Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Archive 5

message: I proposed that a WikiProject for the county of Derbyshire, [] should be created. I couple of people have put their names down for it. Im just wondering what happens now? JFBurton 17:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Derbyshire 

message: Hello everyone! I've just begun overhauling the Organizations WikiProject, and I can't seem to figure out how to get our members list to work with the Wikipedians by WikiProject category properly. Any concise help and direction here would be appreciated. Cheers! Oldsoul 22:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organizations and Wikipedians by WikiProject listing 

message: Template talk:WikiProjectBanners, thoughts? -- Ned Scott 05:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments should be made directly there, ideally. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 05:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject banners, cleaning up the clutter 

message: Hello. I'm new here, and apologize if you aren't the right people to bring this to. I'm from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, which doesn't seem to have been doing a lot lately. Do you here think that maybe it might be more productive to create project-specific missing article lists for the various projects, as opposed to trying to keep the missing articles project itself as a completely separate entity? I personally think that doing so might possibly be more effective and result in better quality articles faster than the current method. Thanks for any responses, and my apologies again if you aren't the right people to bring this to. John Carter 21:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea to me.  If you contact a WikiProject on Fish and say, "These fish articles are in EB, but not in Wikipedia" that will certainly spur people into action.  You should be sure that those fish aren't already in Wikipedia, of course, because the lists you are working from are (probably) mostly out of date.  I suspect when that project was active there were far fewer specialised WikiProjects, so it made sense to work that way.  In 2007, it seems we have a WikiProject for almost everything (this is good, I'm not complaining!), so now we have access to people who will care a lot about writing an article about a small fish or a suburb of Dallas.  That energy should be used to help achieve the very laudable goal of your project.  Walkerma 22:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any ideas which projects should be contacted in this way first?  I'm also a member of the Mythology and Saints projects (I've done a few articles there) and noticed all the Religion and Philosophy projects. Would it be best to try to contact the projects that relate to the more general topics, say Mythology or Religion, and ask them to diffuse out the relevant articles to the other various projects in their fields, or to try to break up the lists to each individual project? Or, if it isn't best, as I don't think I would be qualified to do the specific individual project lists in all cases, would it be possibly at least acceptable? John Carter 23:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think it best to compile lists of missing articles over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, then perhaps use WP:AWB to sort these via categories into topics.  Then use listings from Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory to locate active projects you could contact for help.  I'd try to go for active projects first.  I found at WP:WVWP that sometimes broad topics could be quite dead, but more narrow projects were very active.  Record your activity - contacts and responses (perhaps like we did at WVWP) - and hopefully see some redlinks turning blue!  I think you may find other people will start to work with you once you start making progress.  Are there other suggestions out there?  Walkerma 06:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable films is concerned, we have developed the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of films without article department in WP Films which runs parallel to it, although the scope of our department is much broader and needs help to define what exactly is a missing article out of all the films without articles. Recently there have been some developments in Wikipedia:Notability (films), which may help us somehow, but I personally don't find any simple and practical lines to work on. I am not sure if a project merge would be the best solution, but at least a closer cooperation between our department and WP Missing encyclopedic articles would be very helpful. Hoverfish Talk 14:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing articles lists for projects? 

