Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Archive 2

message: Several discussions above (like the one about a directory, PR,...) could benifit from determining what the criteria are to tag a WP as inactive.
My brainstorm:
* WP that has no participants listed.
* WP with project or talk page totally unmodified for 6 months or more.
I have some issues with "inactive": it might scare away people instead of attrackting new ones is my main concern. That's why I would prefer a "populate this WP"-tag and a category:underpopulated WP.
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inactive WP criteria 

message: I have recently signed on to the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects group.  One of my functions there will be to ask various projects about what they consider to be their best articles and their most important articles.  There are several cases out there, such as Thomas Aquinas, where a very important article have recently been at a rather unimpressive stage.  (It's been expanded lately.  Didn't see that before.  I feel stupid). Would the council here be interested in collating information on the various important articles out there and possibly advising the various projects which might be interested in it of its current status?  I am thinking about perhaps making a statement to that effect in my contacts with the various projects for the above group, but wanted to receive approval from this project before seeming to commit it to actions of any sort.  I also should say that I anticipate the collation, if it is done, would be done by me personally, so there'd be no extra work for anyone else. Badbilltucker 23:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, very interesting idea; but what would it actually involve after notifying the projects?  Would we be trying to have some sort of "important article collaboration", or merely leaving messages for projects that certain important articles needed attention? Kirill Lokshin 00:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The hope would be that, if there were to be an important article requiring improvement which fell in the scope of more than one project, at least one of which has an active collaboration, that they might at least see if it would be possible for the projects to collaborate on the same article at the same time.  (Yes, I am addicted to run-on sentences.)  Alternately, I or someone else might inform them that an important article which fell within the scope of their particular project is a collaboration article for another project, and that their input, particularly within their area of expertise, would be more than welcome.  And, possibly, if I or someone else knew of someone who belonged to both groups (which ideally would each have collaborations) that person could propose it as a collaboration in both groups to which they belonged, saying that it was being proposed as the collaboration of both projects.  Other permutations on the idea are possible as well.  Badbilltucker 14:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As part of WP:WVWP, you often end up in dialogues with projects, sometimes these can get quite in-depth.  I have always felt that WVWP should help to build a community of WikiProjects to share ideas and help each other (now the main mission of this Council).  It may be that you see an article appearing on a couple of lists as a key article that is only Start-class, and it would seem perfectly reasonable to try and foster some collaborations.  Although that would strictly be outside of the main scope of WVWP itself, it certainly helps the overall goals of both WVWP and WP Council, and it may lead to some permanent collaborations.  I'd suggest trying this informally, then if it works you can set up a more formal system.  Walkerma 20:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for opinion 

message: Just as a matter of curiousity, does anyone know how to get those wee boxes (see the word definitions above) to wordwrap? I've seen them before on talk pages, and they seem to be keyed off by including either a TAB or a certain number of spaces. --Mal 05:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any whitespace at the start of a line, actually.  If it's there, everything on the line is rendered as though it's enclosed in <pre> tags, so no formatting (which includes wordwrapping) is done. Kirill Lokshin 02:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting question

message: How long do we want to leave this discussion open for? I'm not seeing any consensus to change from the status quo. --kingboyk 13:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we wanted to get really picky about it, we could go for some variation on preferential voting, but it does seem to me that the existing name would probably win there too.  I second the motion to close this discussion.  Badbilltucker 14:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm suspicious that the "Council" tag may put people off getting involved, so we wouldn't be seeing their opinions here anyway, but since that is a Catch-22 situation, I third the motion to close the debate. Maybe we can look at creating a less imperial looking logo as an alternative to the name change? Yomanganitalk 22:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How long?

