ৱিকিপিডিয়া বাৰ্তা:WikiProject Council

message: So I'm tring to revive the Counter-Vandalism Unit.  It would be good to get some more participants on it.  ~~Ebe123~~ (+) 20:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See :Category:Wikipedians in the Counter-Vandalism Unit.

text: —Wavelength (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :WP:REVIVE has some suggestions for "advertising".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Thanks!  I already requested MessageDeliveryBot for a message.  ~~Ebe123~~ (+)  09:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-05-16/WikiProject report#Back to Life: Reviving WikiProjects.

text: —Wavelength (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviving of [[WP:CVU]] 

message: I have requested that WikiProject Vandalism studies gets merged into the CVU.  The proposal is at WikiProject Vandalism studies' talk page.  ~~Ebe123~~ (+)  15:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging of 2 WikiProjects 

message: How do I find out whether Wikipedia:WikiProject Revolution Software was formally authorised or not? If not authorised, what should be done about it? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: When starting a WikiProject, you don't have to get it authorized by the Council. We just recommend you formally propose ithere to see if there are enough interested editors for the project to actually be viable. This also gives us a chance to gauge whether the project's scope is too wide or too narrow. -Mabeenot(talk) 16:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is WikiProject Revolution Software authorised? 

message: Add a new shortcut, WP:WKPJ. --MtGp2012 (talk) 12:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Shortcut already leads to WP:Wikiproject. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :The shortcut was created by MtGp2012 just two minutes before this thread was raised. I think that MtGp2012 is asking for the existing  to be suitably amended. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I added the shortcut now. Regards, mabdul 09:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request edit 

message: Is there a limit to how many task forces/WikiProjects/teams you can join on Wikipedia? ToadettePink (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Join as many as you can contribute to. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple WikiProjects to join 

message: I have recently been adding  to some project guideline   pages and came to the realization that they should not be sub titled  "guideline" pages at all. Has this ever been mentioned before that this should be renamed/moved to "advise" pages. I am sure we can all agree that having them named  " guidelines" without WP:PROPOSAL process being followed is wrong or at the very lest misleading. Think a proposal like this would cause an uproar or is it as clear cut to all as it is to me? That is these are not "guidelines" in the true sense of the meaning here, thus are misleading. i.e Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer/Guidelines - moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer/Advice. Moxy (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see http://www.diffen.com/difference/Advice_vs_Advise.

text: —Wavelength (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

text: The word "guidelines" seems correct to me, but I am open to considering what other editors might have to say about the matter.

text: —Wavelength (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :Project guidelines are surely guidelines. There is a whole category of them — :Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects —100 of them at least. Why is Moxy adding these tags? Have they been discussed anywhere? Do they have the backing of any consensus? Can we have some background information on this? I'm concerned that Council pages are being used to introduce policy on the fly without due oversight. --Kleinzach23:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :::See this is the problem  people think that project advice pages  are real guidelines and assert they are. Of course we all know they are not  - they are advice pages and nothing more (really just essays). They should be move to avoid confusion because even old editors think they may be binding. As the link :Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects clearly states  " Such pages arenon-binding and not "official" guidelines". What i am concerned about is projects  "introduce fake policy on the fly".Moxy (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::There is a basic difference in common English between an 'essay', which expresses an opinion, and a 'guideline', that explains a systematic rule.  Moxy can look at a dictionary to learn more about this. Writing links like  non-binding and not "official" guidelines is misleading. --Kleinzach 00:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

text: :Generally, you're right:  they shouldn't be called guidelines, and if Kleinzach checks that cat's talk page, he'll find a CFD in which this fact is explained, along with my personal suggestion (which was adopted) that the disruption involved in moving the cat wasn't worth the trivial benefit.  WP:The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays is ultimately small.

text: :The only practical problem with calling them guidelines is that a sizable proportion of editors believe that "guideline" means "the rules everyone must follow".  And since a WikiProject is just a small group of editors, and small groups of editors do not have the authority to declare that everyone must follow their rules, it's best if we don't call them "guidelines".  (Kleinzach will remember, for example, how little deference the community gave to the "guidelines" of a project he's active in.)