message: There is an interesting discussion going on at WikiProject Cities (discussion here) about inter-project relationships.  In particular, what project tags should appear in which articles where there is a parent/descendant relationship between projects. 
For example, if there were a WikiProject New York and a WikiProject Upstate New York, what should be the general guideline between the two of them:
* Full "dual-tagging": The New York tag should be on all New York-related articles, with the Upstate tag appearing in addition on articles of interest to the Upstate project.
* Limited "dual-tagging": The "New York" tag should be dual-tagged on only a few articles in the Upstate area, and only the Upstate tag appearing on almost all Upstate articles.
:Example of limited dual-tagging: almost all Upstate cities would have just one tag (the Upstate tag only), and only the most important cities in the Upstate area (like Albany) would have both tags.
I suggest that this discussion raises larger issues of inter-project cooperation and relationship, that are going to arise routinely as WikiProject continue to grow:  
* Who decides which tag appears on which article (the parent? the descendant?)
* What are the costs/benefits of "full dual-tagging" versus "limited dual-tagging"?
* Does one method or the other promote cooperation/Balkanization?
* Are there alternatives to the parent/descendant separate WikiProject model which might work better?
These issues may well arise in many contexts - for example (hypothetically) WikiProject American Folk Dancing versus WikiProject American Square Dancing.  I suggest these issues are worthy of a closer look before conflicts develop.  Spamreporter1 18:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, promoting the idea of task forces seems like the easiest way to deal with the bulk of this problem. Not only that, but from the Proposals page you can see that a lot of people are suggesting projects before they know if they should or even if a project already exists. Maybe we could have something like "please read this FAQ before suggesting a new project" to help with this? -- Ned Scott 00:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The basic problem with task forces/work groups is that is assumes a strict hierarchical relationship (almost ownership like) between two WikiProjects, when things are often more of a web of connections. Why is WikiProject Indian cinema a "work group" of Wikipedia:WikiProject India, but a descendent of Wikipedia:WikiProject Films? BlankVerse 14:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Films hasn't adopted a task force structure from its end, I'd guess; compare Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Military history. Kirill Lokshin 16:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting disussion at WikiProject Cities about inter-project relations 

message: The question: Where there is a parent/descendent relationship between two WikiProjects (WPs), when should the descendant WP tag be the only tag that appears, and when should articles have both the parent and descendent tags? 
The following is my (hopefully very brief) summary of the discussion thus far on the issue of when and whether WP tags should be removed, or whether articles should have two WP tags ("dual-tagged").  To use a (hypothetical) example, when should the WP:OHIO tag be "dual-tagged" on all Ohio city articles, and when should the WP:WEST OHIO tag be the only tag that appears on Ohio city articles?
Option 1 - "Very limited dual-tagging." Just a few, the "most important," local articles are dual-tagged; all other local articles have only the descendent WP tag.
* Pro - promotes clarity, focus for the descendent WP; analogize to category structure: only the most local cat appears in the cat hierarchy; reduces conflict in assessment scales
* Con - parent WP is harmed by not being able to recruit or offer standards; analogy to category structure not valid, because senior cat is not harmed; no harm to local WP by dual-tagging
Option 2 - "Full dual-tagging." All articles within a relevant area have both parent and descendent tags.
* Pro - promotes cooperation between WPs, allows both WPs to recruit, does not harm descendent, avoids "tag revert wars" (no WP tags should be removed without consent of that WP)
* Con - creates tag-clutter and confusion; encourages inter-WP conflict; reduces ability of local WP to recruit
Option 3 - "Some dual-tagging." Middle-ground between Option 1 and Option 2 - a significant number (but not all) are dual-tagged.
*Pro - "best of both worlds"? Allows parent access to a significant number of articles, while giving descendent focus and clarity; "where to draw the line" is subject to express agreement between the WPs
*Con - needlessly complex; will lead to endless debates about "where to draw the line"
Option 4 - "Project/Sub-project" structure. Avoids tagging controversy altogether by having local project be a "sub-project" (that is, it has its own page, COTW, etc., but not a separate tag) - see WP:AUSTRALIA and WP:INDIA as examples.
* Pro - this is the best of both worlds; both projects are able to have their own identity, community and tasks, without having to argue about tags; WPs are able to interact without worrying about "turf wars" 
* Con - this makes it too difficult for the local WP to maintain its identity, and the local will wither into the parent
I have likely neglected some arguments (probably your favorite argument) pro and con - but the intent here is to summarize briefly the points of view that have been expressed thus far. Responses are being collected at WT:SOCAL and/or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject. Spamreporter1 15:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is another option currently employed by WP:GER & its subprojects. Integrated tagging. The subproject is on a switch of the main banner. Agathoclea 08:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Agathoclea.  In order that others may also see your suggestion, I have copied your comment to the pages where this conversation is taking place.  Thanks again.Spamreporter1 15:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The views of each of those Projects was solicited because each is affected by the topic.  I have requested that any responses be condensed, and have assisted that process.  People are going to respond where they want, and I'm trying to avoid disputes over where the conversation is going to take place, by performing the clerical act of copying responses.  If anyone has a suggestion of a single place that all interested parties are comfortable watching and responding there, that would be a good solution. Spamreporter1 22:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of Inter-WikiProject Discussion thus far 