message: As many of you already know, there are a large number of WikiProjects.  I have decided to separate the list out at Wikipedia:Alphabetical list of WikiProjects.  The current listing includes all the Projects listed in the :Category:WikiProjects through the History subcategory.  Please feel free to add any others you might know of.  Badbilltucker 20:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you using AWB?  That should help immensely with a task like this. Walkerma 00:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the list is finished now.  I may have missed a few though.  I'll be back on Tuesday to look it over again.  Badbilltucker 23:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job!  Thanks a lot for that. Walkerma 03:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Lists 

message: I'm interested in creating a proposal for a WikiProject devoted to volcanoes. I'm not sure if I can propose it because I'm what you Wikipedians call anons. Also, I'm not sure if there's another WikiProject out there that relates to volcanoes, so can I propose a Volcano WikiProject even though I'm an anonymous user? 74.225.117.237 17:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can certainly propose a WikiProject (although you might need someone else to actually create the initial page, since I don't believe the restriction on anons doing that has been lifted yet).  The closest existing WikiProject would be WikiProject Mountains; presumably they handle volcanoes in some way, so I would suggest talking to them and seeing what the best way to set things up would be (as there are several options: separate descendant project, task force within the Mountains project, working directly within the Mountains project, etc.).  Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 17:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: Is any work being done on "Develop a system to funnel peer reviews and other requests to the appropriate WikiProjects"? I'm occasionally pointing people to the appropriate projects if a question comes up in WP:PR or WP:RFF, but that's somewhat primitive. Yomanganitalk 11:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that first we need to have the projects actually engage in peer review.  Right now, comparatively few do.  You'll note it is the least commonly filled book in the Directory.  When we get this Directory finished, I intend to contact all of the projects for various reasons.  One of them will be to try to assess the quality and importance of their articles.  If they will, then funnel review requests will be a great deal easier. Badbilltucker 20:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that a category set-up, similar to that recently introduced in AFD might be the way to go - listing any articles submitted to WP:PR in a category relevant to WikiProjects with their own peer reviews or interested in knowing when related articles come up in PR. It's a non-intrusive mechanism - we wouldn't be relisting peer review requests elsewhere, and there is no requirement for editing individual project pages (except perhaps for an initial announcement of the category's existence). We could encourage editors listing articles in WP:PR to categorise their requests in the first place, and the occasional sweep through could pick up those which haven't been categorised. Yomanganitalk 22:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: The deletion sorting project, and WikiProject bolt ons to that, didn't really seem to take off, so I think a heads up here about :Category:AfD debates is worthwhile. It seems to me that we could be encouraging the people behind this scheme (categorising AFDs into subject) to work with WikiProjects and to have the subcategories match WikiProject themes wherever possible. --kingboyk 13:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:AfD debates]] 

message: There has recently been a rather heated discussion on the :Catholic Church or :Roman Catholic Church talk page regarding what the title of that article should be.  It seems to be that one side favors using :Catholic Church for a disambiguation page for all the bodies which use the word "catholic" in their name, another wants to use it for the body headed by the Pope.  Unfortunately, there is no other body which exists to which the matter could be referred, given that both the Anglicanism project and the Catholic project are involved in the dispute.  The Christianity project could be asked to decide it, but I have a feeling that one side or the other would question the objectivity of the consensus within the project.  Same goes for the Religion project.  Would this body like to step in as arbiter in cases like this one or not?  If yes, my suggestion would be to try to set up some location where both sides might be able to pitch their arguments for a day or so, and then gather together a variety of project leaders and others to vote on the basis of their own understanding of the subject and of what is and is not in the best interests of wikipedia.  That is a very big "if", however. Badbilltucker 15:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how the issue directly pertains to the WikiProjects per se. If it were a matter of procedural propriety or something similar, perhaps. But this case seems to be isolated to a specific content dispute, and that (to me) seems to be something which needs to be left to the discretion of the dispute resolution processes already in place. Certainly, as has been discussed before, WPC has no intention of claims of jurisdiction over the projects and thus wouldn't have any higher authority on the matter. Plus it might leave a bad taste in the mouths of people who might otherwise want to work with WPC, which is an advisory group for those administering WikiProjects. That's my two cents... Girolamo Savonarola 16:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. --kingboyk 16:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too - there are already a number of mechanisms for dealing with this sort of thing, and sticking our oar in would risk alienating some of the people we want to be attracting. Yomanganitalk 21:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we want to deal with hot button issues or not? 

