categories like Category:B-Class politics articles (although that would require separate requests for each category). Doing so only returns the talk pages however, not the actual articles. I thought selecting "Talk" in the Namespace-dropdown and checking "associated namespace" would fix this, but it doesn't. Any advice or links to help pages? It seems like a really useful tool for projects. Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 16:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have submitted a proposal for a Wikimedia Foundation Project Grant to "automatically suggest WikiProject topics to new drafts". The proposal is called Automatic suggestion of topics to new drafts. View the proposal here and feel free to leave comments there! --Sumit.iitp (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, a handful of editors have watchlisted the WikiProject Sculpture page, and I changed the project's status from inactive to semi-active. I invite editors to help make improvements to this revived WikiProject. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed: In WP:ADVICEPAGE add to the examples, this example: "or guidelines/criteria must be met for information to be included in an article" as displayed here:

However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, or guidelines/criteria must be met for information to be included in an article and that other editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay.

Reasons: I have encountered projects that have set guidelines/criteria for editors to include information in articles, and editors use the guidelines/criteria to reject information, regardless of other editors and regardless of the WP:NPOV policy. The projects may be trying to minimize what they consider "trivia" or may not realize they are trying to violate WP:NPOV or may think they can override WP:NPOV with a "Local Consensus" for information the project dislikes. I think add the additional example will help educate project editors that the advice pages guidelines/criteria are not binding, as explained in the existing "However" paragraph and WP:NPOV cannot be overridden.

Additional thoughts are welcome.CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

• Support I think adding the example will be useful to educate editors.CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before we support or oppose... Could we get some examples of project advice where the type of behavior being discussed was an issue? (I'm not talking about giving these examples in the text... I'm talking about having examples here in the RFC, which we can use for discussion.) Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• OPPOSE CuriousMind01 is a tenacious edit warrior obsessed with adding "Criminal use" sections to firearm articles despite massive opposition. About two months ago he lost a discussion on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms by a 10 to 1 margin. Unfortunately, he has a win at all cost mentality. So, now in typical fashion he's ignoring consensus, forum shopping, wikilawyering, and gaming the system. He even attempted to unilaterally make this change himself, because he believes that silence equals consensus. He will most likely accuse me of personal attacks and harassment again for daring oppose him and pointing at his questionable behavior, a normal intimidation tactic of his. I will inform my fellow Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms members that he attempting to override consensus and make the Project meaningless. --RAF910 (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Please don't inject personality-based criticism and supposition/prediction; it's not helpful. See WP:ASPERSIONS. It just makes both sides look like editwarriors with an agenda.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as redundant, and because actual guidelines do apply, and because WP:SAL and MOS:LIST instruct us to set inclusion criteria for lists, at least when there's a pattern of adding trivia and cruft to them. The wording simply isn't right, and the rationale seems suspect to begin with. Guidelines (and policies) must actually be met for information to be included in an article. Inclusion criteria (when specified) must also be met for inclusion in a list. If the above comment is correct, and the proposer is only trying to insert one kind of section into one kind of article, this is already covered by "such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox" in the same passage; these obviously work vice versa, too; so the proposed addition would be redundant even if its wording were fixed.

  However, "Criminal use" sections excluded in firearm models' articles not because of a wikiproject conspiracy, but because there's a legitimate WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at the articles, and more broadly, that such sections aren't encyclopedic, aren't WP:NPOV, and generally are WP:OR. We do not include such sections for any other kind of device (e.g. number of fatalities in auto collisions on particular car models' articles, or estimated number of kills performed in total by a particular model of military aircraft, or guesstimate of cancer deaths per tobacco company. There is no way to accurately do such stats. E.g. for a particular gun model, there isn't any reason to expect that news that happens to mention them will do so accurately or evenly; in fact we can be certain that firearms that are sometimes [mis]classified as "assault weapons" will be much more likely to be mentioned by name than common revolver, shotgun, or hunting rifle brands, because most Western news media are editorially dominated by liberals who are proponents of legislation and enforcement against "assault weapons".
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion