Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Archive 6

message: I don't know if this has been suggested before, but I like the idea of having featured WikiProject, or at least some way to make those that put much effort into their respective articles or have a well designed, planned, or laid-out project page or plan of action. 
It seems that this would be a good idea. If we had levels like Good WikiProject in addition to featured, we would be able see what WikiProjects are available for people to join or contribute for.
A lot of times, I think that WikiProjects are set up and well executed by a select few, but those who are oblivious to the fact that there is a place where discussions go on might miss out on recent acts of consensus on a certain layout of a page, etc. I find this often with the Olympics WikiProject. 
I just think that if our WikiProjects—the organized groups that ensure the pages under their jurisdiction are as superb as possible—are not used to potential, we are only hampering work that could be or has already been done. So finding some way to announce certain projects' existances, like featuring WPs for example, might raise the awareness of those who are not currently involved in a project. I think every Wikipedian should be an active member of at least one project, and this may help to open their eyes. Jared (t)  16:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured WikiProjects? 

message: I have little experience with WikiProjects. Most of the time, i just edited on my on on various articles of my interest. I have become an inactive member of some WikiProjects and started two, WikiProject historical atlas and WikiProject organized debate. WikiProject historical atlas had only three participants who were not active enough, i was too much busy with my final paper. WikiProject organized debate also only had three participants and i abandoned it.
What i like to start is a coordinating project for recruiting for WikiProjects. So, multiple WikiPorjects working together in order to get people with enough quality and commitment to make WikiProjects work. This way, looking for participance wouldn't have to be the main task anymore for a WikiProject. Instead, WikiProjects can solely aim at improving the quality of articles. We can look for recruits in multiple sections of the Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikia groups. Next to that i would like to professionalize recruiting in order to get people from outside Wikipedia, especially experts on subjects. An important idea behind the recruitment is that the members of each WikiProject can determine for themselves what they want achieve with their WikiProject and how that corresponds with recruiting.--Daanschr 09:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is only a suggestion. What i do want is to make both projects that i started a success, so maybe some of you have some ideas. The historical atlas project was promising at the start, but now it is dead meat, so i hope to do something to make it work again and also to do something to help other projects work.--Daanschr 12:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have started Wikipedia:WikiProject recruitment for WikiProjects to let my ideas come to fruition. Let me know if there is a problem with this.--Daanschr 08:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recruiting for WikiProjects 

message: I winder if there is (and if there is not I move a proposal for creating it) a small banner with something as " this project coordinates its efforts with (and list other projects with which collaborates)" I believe that it can link better different projects and give a graphic idea of the networking. This regarding the projects.
Regarding articles, also useful should be some banner which allows integration of diverse projects banners, this is, when an article is under the scope of many projects, for there is not a cascade of banners or a "fight for first place" of the diverse banners, to standarize a banner or template which may accomodate the other banners in reduced form (it could be also one that just includes the names of the projects but that will make each project to loose identity) In this way and after a while most projects will have  a normal banner for using on articles under their sole scope and a reduced banner to include in the "this article is under the scope of the folowing projects" template in articles under many projects. Daoken 14:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at  - see Talk:Apollo for an example. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cooperation banner 

message: I would like to start a project for coordinating improvements to articles on pregnancy and childbirth. I cannot find a similar project already in existence. I am looking into creating it as a task force of WP:MED, but I am not sure WP:MED even has any task forces. Alternatively, I could create it as a full-fledged WikiProject, probably as a subproject of WP:MED. The problem is that I'm not sure where to go from here. I have a couple of draft pages in my user space (project page, navigation template). Any help would be very much appreciated! --Ginkgo100talk 14:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the page you are looking for to propose this is Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. Simply south 14:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. List it there, and then dependent on the number of potential members that sign on and general interest evinced, you'll have the info to either set it up separately or ask one of the other projects to take it on as a task force or work group. John Carter 14:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Ginkgo100talk 15:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold and start the first MED task force! It will be a lot less administrative overhead for you, will complement their efforts nicely, and potentially egg them on to create more as needed. Girolamo Savonarola 21:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pregnancy and Childbirth project 

message: O Mighty Council, hear me. I'm interested in rescussitating Wikipedia:WikiProject Balzac, but I am noob and inexperienced. The project is listed as inactive, and the coordinator/founder of the project, User:ExplorerCDT, says on his talk page that he is "very busy in real life". Ergo, I wonder if I should request the guidance and/or wisdom of someone else who might monitor the process and make sure I don't cause the complete implosion of the entire kit and/or caboodle. With thanks in advance, I remain Scartol 02:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's inactive - how much damage could you do? :) I say be bold and see what happens. Girolamo Savonarola 02:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Balzac 

message: Of course that in an ideal environment, wikipedians with enough knowledge in one or other area should collaborate within the structure and strategies of a related WikiProject, this solves many issues as the recruiting of specialized editors, the lonerangers , etc and even can help to reduce vandalism.
The problem of course is how to do that and it is one of the "to do" of the WIkiProjects Council of course. 
One possible solution should be the propagation of a vertical, slim banner or a tab, built on combining a model similar to the right box of the WikiProjects Council page and the Shellbanner which can nest project descriptions inside. 
That tab or banner could be placed and propagate in all articles and should say something as "before editing or making changes" and nested some information regarding the subject that in spite of that an individual editor may enhance an article, there probably exists already a Wikiproject agrupating many editors in that specific area of knowledge, to join such project will not only help Wikipedia in general (to be better organized and efficient) and to reduce vandalism or suspicion of vandalism but also will provide the editor an umbrella under which to provide his help, recognition as a reliable editor and not an "impulse editor" and the help and assistance of editors who understand his views and assist him in making the changes he wants within Wikipedia policies so his changes stay instead of been undo by others. 
The banner could provide the nested list of sub-nested projects ordered by areas of expertise or so.
We applied this in recruiting reviewers through the intranet of an international, interdisciplinary very large project where most of the large quantity pof participants were individuals with authority and self determination to a large degree and where there were clusters, and what it was a chaos before, in one year became 200% more efficient and with almost zero friction and confrontation.
Perhaps we could make something on that model? Daoken 18:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Projects and peer editions and reviews 

message: I have created a banner modelled on the  for projects can detail with which other projects they cooperate routinely, see . Maybe this contributes to motivate cooperation between projects Daoken 21:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you implying that most WikiProjects don't cooperate? I mean, as in actively? It is assumed that everyone is working in good faith to bring articles to FA class. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't really see the point - especially since membership is not a requirement to work on articles or discuss project issues, and one can be a member of as many or few projects as you desire. What is this banner going to do that isn't being done efficiently? Girolamo Savonarola 23:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly I am very surprised of your reaction, mostly when what I said is obviously with the heart in assisting good faith, projects and Wikipedia in general. I don't see any place where I say that there is not cooperation, all by the contrary, I am based on the assumption that there is, otherwise which should be the purpose of the banner ?
Now think in the following two situations:
*1.-A new editor finds a project he/she likes and engage in membership. When going to the project page he/she sees (in the banner) that the project actively cooperates with another projects, some of which he/she is also interested. So, the new editor will also join those projects saving the time and effort in going through directories or randomly finding other projects of interest. The banner would have saved time and would have multiplied the helping capacities of the new editor in an instant.
*2.-An editor pertaining to a project finds an article which he/she tries to help to improve within the goals of his/her project, however he/she observes that there are also other fields needing improvement, fields which he/she has no expertise and doesn't even know which project may handle that. Simply goes to the banner of his/her own group and chances are that one of the projects listed as cooperating routinely, handles those areas of expertise, now he/she knows who to alert about the help needed.
In both cases time and wandering is spared greatly and inter-projects flow is enhanced. Now, this is what I mean. I don't see any negative point in trying, just good chances of enhancing what already exists. It is not a new model either, we have tried it succesfully in real life and intranets. Daoken 09:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly how would we determine which projects "cooperate" here? As above, it is generally assumed that all projects cooperate toward the improvement of the article. I can see having, for instance, national and state projects listed, but would we be seen as saying that Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal and Wikipedia:WikiProject New Mexico don't cooperate if they aren't indicated as "cooperating"? Considering that there are now well over 1000 WikiProjects out there, I think the practical complications of the usage of the cooperation template would probably make it no more workable than the more commonly used one. Also, I personally think that maybe having a bit more active upkeep of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory, and maybe just links on the main project pages to the directory, would probably be at least as effective, and possibly more so, when what we're talking about are comparatively new projects that the older projects might not even know about otherwise yet. John Carter 00:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inter-project cooperation 

message: It is a mess. To aid in cleaning up:
1) Could we put them in order of date rather than alphabetical? Newest proposals up the top. Old ones would drift to the bottom where they can be easily and quickly deleted.
2) Can we suggest an approximate number of articles that would require a wikiproject rather than a task force? I was thinking maybe about twenty?
3) Can we also encourage people to delete their proposals once they reach a decision either to form a project or not? There are lots in the list that sound resolved.
I have just been trying to tidy the whole list, deleting proposals inactive for over two months. In an hour, I got as far as the DaimlerChrysler proposal. Perhaps we need a task force to manage the page :-P I am a lemon 00:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Proposal Page 

message: Do we really need this? Especially since we're not a proper WikiProject ourselves in the sense of having a set of articles in the encyclopedia proper - this is a meta group for advice and practice. It just seems awkward to me whenever I see someone signing up - what exactly is that act signifying? That you support WikiProjects having a recommendations and guidelines page? That you want advice? That you want to bestow it? That you are interested in the conversations? That you want to work on maintaining the guides and directories? Just seems (to me) that this is like most Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: pages, and it's not like there's a member-delivery newsletter. Girolamo Savonarola 02:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although such a newsletter might not be a bad idea. Certainly, if we could get someone to regularly produce a list of the new projects that have developed recently, that would help. And I think, maybe, that the list is to maybe function as a list of names to contact if one has any particular matters to discuss with a particular member of another project. It clearly could be used for that purpose. But I do agree that there isn't a lot of activity by the project itself. Maybe we could start a new page here, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Discussion, which we could use to discuss a specific general issue at a time, like optimum project page layout and general project setup, for instance, and maybe use the discussion as the basis for some additions to the Guide or other matters. Other issues this group might be able to address include Project review, for "reviewing" inactive projects and maybe seeing how best to salvage them, if at all, and other things. Any opinions out there? John Carter 18:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participants list 

message: I added the category "Multidisciplinary Scope" to the Directory as it seems it was missing. I also made some updating in the directory of shortcuts, at least on those projects I am familiar with (WP:MED, WP:ORGZ, WP:TIMET, etc Daoken 07:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multidisciplinary category added 

message: I am putting together a list of all the extant projects, with the hope of updating the project directory, and maybe getting it to conform to the ten "basic" categories as per WP:1.0, WP:GA, and other entities. I was wondering whether in the process of doing so it might be a reasonable idea to make a list of those projects which qualify as "inactive". These projects could then be listed on a separate page, and any of the more active projects which might have overlapping interest and/or might be able to expand a little to take on the "scope" of the ianctive project could look them over and try to propose some sort of merger. Then, if no such merger seems likely or useful, perhaps propose some of the projects for outright deletion. 
I'm thinking that doing this might give the Council a bit more to do, maybe increase membership and input, and also, at least potentially, maybe help discourage some of the proposals which have similarly narrow scope from insisting that they have to be a stand-alone project. I'm putting the new directory pages together in userspace, and don't know how long it will take to get them together, but will probably leave a note here when that's done. John Carter 15:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible expansion of scope of project? 

message: Yesterday the Biography project's A-Class review unit was asked to do an A-class review on History of Northwest Territories capital cities, which is really outside the scope of our project. Is there any way we could keep track of which projects do such review, so that we can refer people to the right place if similar requests arise again? John Carter 14:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review? 

message: I noticed that several joint task forces have banners specific for their task force. This could actually be a functional idea, particularly if the banner automatically inserts an assessed article in the catgories for both the task forces and the multiple parent projects. It would also, I think, help reduce, in some cases, the number of banners on a particular article. Does anyone here know whether banners can be set up this way, and/or how to do it? Particularly for some of the new small projects, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago Bears, having the one banner assess for both the Chicago and NFL projects as well would seemingly be a useful goal. John Carter 13:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another question, again about banners 

message: I didn't know where else to list this, so i thought i would take it straight to the WP council. I recently edited for the above project, but before listing my name as a member, I left a post on the project's talk page. This post remained unreplied for a number of weeks, before i left a few more comments. I refused to join the project at least until any of my questions were answered.
I believe this project should be closed down. The question i posed to the group of people was, "what exactly is the purpose of this project?", as i do not find it entirely clear in the project page. As well as this, there are a total of 4 members of the project none of which seem to be active, one of which is hosting a large number of sockpuppets (the founder) and another who has not listed the project at all in their userpage list of WikiProjects.
As i said, I think this project should be closed down, and then re-activated once it can be made more direct and better explained. I don't think its a case of people not being aware of the project, as it is linked to on WP:R. It seems to be hastily set up and not well organised - so i think it should be hastily shut down.
--SteelersFan UK06 04:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, you are answering questions on their talk page - contrary to your assertions there, users will get answers - from you.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read the comments I left? My reason for leaving comments was to say that no-one bothers to answer any OTHER comments. The project doesn't properly explain its focus. I don't want to do it, I would only join the project if i knew what it was about. Do you get what i mean? --SteelersFan UK06 02:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  closing of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect]] 

message: I put a WPARAB tag (for the Arab World Wiki Project) on the talk pages of following Iran articles Khūzestān Province Ahwaz Politics of Khūzestān Province History of Khūzestān Province Abadan Khorramshahr‎, which contain content relating to the local Arab population and culture. One editor has objected to this and removed the tags, claiming it was a "pan-Arab attempt to label/claim Iranian territories as part of the Arab world". Another said that the placement of the Arab League flag (which is used for the Arab World Wikiproject) on the talkpages of articles on places in Iran was inappropriate and "is like claiming a country territory". I would like advice on whether I can place Arab populated places in Iran under the Arab World Wikiproject and whether doing so is a "provocative act".--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 13:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been over a week since I posted this request and I have heard nothing. Could someone tell me whether this is the appropriate place to ask these questions?--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 13:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arab Wikiproject and Ahwaz-related articles 

message: I wish to request attention for Wikipedia:WikiProject General Audience.  (Even though it has a vibrant talk page, the project itself seems to be relatively dormant.)  In particular, the articles on mathematics and logic in this encyclopædia seem to presuppose an above-average level of mathematical knowledge, skill or ability.
The Make Technical Articles Accessible policy is important because members of the general public may look to Wikipedia first for introductory information on various topics, and yet I sometimes find articles in my own field of expertise (which, by the way, is not mathematics) to be so technical that I lack a sufficient level of understanding to be able to improve them intelligently.
68.49.208.76 06:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:make technical articles accessible|Make technical articles accessible]] 

message: I've started a page above which lists those projects which I have to date found which are listed as inactive. Please do not think of using the list as the starting point for a mess of MfDs, though. If you do think that these projects deserve a "second chance", or think that a project of which you are aware could successfully integrate one or more of these projects in as a task force, please feel free to propose as much. John Carter 15:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: John, I think this a good move, but help me understand how this relates to  and :Category:Inactive WikiProjects?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, I'm just taking those Projects which have, either already or by my having placed it there after reviewing the activity, those projects which have the  and are, I think, automatically put in the category. I think that's what you were asking, right? John Carter 18:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess, so is it just a list of all the projects in the category?  If so, what is the added value?  I'm not attacking it by any means, I just don't understand the thinking.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One - it can potentially, probably in revised form, be a place where active projects can indicate whether they have any interest in any of these projects, and possibly discuss which active project is the better fit. Two, and this may not be a good reason, I think it might help reduce the number of separate band and TV WikiProjects if the proposers saw, on the navbar of the project, a page listing a large number of inactive projects in their same field. And, of course, after some time has passed with no proposals for merging, it might be possible, probably with an altered format, to propose the project for deletion. I do think that this group and the people who come to this page would probably be the best people to decide whether or not to delete a project, though. John Carter 20:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't the talk page for the category be just as good?  It just seems like you are duplicating the efforts of categorization.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I take that back, I wasn't bold.  I know of some interested parties who may not be in agreement that this discussion should be centralized on a Council page.  I posted a notice at Category_talk:Inactive_WikiProjects that discussion is going on simultaneously at multiple locations, we need to  this discussion.  I do not believe there is consensus to do it here, yet, I'd like to see more people involved in this discussion than just you and me.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it really matters *where the discussion takes place.  IMHO, here is as good as anywhere. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just remember that it's going to be at least several days before the new version of the Project Directory is finished. The final info for the inactive projects won't be available until the directory itself is completed. John Carter 01:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: John, is the directory you you have created tied directly to :Category:Inactive WikiProjects?  If not, what is the plan for new additions to the category, how will you deconflict - also what happens if someone marks a Project as  without marking it as  (and without letting anyone here know?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Inactive projects]] 