message: Are we going to make a hierarchical version of the directory as well?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has a rough hierarchy breakdown already; I'm not sure that trying to determine a deeper hierarchy within fairly narrow subject areas will be very productive. Kirill Lokshin 15:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have to agree with Kirill here.  Many subprojects are so diverse that a hierarchical breakdown would be likely to only exceed in making the directory even longer.  However, I don't think anyone would necessarily oppose it if someone could break a given area or group of projects into a hirearchy if it included enough projects in a small enough group of headings.  The "history" projects, however, would probably be a different story. Badbilltucker 15:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked because it would simplify the search for a WP that people might want to join: I remember looking for a WP:Medicine and overlooking the obvious child projects WP:Clinical medicine and WP:Preclinical medicine, while at that time WP:Medicine wasn't that active.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they'd all be listed within a (reasonably short) section on the directory page now; hopefully this will let people find what they're looking for without arguing over the exact "hierarchy" of projects and so forth. :-) Kirill Lokshin 20:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed this change now and seriously oppose it. I prefered the nested hierarchy from the previous "List of Wikiprojects". There are 9 or so Wikiprojects for Christian denominations. Before the change, they were all listed in the religion seciton under the Christianity project. Now, they are all mixed in together with the other religious wikiprojects. Same goes for medicine, US Highways, Novels, and a number of other bigger topics that have numerous more specific sub-topics. If we could restore this nested hierarchy from before, I would be really happy (and I feel it would be more navigatable for users to help them find exactly what they are looking for).--Andrew c 15:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, why not just split up the sections more (e.g. create a "Christianity" sub-section under the "Religion" section, and so forth)?  If we reduce the overall section size to a dozen or so projects in each, it shouldn't be a problem to find things.  I'd like to avoid necessarily showing a "hierarchy" of projects (as opposed to topics) because it usually doesn't mean quite what people assume it means, though. Kirill Lokshin 15:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: See, for example, the new sub-sections (which probably need to be checked by someone with a better knowledge of the area than I have) on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture/Philosophy and religion; all the Christianity projects are grouped together, but without implying any particular hierarchy within that field. Kirill Lokshin 16:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see this as a workable solution, but I still prefer the previous nested hierarchy. And I am not refering to having the order representative of relevence. What I mean is that, for example, in the Gaming section, there is a subsection of video games, and within that, there is a subsection for nintendo games. Or within religion is Christianity, and within Christianity we have Catholicism, and within Catholicism we have a few subprojects. The way we have it now, the Nintendo games and the sub-Catholic projects are listed alongside other topics, including the more inclusive containing projects (if that makes sense). Anyway, I'm slowly going through splitting up some of the larger sections that previously were nested within subsection. Hope that isn't being too bold.--Andrew c 19:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Meh.  My (strictly personal) opinion it that this is a problem with the way WikiProjects have been created essentially at random, rather than an issue with listing them.  If we prodded them into doing a bit of merging (e.g. an overall WikiProject United States w/ some general task forces + one project per state w/ optional task forces, or even a single US WikiProject with each state becoming a task force, and perhaps sub-task-forces for counties/cities/etc.), we'd not only simplify the structure considerably, but also form some large—and hence active—projects, as opposed to the sallow dozen-member things that seem to have proliferated.  But I suspect others will disagree with me here. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about listing those that truly are sub-projects on their own page (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/[maingroup]/[parentprojectname]) and linking to it through the extra field Kirill put in for the linked projects? The members of the project could decide whether they are a real sub-project or not and place their project either in the alphabetical list or in a hierachical page below the parent project depending on the decision (I, for one, don't want projects relisted in a faux hierachy when they don't actually interact). Yomanganitalk 20:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally respect wanting to streamline the collaboration between projects, and I think that is a good idea (and maybe combining projects with only a handful of particapants is also a good idea). My concerns, however, deal more with organization/categorizing than this other issue of "linked projects". I feel that if there are 20+ US state projects, they shouldn't be listed under the general header of American Geography that includes international countries, cities, provinces, etc. Same thing goes for a number of other projects (especially Literature). I think what we have done on the Philosophy and religion page is a good start, and I've been told that this directory is a work in progress (and subcategories are on the way) so I will hold of my strong views and edits for the time being. Sorry if I just barged into the middle of things here.--Andrew c 22:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that there is more logic in grouping the projects than you think. And sometimes, they do work together! We could mention what the "hierarchy" means. I think the headers don't work, but I don't have the technical skills to create a hierarchical version of the current database. Hierarchy adds to the overview and doesn't hurt anyone!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hierarchical list? 