message: To try to follow all discussions on this issue, you have to look at the talk pages for at least four different WikiProjects (California, SoCal, CITIES, and COUNCIL), as well as the talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject, because the sockpuppet  Spamreporter1 has been copying different comments to the different pages without telling the different WikiProjects or the authors of those comments, and without identifying where the different comments came from. BlankVerse 14:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The views of each of those Projects was solicited because each is affected by the topic.  I have requested that any responses be condensed, and have assisted that process.  People are going to respond where they want, and I'm trying to avoid disputes over where the conversation is going to take place, by performing the clerical act of copying responses.  If anyone has a suggestion of a single place that all interested parties are comfortable watching and responding there, that would be a good solution. Spamreporter1 22:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: I have to wonder if some of the extreme hostility and incivility that has been part of this discussion on this project's talk page, and some other project's talk pages is the result of some editors assuming that the SoCal WikiProject has been 'undoing' some editor's hard work. In reality, the tagging of almost all the article talk pages (on over 10,000 articles!) with the  banner was done by a Bot, User:MetsBot. At the time, the bot's owner received quite a few complaints, and because of that quit doing any bot-tagging for WikiProjects. It really wasn't the bot's fault, but the fact that that some articles had been miscategorized (such as a couple of Oregon cities that probably some waggish vandal had categorized as California cities). BlankVerse 14:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: All done by a bot

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Ned Scott 08:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is pretty important.  is a dreadful idea. The entire point of it is to hide WikiProject talk page banners completely, unless someone goes intentionally looking for them, which of course will never happen.  It effectively removes ratings and assessments, /Comments, sub-project/task force labels and all other features intended for editor eyes, unless the editor happens to be a WikiProject supergeek and goes manually looking for the information.  This template doesn't even bother to briefly name what the projects are!  Ick.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to debate this here, there is plenty of that on the TFD. I, for one, am for it.↔NMajdan•talk•EditorReview 21:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I do think that this is a red-flag to all of us in this project, that WikiProjects need stronger guidelines. Frustrated Wikipedians can be very scary. We need to make simple, easy to use, helpful, and more aggressive guidelines on WikiProjects and things like their banners. We have some good stuff now in the guide, but a lot of people haven't even seen the guide. I also think we should have a more simplistic guide that covers the main issues and most common stuff, with a second page for the more advanced stuff. We should also move the guide out of our sub-pages, giving it more presence. -- Ned Scott 04:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:WikiProjectBanners}} 

message: I created a noticeboard for WikiProjects so that mass-messages for WikiProjects are no longer needed. Enjoy! How do you suggest I increase awareness of this board? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 12:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good start would be notes on WP:VP and WP:AN.  Perhaps a note in the instructions for starting a new project too... Slambo (Speak) 12:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also Wikipedia:Community Portal. Walkerma 15:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Why do we have a notice board when we have this talk page that is hardly used, as well as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject? -- Ned Scott 20:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd imagine that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject is a talk page for WikiProjects in general, and this talk page is for the council. The noticeboard is blatantly for announcements relevant to all WikiProjects. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 20:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that, but given the lack of activity on the first two talk pages it just seems it might just spread out discussion in an undesired way (people not noticing the notice board). But I guess it's worth a shot. -- Ned Scott 02:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought one of the purposes of this talk page was also to serve as a de-facto WikiProject noticeboard? Titoxd(?!?) 03:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For those who may be wondering what happened, this noticeboard was deleted on 24 March. EdJohnston 17:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:WikiProjects Noticeboard 