message: I have been looking for a list of projects that includes the categories for which each has taken responsibility - and have yet to find one.  If there is such a list - could someone point me to it please!  Thanks in advance... SkierRMH 18:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know of no such listing, although I can see how it might be useful as well. I'm presuming you mean the "parent" category of each project, given the huge number of total categories. Do the rest of you think that it might be useful to add an extra column to the directory to indicate what each Project's principal category is, if it has one? John Carter 18:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the parent category or categories - given that there are "stub" and similar categories that are not necessarily "recursive" to the general parent category.  I'd be willing to do a bit of legwork for putting this together for the directory page, but am not sure where to begin! SkierRMH 19:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, the projects indicate that their articles should lie in a given category somewhere on the page. However, given that I'm right now trying to update the entire directory for all the changes in the interim, it might be a bit premature to do so now. I can try to add them to the finalized draft, though. John Carter 19:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Projects & "cared for" categories?

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals now has two work groups, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/Pocket pets work group and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/Weasels work group. Anyone who knows how to adjust the banner  to accomodate these groups is welcome to do so. Thank you. John Carter 16:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting help with banner 

message: We need to try to get the word out to more people to assess articles. So many vital articles in topics of every sort are unassessed. Assessment is the first place to start when it comes to improving Wikipedia (my approach is assess, plan, improve). More projects need to get active assessing, and more people need to download the assessment patch for their .js page, which encourages them to assess by showing an article's current assessment on the article page. It has sure got me assessing a lot more. Richard001 09:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you think that is the responsibility of each Project?  It's only because of the Projects that articles can be assessed.  I don't see the importance of this to the Council.  That's not to say that I don't think the effort is admirable, just not sure it's really within our scope.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not a bad idea to post here at all, as we are also a semi-notice board for WikiProjects. What we should do is look into what methods different projects are using to encourage editors to assess articles, or see what kind of ideas we can come up with. Then we can invite projects to use these ideas. -- Ned Scott 07:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: A bot would be problematic because assessment involves creation of categories, and in many cases subcategories, for each grade, an assessment page to the project which is generally completely optional, and a substantial degree of latitude for the various grades which a given project would use. Would a given project like to assess images, categories, and redirects as well as articles? They can, although by definition no bot can decide that. That's why they more or less have to be done on an individual basis. If you were talking about your animals draft project being set up for assessment, that presents problems as well. Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals already probably covers the same basic territory, and has assessments. You could ask to have your banner and assessment parameters incorporated into theirs, like the Australia projects have done on pages like Talk:Sydney and with Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Sydney articles by quality statistics. That might help reduce the number of banners on a given talk page, which in some cases now number 10 or more and are receiving complaints on that basis alone. But, in general, if there is an existing project which covers "new territory" which wants to be set up for assessment, drop me a note and I'll do what I can. John Carter 13:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: I'd like to point your attentiont to the discussion here first, because it's probably easiest to keep it centralized there. In short, there are two WikiProjects - Photography and History of Photography. WP Photography was created earlier, and is a project for the creation and maintenance of photographs in Wikipedia articles. More properly, it's a type of Wikipedia WikiProject. Since this name was already reserved, when some of the editors wanted to make a WikiProject to manage the articles about photography, they chose the name WikiProject History of Photography. It seemed to me that this was unnecessarily confusing, since neither project name really implied the full scope or domain of what they covered, and I did raise the issue with the projects - since I was not and am not a member of either - but it was rejected as too much fuss over too little. Fair enough. I've revived the issue again now, however, since I've seen some edits (which I presume were in good faith) by editors changing the talk page project tags from HoP to Photography because they (understandably) mistook which project covered what. Would anyone like to offer some opinions on the above-linked page as to how (if at all) this should be dealt with? It seems to me that WP Photography should be WP Wikipedia photography or WP Article photography, and WP HoP should be WP Photography. But that's just my humble opinion... Many thanks as always, Girolamo Savonarola 02:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think photography would be better for the one on photography articles. The other Wikipedia one could change its name to WikiProject Photos, photo improvement etc. I'm not involved with either though, just going on what you've told us. Richard001 07:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP Photography and WP History of Photography - project name/scope assumptions and should names be changed? 