message: The layout of most WikiProjects isn't very attractive. On fr: there's a standardized presentation for projects which gives results such as this one or that one. Do you think we could make something like that ? It would also be possible to improve it by creating a template such as this one. Sigo 19:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thoroughly bad idea, in my opinion.  The "neat boxes" approach may work for small, inactive projects; but a large and active one (e.g. this) will have far too much material on the project page—much of it with unusual alignment requirements, different widths, and other such issues—to be presentable in that form.  WikiProjects are primarily work areas, and should be allowed to develop as fluidly as possible, without the rigid constraints on layout imposed by a portal-like design. Kirill Lokshin 19:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the French layout is not functional. However, our present template could be improved upon (perhaps by taking elements from the more successful projects (WP:WPBIO, WP:WARS, and WP:AUS).--cj | talk 02:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I considered doing that, actually; but my concern was that borrowing from one of the larger and more structured projects might prove overwhelming for a new project that's just getting off the ground (which is what that template was intended for). Kirill Lokshin 02:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 

message: Looking over what's been collected on the Wikipedia maintenance page of the directory, we've got some pretty bizarre stuff.  Can anyone (a) figure out what the point of the following "projects" is or (b) suggest any reasons not to list them on MFD?
* Wikipedia:United Groups And Committees & Wikipedia:United Groups And Committees Administration
* Wikipedia:WikiProject quality
* Wikipedia:WikiProject Unused templates
* Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Audit
* Wikipedia:WikiProject (xlsc)
Kirill Lokshin 20:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: a) Mostly "no". b) Nope. Pretty clear MFDs I think (or even speedy delete as "housekeeping", they're not in article space and nobody loves them). --kingboyk 20:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: b) Nope. I particularly like Wikipedia:United Groups And Committees Administration - who doesn't watch the non-watchmen? Nice logo though. Yomanganitalk 21:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mysterious "Wikipedia maintenance" projects 

message: Im thinking of Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics--Light current 23:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A WikiProject should never "become" a portal, as they're fundamentally different things; but if you mean the time when a WikiProject should create a portal, the answer is typically "as soon as it can maintain it."  Running a portal isn't too difficult, so even small projects should be able to manage quite well. Kirill Lokshin 00:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Though it should be noted that a WikiProject does not automatically require a corresponding portal.--cj | talk 02:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that with a few subjects, there was no WikiProject and a portal became the meeting place for people interested in a particular subject area.  One example is Portal:Aviation - there is no Aviation WikiProject (though there are projects on subsets of aviation such as history of aviation).  I suspect there are a few more.  A more common scenario is for RNBs to become de facto WikiProjects for articles relating to a particular region/country such as Sweden. In some cases such as Scotland I suspect the bot assessment of Scottish articles may have been a driving force for creating the project to work alongside the RNB.  At some point the council will need to consider its relationships with these sort-of-WikiProjects.  We may also want to find out (from examples like Scotland?) what lessons can be learnt about developing a new WikiProject from an established portal or RNB.  Walkerma 16:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When and if should a Wikiproject beome a portal? 