text: :Basically, at this point, if you want an official guideline, you need to make a WP:PROPOSAL to the whole community.  But any group of editors is welcome to write down their advice.  If you want, you can suggest to the WikiProjects in question that they might choose to move the pages.  I don't see enough value in the distinction to "require" it.  WhatamIdoing(talk) 02:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: (Edit conflict) (WhatamIdoing is referring to the composer infobox controversy and Rfc in which she was a principal non-Composer project participant.) Relevant to the question being discussed above, I now see WhatamIdoing added a section to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guideon 1 January 2011 . Of course, few editors are aware of this 'guide'.  WhatamIdoing did you add the section without any discussion, without first obtaining any consensus? I can't find any record of any kind of consultation that would be normal before making policy.  --Kleinzach 03:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Please see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content changes - that seen -  do you see a problem with the changes from a year ago?.Moxy (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

text: ::I simply believe this  should all be clear starting with  the title of pages.  I personally don't  care about the cat's title -No-one looks at cat's. The title "guideline" as with "policy" have  specific meaning here on Wikipedia.  As we all know by experience not all think there is a difference (especially new editors). This results in these  advice  pages being  linked and referred to as guidelines. I think some of this advice pages are great and think people should link to them to show examples, but not as guidelines as implied by there titles. The titles "guideline" and "policy" should be (if they are not already) reserved for community approved pages only.Moxy (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :::WP doesn't own the English language so we can't (and shouldn't) reserve the meanings of words. --Kleinzach 03:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Kleinzach so far from your responses I take it you do not see any/ differences between  Official guidelines and Wikiprojects guidelines  am I correct? Do you believe they whole the same merit, thus do not need to be distinguished from each-other?Moxy (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::I'm pleased that Moxy has asked me that, rather than attributing to me opinions that I don't hold. I certainly do think that WP-guidelines should be distinguished from WikiProject ones. However 'merit' is the wrong word, it should be 'applicability'. WP-guidelines obviously have wider applicability. I also think that WikiProject guidelines should be compatible with WP ones. I hope that is clear. --Kleinzach00:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

text: :::::Moxy, the thing is that, back when most of these pages were created, the community didn't make a distinction.  The process of declaring something to be a guideline back in the day was literally a single person slapping the guideline template on it.  That's changed, but it's a relatively recent change, and we have all of these older advice pages leftover.

text: :::::Kleinzach's example is relevant:  he was one of the people advocating for the supposed right of a WikiProject to overrule the community-wide guidelines on infoboxes in "their" articles (a concept that is, itself, an OWN violation).  That particular group of editors happens to do very good work (we are all aware, I hope, that the productivity and quality control varies dramatically between WikiProjects, just like it varies dramatically between any informal group of editors), but that still doesn't give them the right to set up a "guideline" that contradicts the community-approved guidelines and insist that their WP:LOCALCONSENSUSmatters more than the community-wide consensus.

text: :::::Since that discussion, we've been trying to make the distinction somewhat clearer.  Among the steps taken were the creation of the templates (and, yes, Kleinzach, they were all discussed, both repeatedly and in multiple forums) and the encouragement of WikiProjects to write advice pages.  (The prohibition on such behavior was added to the WP:Consensus policyby Radiant in 2007, which substantially predates this particular example.)  But I still don't think that it's an issue for "force":  if I were concerned about it, I'd be leaving friendly notes at projects to suggest that they voluntarily move the pages to more suitable names (or, if they've got something particularly useful, that they start a formal WP:PROPOSAL and plan to move it out of the WikiProject space.  Many of our official topic-specific guidelines began life as WikiProject advice).  WhatamIdoing(talk) 15:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::I like your idea and I will write to projects - For the most part when I am talking to these  projects they "get it". The above was  the first time anyone seems to say otherwise.Moxy (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::::Moxy: Please list the projects you are contacting here. --Kleinzach 02:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::::::Why?  Any editor is welcome to make any suggestion to any group.  Moxy doesn't need permission to tell a group that he believes moving a page would be desirable.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing misrepresents my opinions — in contradiction to everything I've written in the past.
I've stated on many occasions that project guidelines should follow, and not contradict, WP-wide policies and guidelines. If editors disagree with WP-wide policies and guidelines they should try to change them, however frustrating they may find this, given the way that 'metapedian', non-contributing, editors have tried to take ownership of the main processes. 
Subject-based guidelines (in Wikipedian terms project guidelines) are vital to any encyclopedia. Copy-editing rules and standards have to address real issues in the presentation of content. Specialised groups of editors must look for solutions and make suggestions. Then these should be adopted, refined, rewritten and upgraded to become WP-wide policies and guidelines: a bottom-up approach. 
Heavy-handed, bureaucratic attempts to impose rules and policies from above only have one result — to de-moralize the coalface editors who do the real work on the encyclopedia. The attempt to deter projects from developing guidelines applicable to specific sets of articles, by calling them 'essays' etc. is deplorable in this context.
Background: The result of the two-month long Composers project  Rfc, started byBuzzzsherman (also known as Moxy) in February 2010, for which see here and following pages, was the complete disruption of the project. Most of the experienced editors either left or stopped working on composers' article, and assessment of articles stopped etc.  At the time the Rfc started there were no unassessed composers articles, there are now over 700. In the year prior to the Rfc, there were more than double the number of discussions (see archives 19 to 27) compared to the year following (for which see archives 31 to 34). Moreover the end result of the Rfc was only to confirm the previous arrangement (that the project did not recommend the boxes, seehere), so the Rfc was not only disruptive but also futile.
Can WhatamIdoing please be more scrupulous in checking her facts before posting here?--Kleinzach 02:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