message: While working on something for WP:ILL, I found the template Template:Active. I don't suppose anyone would know how to create a template like this for "inactive" or what to name it. Currently the inactive is only for WikiProjects that are inactive, but I would like to have one so I could add it to a table of project participants for Illinois. Would anyone be able to assist in creating this template? I suppose I could stumble through it, but the big thing is I am not sure what to name it. Thanks for any assistance you can give.--Kranar drogin 10:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of an Inactive template 

message: There have been several suggestions about adding several classes to WP:1.0's assessment scale, but adding them would be a significant change to the scale that is used on all projects, so we've been hesitant to do so. However, we're having a discussion about what to add, if anything, and we'd like everyone's input, proposals, concerns, or even flaming.  So, please spread around the word and participate in the discussions. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding classes to the [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment|assessment scale]] 

message: WP Films is in the preliminary stages of bringing WP Indian cinema fully into the fold as a project task force. However, there is an issue involving the assessment that I'm not certain how to deal with. WP India also claims it as a workgroup and has already been generating assessment statistics on the workgroup thru a parameter on their banner. We also have a Indian cinema task force parameter set up on the Film template. It just seems silly to reinvent the wheel, though. The question is - should the two groups each be generating what are (at least in theory) identical lists? Or should they be sharing a common assessment pile? If the latter, how can each project also transclude the results into their larger project-wide assessment? Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 18:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be possible to create a single banner for Indian cinema, which would then its specific assessment categories made subcats of each of the larger project's assessment categories? John Carter 18:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no - the idea is that it shouldn't be a WikiProject in its own right, since it needs to conform to style guidelines established in WP Films. Right now, I'm also looking at the Korean military history task force, which appears to be shared between WP Korea and WP MilHist - it appears that each banner has different parameters, but both serve the same purpose as far as categorization is concerned. I suppose that's the best approach? Girolamo Savonarola 18:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably. If you can figure out how to copy the banners correctly. I still haven't gotten that down myself. And I wasn't thinking that it would be a separate project, just that it might have a special banner diaplay, like some of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism subprojects, which might also display the workgroup or other relevant project. I've never had much luck doing so myself, though. John Carter 18:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlapping assessment groups 

message: Honourable Counsellors. During the last six months, serious efforts have gone into reorganising WikiProject Succession Box Standardization (SBS), optimising the guidelines for succession boxes, and improving the succession templates. Apart from the betterment of the project and the assistance that will provide to editors, we also aim to take up major editing work and engage in organised editing of entire succession chains.
A significant obstacle in this scheme is the great lack of contributors our project has been experiencing for much of its history. Without people to help, proposals cannot be voted on, standardisation cannot be promoted, large-scale editing cannot proceed. We are moving extremely slowly, and there is the danger that activity may once again come to a standstill.
For these reasons, we request your assistance. We are launching a campaign to recruit contributors for the project, and we should like to know what ways there are to do this and whether we have forgotten any or we have indeed exhausted every available means (something which I highly doubt). It is very important that we finally get some help, as the workload is enormous and there are few Wikipedians on the job with little time in their hands. There are thousands of these boxes across the mainspace, and it is a pity that so useful navigational aids have been so conspicuously ignored by the community so far. We are attempting to change that. But we need help. Waltham, The Duke of 18:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing the best people to contact would be the Biography project, as that project seems to be most directly associated with succession boxes. There are a few other biography related projects in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture#Biography section who might be worth contacting as well. John Carter 22:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though contacting the Biography WikiProject was in my plans, I had not realised nearly significant it would be. I shall also look at what else I can find in the directory. Thank you for your advise, Mr Carter. Waltham, The Duke of 13:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SBS badly understaffed – plea for assistance 

message: Greetings dear Wikipedians. :) I have created a proposal page for the proposed Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music. I’m not entirely sure I’m doing this right. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. The original proposal is at WP:COUNCIL/P# Experimental art (Proposed rename “Contemporary music”) Thanks! --S.dedalus 06:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music|WikiProject Contemporary music]]

message: The Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Wikipedia page includes the following projects:
*Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Wikipedia OmniMusica
And the answer to the question "What's different about these two?" is that unlike every other project on the page, these two restrict themselves to a (small) subset of articles in Wikipedia.  
Please move these to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture/Music.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 21:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Maintenance" Wikiprojects? 