message: Yomangani suggested in an earlier discussion on this page that maybe one way to reduce the impression of "imperiousness" of the council would be to put in a different logo.  Maybe something like this could be done.  I remember that the biographies of living people banner had an image of a handshake on the left side of the banner, and that at least one other project (I think Vermont?) has two images on its banner.  Perhaps if we could put something like the handshake in on the left side of the banner, and shift the existing logo (which I do think is wonderful work) to the right, it might help to get across the cooperation idea better.  Maybe.  Maybe not.  I dunno.  Badbilltucker 20:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different logo?  

message: Wasn't there a big list of which infobox colors went with which Wikiprojects? WP:CMC was about to get rid of their variable infobox color coding, it seems, and I'd rather not suggest a new standard color some other project is using. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any attempt at regulating infobox colors has been dead for a long time now.  The colors generally mean nothing to the reader; just use whatever seems most appropriate aesthetically. Kirill Lokshin 01:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmkay. We'll just pick a nice pastel or something. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if you're interested, there's  and Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics/Colors... Titoxd(?!?) 03:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're moving away from topical color coding, as it's been deemed useless. Thanks, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I saw that, but I just wanted to point out some of the things you may want to keep an eye on: contrast, brightness, meanings (even if you don't want them to mean anything), where it is going to be presented... etc. Titoxd(?!?) 03:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color schemes 

message: All the projects I could find are at least now included in the directory somewhere, with the exception of many of the proposed projects at :Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects.  As has been said before, the directory needs a lot of straightening out, particularly in determining which categories a given project fits.  I'll start working on that now.  One question, though.  Which of the proposed projects above, if any, do you all think deserve to be included on the list?  Badbilltucker 16:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We probably need to restructure that whole proposals page somehow.  There are months-old listings there—including both abandoned proposals and projects that have actually been created—so a blanket statement is probably impossible. Kirill Lokshin 16:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The categorization is proving to be Migraine City.  I am trying to incorporate some of the smaller categories used in the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects, but it's taking a while.  Hope to have something tomorrow.  It'll likely be a bit of a mess, though. Badbilltucker 00:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the new |listed-in= parameter make things any easier in that regard? Kirill Lokshin 00:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does.  Thank you for the help there.  I'm slowly trying to get all the subpages together in userspace and will transfer or whatever when they're done.  Just letting you all know, though, that I'm probably overdoing the multiple listings big time.  The redundant listings can always be eliminated later though. Badbilltucker 17:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Directory inclusion finished 

message: You've probably already been "spammed" about this, as I've just written to all WikiProjects I think that it can help, but anyway - I worked hard on this so I may as well share it with as many folks as I can:
Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.
The plugin has two main modes of operation:
*Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
*Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)
As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.
For more information see:
*About the plugin
*About support for "generic" WikiProject templates
*User guide
*About AWB (AutoWikiBrowser)
Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 15:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging talk pages and assessing articles 

message: Hello, I am a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Peru and maintain the Portal:Peru. I am generally regarded as the user who maintains the project. I will say, to the credit of the project, that it is one of the more active projects on Latin-American countries (with the only one being more active possibly being the Argentine Wikiproject). I would, however, like to increase our activity and our relevance to Wikipedia. Since the purpose of this project is to help improve projects across Wikipedia I thought I might ask for some advice in improving the Wikiproject-Peru. Thank you in advance.--Jersey Devil 04:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a start, looking through the (incomplete—mea culpa!) WP:PROJGUIDE might help; there are some very critical things there that the project hasn't done. Kirill Lokshin 04:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiproject:Peru

message: It looks like someone at some point deleted/eliminated the Everybody Loves Raymond project.  I find a few links indicating there was one, which now link directly to the show page.  I'm not sure whether it was deleted because it was nonproductive in its time, has since merged, or some other reason.  I am guessing the project should not be listed in the directory.  However, if anyone knows anything to the contrary, please let me know.  Badbilltucker 16:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everybody Loves Raymond Project 