text: ::You seem to think this is all about you and things that have happened to you in the past dont you?  You keep implying wrong doing yet have only linked to old pages that seem to emphasize what the overall problem is. That is the confusion this pages cause and the fact that projects dont own articles. So now I see you have reverted my good faith edits, are referring to us as "not real editors" and want me to let you know who I contact in the future about this? So you have no solutions to offer just accusations and demands? What positive actions have you taken here at all? You have yet to show in any manner  what you believe is wrong with the "Guidelines" here.  Do you not agree with the banner? I also see that no one has questioned the contributions of the pages ...we are talking about there name that is all. Moxy (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: Moxy: Please don't add the banner to any more guidelines until everybody has had a chance to express an opinion on this. My view is that the banner is unnecessary, counter-productive bureaucracy-cruft (bureaucruft?), however I would be interested to hear the views of guideline contributors and other editors. Few of us know about Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide, which is not even listed on the main navigation template. It's time to open this up! --Kleinzach 03:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Kleinzach that is why we are here - I dont see the benefit in adding the  banners all over  when all we need to do is move the pages for our readers to understand the differences. By the way at  Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Navigation the first link under WikiProject guide called "Introduction" is to the page you are referring to. Yes I would also like to here from some informed editors who can comment on the matter at hand.  Moxy (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
===Some other opinions===
*I don't have any real objection to the clarifying banner being placed on the top of WikiProject article style pages. I personally think they can be helpful. WhatamIdoing added them at WikiProject Opera two months ago. At that time, I took the opportunity to also copyedit the text of those pages to change all instances of the word "guidelines" to "guide". However, making all projects also move those pages, to /Advice is complete overkill, make-work, and frankly no help at all. Most of them were created long before the word "Guidelines" became codified here and simply meant "Guidelines" as used in the real world. They were not part of a sinister plot by WikiProjects to undermine Wikipedia.

text: It is both a simplistic and a false assumption to say: "all we need to do is move the pages for our readers to understand the differences". It's the textual content of the page that counts, not the title, as demonstrated by the existence of:Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects. It doesn't save any effort or time to move everything, because the individual pages still ought to have the banner (or equivalent text). Thus, it doubles the work + the added work of changing shortcuts and project internal navigation menues.Note also that many projects have the dreaded word "Guidelines" directly on their main page, not on sub-pages, e.g. WikiProject LGBT studies, so they'd still need copyediting. Ditto the projects which use /Manual of Style for their sub-pages instead, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Manual of Style, which is equally "naughty" since the real Manual of style is an official guideline and they're not. Ditto projects which use an innocuous page title but then the actual page text uses the dreaded "Guidelines", e.g. WikiProject Airports/page content. Honestly, I can think of much better ways to expend effort on Wikipedia for a far greater return than this proposal. Voceditenore (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :Thank you for your comments, was worried the tone of the conversation would deter everyone. Your assessment of the situation is both factual and well informed. I agree that its not just a matter of a move (one of many things that these pages need to fix). I was think it would help because headers are very dominate on a page. Your reply to the original question of this inquiry  "if they should be moved" -  I agree its not the main problem and thus no big deal -  You are correct that the wording on these pages is much more of a concern. I see its not that simple to solve and will look more into it and see if I cant get more involed see what we can do.Moxy (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
It is curious to me that the most vituperative arguments on Wikipedia are not over what things are but what things are called. This is a classic case. The page of the classical music project that we are discussing contains instructions on formatting, on terminology, on spelling, and on other technical issues on how information of the project is to be presented. These instructions are followed universally by everyone on the project. When an article - often written by someone from outside the small coterie of project members - does not follow these instructions, an editor often corrects this, and there is almost never any argument. So, de facto, the directives on this page and on the official guideline pages are equivalent in their authority, even if, de jure, their authority is different.
I see very little point in a bureaucratic procedure to grant these style directives the title "guideline". What does the larger Wikipedia community have to contribute to a discussion on whether lists of instrumentation should include strings first or woodwinds first? On the other hand, if Moxy believes that "guidelines" is a reserved word for style directives that are universal, as opposed to project-specific, I see no problem with calling the page something else. How about "Style standards" or "Style directives"? And a uniform naming convention and template at the top of the page for each of these project-specific standards sounds like a good idea. That way, if I ever edit an article about video games, I will know where to look for style direction.
Here is my suggestion for a template at the top of the standards page:
How does that look to folks? --Ravpapa (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines vs advice (essays)  