message: I have received a suggestion that it might be best to archive proposals on the WP:COUNCIL/P page that are over four months old which haven't yet received sufficient support to start up. This seems to me to be a fairly reasonable idea. Would any of the rest of you object to that proposal? John Carter 21:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the one who suggested it, I obviously support the idea : ) - jc37 21:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree.  Archiving closed discussions over a certain age should be considered routine maintenance.   --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: By "that are over four months old" do you mean over four months since there was a constructive comment or new member or over four months since creation of the proposal?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Four months since creation of the proposal, provided the project hasn't already reached enough members to make a viable group (5-10). As has been indicated elsewhere, waiting too long often means that editors become inactive sicne they expressed interest or have lost interest in the topic since then, so some sort of set time period seemed called for. John Carter 01:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the idea, the proposals page is incredibly long.  I think you may need to be flexible on a case by case basis though, the page instructions imply that a small group could actually be a project from that page.  A small group, organized there, might actually be actively editing, coordinating on talk pages, etc.  Archiving the proposal without telling them might cause them to simply re-post it.  It might be a good idea to suggest to the members of old proposals that seem to meet those criteria (which assumes that they have more than one member signed up) that if they are still working on building membership they might move their "provisional project" to user space.  Also we may want to post on the Guide and the Proposals page this procedure of archiving after four months. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean regarding the phrasing indicating that a small group could be a project, so I really can't answer that. And, in all honesty, if someone does seek to repost a proposal that's already been archived, I'm not sure if there's any way we can really prevent that. If they would,however, I think I probably wound indicate to them on their own talk page that the older proposal had been archived on the basis of insufficient interest, and that they might want to ensure that the parties who had indicated interest previously were still interested. John Carter 21:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, and it looks like this has been done in the past after only one month (which seems a little too soon) and no one has squawked, at least not on the Proposals' talk page.  And I do see that it is actually quasi-policy, as language to this effect is on the top of the page.  So clearly we should enforce what we say.  Sorry for any confusion.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I support the motion. The available energy will be better spent on project that have a chance of proceeding beyond the proposal stage. Waltham, The Duke of 08:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comment above - same date/time.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving proposals 

message: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 14#New Category:Wikipedia essays subcategory, Category:WikiProject essays may be of interest to people here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 22:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposal for [[:Category:WikiProject essays]] 

message: :(Moved from the proposals talk page.)
The header says it all. Should a TV series be a WikiProject or a task force? See also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television#Show-specific_projects_and_taskforces. Just from looking at that link alone, I think that we should at least move all the project proposals which are about TV series to the task force section. - jc37 00:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be either. The benefit of being a taskforce is that you may find more people willing to work on a project simply by it being more visible as part of a larger project. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that that's not what I'm reading at the link above. Could you clarify? - jc37 10:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV series - WikiProject or Task force? 

message: At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#USRD scope there is a discussion about no longer covering all articles on U.S. roads under the project. How should this be implemented? Does there need to be a clear statement of scope, and should the name be changed? --NE2 13:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The scope of a particular project should be decided by those participating. There is no set way of doing it other than discussing it there and coming to a consensus among the editors participating. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I would add is that it generally works best if a given project decides that a given category, with subcats, should include all their articles. What category that might be, and what the criteria for inclusion in a given cat should be, is of course open to discussion. John Carter 01:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: But then does it have to be stated clearly, so those tagging can know what to tag? --NE2 11:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm concerned that people are not clearly defining the new scope. --NE2 13:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming and scope of projects

message: Just curious as to whether the rest of you think that the projects proposal page is the right place to discuss changing existing policy, like at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Trivia and In popular culture. Thank you. John Carter 20:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a fantastic MfD candidate, as forum shopping. I'm taking it there myself. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 01:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The MfD has been misinterpreted as an attack on all trivia/pop-culture material <sigh>. Anyway, it is active if anyone wants to comment, either way. I've tried to make it clear that "delete" and "keep" are not the only valid outcomes (versus "cleanup to stop campaigning" and "merge"). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 08:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one haven't assumed the MfD is an attack on trivia, just a misapprehension of what the project is actually about.  The project as implemented has taken a very different form from the ill-conceived proposal linked to above.--Father Goose 02:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriateness of new proposal? 