message: There's been some editing of the guide header banner today, with the following three wording ideas coming up:
# (original) This is a guide produced by the WikiProject Council. While it is not an actual policy or guideline, it reflects the thoughts of some editors with considerable experience in creating and maintaining WikiProjects. Comments and suggestions are always welcome!
# This is a recommended guideline produced by the WikiProject Council. It reflects the thoughts of some editors with considerable experience in creating and maintaining WikiProjects. Comments and suggestions are always welcome!
# This page describes best practices recommended by the WikiProject Council; it reflects the thoughts of some editors with considerable experience in creating and maintaining WikiProjects. Comments and suggestions are always welcome!
Thoughts on which of these is the best version? Kirill Lokshin 23:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 2 or 3 works for me. Non-threatening, but more "confidant" wording. -- Ned Scott 23:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Number 3 sounds best to me.  In #2, "recommended guideline" sounds rather tautological. Walkerma 06:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guide header wording 

message: Hello everyone. I'm trying to create a WikiProject Paintball, in order to improve the quality and comprehensiveness of the Paintball category as a whole. Any advice on how to run a WikiProject, or perhaps a suggestion on whom I might surrender such leadership to, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! - Maximilli, 22:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:PROJGUIDE might have some things that would be useful when starting off. :-) Kirill Lokshin 02:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Advice please

message: This is the only pure disambiguation project page I have ever seen. Is there a real purpose in keeping it or not? It doesn't even have a talk page; it's a link to the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ecology. Badbilltucker 23:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Wikipedia:WikiProject Sustainability]] 

message: Hi - I'm just leaving a message here to offer to do bot-related tasks for any wikiprojects who request it from me (well... I won't do the task - User:MartinBotII will, but you get the idea... :P).  The sort of this that I thought of immediately was [] this sort of thing (ie- what Mathbot does for some projects)], but for all projects who request it.  Aside from that, I'm open to any other ideas - anyone who'd like a bot for a wikiproject, just get in touch with me :) - Martinp23 17:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offer of bot 

message: In the process of setting up :Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany, the question has come up how the banner will be set up. I suggested that we perhaps use a generalized template, like WP:BIO has. Specifically, I was thinking we might use the WP:GEOGRAPHY banner, with a "drop-down" addition to the effect of "This page is supported by WikiProject Germany".  Maybe a similar arrangement could be worked out with WP:BIO. Depending on how it goes with Germany, maybe the new Prussia project could be talked into following suit. I proposed this hoping it might reduce the amount of space taken up by the multiple banners. Any opinions? Badbilltucker 14:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Banners  

message: Does anyone know if it is possible to set up a page a special page or anything similar which could be used to find new projects as they are added? I know about the special search page already for pages containing the word "WikiProject"   here, but don't think anyone would want to go through the entire list once a month or so hereafter to make sure that all the new projects are listed. I would welcome any response, positive or negative. Badbilltucker 14:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupid question 

message: I was just wondering who was taking care of such articles, I have stumbled on many and that is the best they will get. Since nobody watches them, we should block/stabilize them or something. Lincher 17:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh, I'd just merge it into List of unbuilt submarines of the United States Navy or something like that.  It's a question that can be discussed at WP:SHIPS and WP:MARITIME, though. Kirill Lokshin 17:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Lincher is raising a wider issue here, with the "and alike", i.e. obscure pages that nobody watches.  This is a very good point, but not one we can really sort out here at WP:COUNCIL, since it would need a system-wide solution, not a project-by-project one.  My suggestion would be to wait until we get stable versions here on the English Wikipedia (supposedly fairly soon), then we propose that certain classes of article like this be made into stable versions.  It may need a bot or something to go through and tag them, and we might need a whitelist of trusted editors - but this is how the German Stable Versions is going to be run anyway.  We could say, "Look for all articles that have had no activity for 3 months or longer" and tag those?  Walkerma 19:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Walkerma clearly knows more than I do about this subject (in my case - nothing whatsoever).  However, I have asked to have a bot created to help determine which WikiProjects have been created since the last updating of the project directory. With only minor modifications, that same bot could be used to "tag" stable articles. I will change the request for the bot to permit easily fulfilling this function as well. Badbilltucker 20:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[USS Sculpin (SS-494)]] and alike