message: *I don't have any real objection to the clarifying banner being placed on the top of WikiProject article style pages. I personally think they can be helpful. WhatamIdoing added them at WikiProject Opera two months ago. At that time, I took the opportunity to also copyedit the text of those pages to change all instances of the word "guidelines" to "guide". However, making all projects also move those pages, to /Advice is complete overkill, make-work, and frankly no help at all. Most of them were created long before the word "Guidelines" became codified here and simply meant "Guidelines" as used in the real world. They were not part of a sinister plot by WikiProjects to undermine Wikipedia. 
replies: text: It is both a simplistic and a false assumption to say: "all we need to do is move the pages for our readers to understand the differences". It's the textual content of the page that counts, not the title, as demonstrated by the existence of:Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects. It doesn't save any effort or time to move everything, because the individual pages still ought to have the banner (or equivalent text). Thus, it doubles the work + the added work of changing shortcuts and project internal navigation menues.Note also that many projects have the dreaded word "Guidelines" directly on their main page, not on sub-pages, e.g. WikiProject LGBT studies, so they'd still need copyediting. Ditto the projects which use /Manual of Style for their sub-pages instead, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Manual of Style, which is equally "naughty" since the real Manual of style is an official guideline and they're not. Ditto projects which use an innocuous page title but then the actual page text uses the dreaded "Guidelines", e.g. WikiProject Airports/page content. Honestly, I can think of much better ways to expend effort on Wikipedia for a far greater return than this proposal. Voceditenore (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: :Thank you for your comments, was worried the tone of the conversation would deter everyone. Your assessment of the situation is both factual and well informed. I agree that its not just a matter of a move (one of many things that these pages need to fix). I was think it would help because headers are very dominate on a page. Your reply to the original question of this inquiry  "if they should be moved" -  I agree its not the main problem and thus no big deal -  You are correct that the wording on these pages is much more of a concern. I see its not that simple to solve and will look more into it and see if I cant get more involed see what we can do.Moxy (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
It is curious to me that the most vituperative arguments on Wikipedia are not over what things are but what things are called. This is a classic case. The page of the classical music project that we are discussing contains instructions on formatting, on terminology, on spelling, and on other technical issues on how information of the project is to be presented. These instructions are followed universally by everyone on the project. When an article - often written by someone from outside the small coterie of project members - does not follow these instructions, an editor often corrects this, and there is almost never any argument. So, de facto, the directives on this page and on the official guideline pages are equivalent in their authority, even if, de jure, their authority is different.
I see very little point in a bureaucratic procedure to grant these style directives the title "guideline". What does the larger Wikipedia community have to contribute to a discussion on whether lists of instrumentation should include strings first or woodwinds first? On the other hand, if Moxy believes that "guidelines" is a reserved word for style directives that are universal, as opposed to project-specific, I see no problem with calling the page something else. How about "Style standards" or "Style directives"? And a uniform naming convention and template at the top of the page for each of these project-specific standards sounds like a good idea. That way, if I ever edit an article about video games, I will know where to look for style direction.
Here is my suggestion for a template at the top of the standards page:
How does that look to folks? --Ravpapa (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Some other opinions