message: Is it possible to add  another rung to the importance scale, that of minor, which would sit below low.  We have an awful lot of low importance comics articles, and there's a lot of bumping this article up because it's more important that that article, not because it's more important to the core concept.  I know how to do this through the template and so on, I just don't think the bot will pick it up.  I don't know enough about bots to know if the bot can be easily adjusted to handle one project just adding another category, if you get what I mean. Hiding Talk  21:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance scale 

message: Does anyone have any opinions on the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of topics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Glossaries, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories, and the older Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals, now being listed as effectively separate pages on the Project Directory navigation bar? John Carter 14:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New "pages" of the Project Directory 

message: This is not a typo. Why are there the two templates of  and ? (merge?) Simply south 16:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think because one displays a summary of all the project which have tagged the article, and the other doesn't. There are some cases when even displaying all the relevant banners in the "short" form takes up a lot of space. John Carter 16:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple WikiProject Banners templates 

message: WikiProject History is a bit of mess organisation wise. I have a new proposal for organisation:
*History would only manage the aspects of history not covered by other projects, such as archaeology and historiography
*History would have sub projects for each continent, which would be co-parented with the corresponding continent Project. ie. WikiProject History of Europe would be parented by both WikiProject History and WikiProject Europe
:*These WikiProjects would have national task forces to work on individual nations
*Periodical task forces such as WikiProject Middle ages would have a subpage for each continental project, with their main page being just a kind of introduction with the task forces doing all the work
*Projects for other aspects of history such as WikiProject Military history and WikiProject History of Science will be left to their own devices, with only a little help for WikiProject History
*Members of all sub projects will be considered members of WikiProject History, as they currently are
We can achieve this by merging current national history projects into task forces of the continental ones. More national task forces would not be created untill a user expresses interest in creating them. We've had experience of creating ones when no one is interested when the continental task forces of WikiProject History. What do you guys think?--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 23:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any and all mergers would have to meet with the approval of the members of those extant projects in advance. And I wouldn't try to create task forces of task forces, that gets too complicated. MILHIST creates them all as task forces without differentiating between them, and that's probably the best choice here as well. John Carter 23:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should advertise if you will our efforts on national Wikiproject pages so that we can attract them to these continental task forces. I'm sure there will be a lot of interest in joining one of those from Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece and Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey for sure. Monsieurdl 23:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are trying to force it too much.  You don't need a new proposal, you just got started.  Let this thing run.  Where is User:Wandalstouring in this conversation?  And why on Earth are we having this conversation here?  See further comments at the Project.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The proposed hierarchy is elegant, but I don't see how it would affect the quality of articles -- which is what it's all about in the end. Editors will find the subjects they wish to contribute to, whether or not there is an orderly hierarchy of sub-projects. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 04:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know little about thematic WikiProjects and the way they cooperate, but I can tell you one thing: bringing WikiProjects Greece and Turkey under the same roof would be sheer madness a very bad idea. In this particular case, of course, Turkey is probably a better candidate for the Asian History task force (in the proposed model), so it will not be together with Greece (definitely European), but I gather that this is only an example, and that there are numerous problematic cases like this one. The problem here is that we have to do with people... Wikipedians still have national pride and, though many of them do not let this affect the way they work in Wikipedia, most seem to be more susceptible to such influences. Waltham, The Duke of 09:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never advocated joining them together, only putting notices around stating that we have continental task forces under history and they could help us out by assessing articles under our banner. I would never agree to eliminating national WP's- not in a million years. And as a side note, there would be no madness as you put it- we already have a good understanding in the Wikipedia:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board. Monsieurdl 12:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Doug, we're already doing this, tryig to organise EuroHist and all. This is just to clarify exactly what we're doing-Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 18:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification is fine, but it should not be done here.  Editors at the Council are free to participate in the discussion, but the discussion about the future of the Project should take place at the Project.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what do you want to do? move the discussion to the project talk page?--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 21:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: (Answer to Monsieurdl's comment) Sorry, maybe I have phrased my message badly. I may also have misinterpreted the situation on the whole; the maturity of Greek (and Turkish) Wikipedians seems to be greater than what I had anticipated (an impression party created by the shameful video race people from both nations engaged in at YouTube some time ago), and I am extremely pleasantly surprised to discover that there is such a thing as a cooperation board. In any case, I am happy to see that things are going well between Greek and Turkish Wikipedians, and I ask you to forgive my rash comments. Waltham, The Duke of 23:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do with [[Wikipedia:WikiProject History|WikiProject History]] 

message: I think we should ask for volunteers to sign the /Contacts page on the main page. That is, I think it should be elaborated on the main page the need for contacts. I already made the changes in what seemed to be the appropriate location. Can I be Frank? (Talk to me!) 05:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks. No objections to my expansion, I take it? Can I be Frank? (Talk to me!) 02:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not from what I noticed, I think you just added language about signing up on the /Contacts page if you are a key player, right?  That sounds fine.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling all contacts...