message: Some Wikiproject's COTM have banners added to the article space. (See The Maltese Falcon (1941 film), Mormon pioneers, Tax, Muhammad Ali for examples.)  GameKeeper has brought this up as a general point here Wikipedia talk:Avoid self-references#Wikiproject's Collaberation of the Month/Week. He would much prefer them to be added to the talk , rather than the article space. Since such a policy would affect all WikiProjects, with about half of the projects using the talk space and about half using the article space, I thought the council should weigh in on the discussion. Morphh  (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming the banners serve to promote the collaboration and advertise the project, than it makes sense that they would go on the talk page along with the project templates, which serve a similar purpose. - Mocko13 03:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiproject's Collaberation of the Month/Week

message: Someone -- I think it was Phil Boswell -- had an idea for a collapsable box that could be placed on every WikiProject page that would have announcements relevant to all WikiProjects. I suppose this would work in tandem with the noticeboard; discussion could take place on the noticeboard and the template could be used for short announcements. Who has more ideas about this announcement box? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there really enough cross-project announcements to make this worthwhile?  I've seen maybe three in the last year or so. Kirill Lokshin 03:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As many as three? I've seen Badbilltucker's announcement about Wikipedia week and nothing else. If an announcement was broad enough to warrent alerting every single wikiproject, why wouldn't it be put on the Community Portal? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Announcements for All WikiProjects box 

message: If anyone is interested I have proposed "WikiProject Banners", a WikiProject to set standards for, and help projects with, WikiProject banners at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 10:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "WikiProject Banners" 

message: I note that there are now talk page templates which a new project without having to create their own separate template. For newer projects, this might save a lot of time and effort involved in creating a new template. Does anyone think it might be a good idea to encourage newer projects to use this template (User:Kirill Lokshin/Sandbox/Template14) and simply "plug in" their own project data, rather than going through the effort of creating one. That also might prevent cases where people create templates for projects before they create the project itself, as was done with Template:WikiProject Alabama. John Carter 17:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banners 

message: Is there a way of working out a ranking of the largest projects by members? Of not, can we start one? A table with the date the projects started and membership would be useful to look at. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SatyrTN put this together recently: User:SatyrTN/test.↔NMajdan•talk 16:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all assessment related, not by membership. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, sorry, my apologies. I read it wrong. Is there any correlation between number of articles in a WikiProject and the number of users?↔NMajdan•talk 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None, so far as I know. WP:INDIA has roughly the same number of users as WP:LGBT but four times as many articles. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see how having such a list could possibly be detrimental to some projects, although I could see a definite advantage to having some stat regarding the number of articles within a project relative to the number of members. Using the data given above, the ratio of members to articles for the LGBT project would be four times as high as that for the India project. On that basis, it might become clearer to some editors that one project had a greater need than another, and possibly more in need of additional members. Also, of course, I note that some projects, like WikiProject Saints, list everybody who has ever joined as a member, while other projects have particular sections for inactive or retired members. Unless there were significant standardization in that regard, I can see how any such list would be a very likely cause of controversy. John Carter 18:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a somewhat inaccurate list that may be found here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here now, after archiving. —Moondyne 14:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  biggest projects by members. 

message: Moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_reform#WikiProject_Proliferation. --kingboyk 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Proliferation 

message: I left this note on the WP:SPORTS talk page, requesting that WP:OLYMPICS can remove the "Sports" part from its project name:
:When in the course of Editing, it becomes necessary for one WikiProject to dissolve the Links which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of Wikipedia, the separate and equal Project Page to which the Policies of Wikipedia entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Wikipedians requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
:In other words, some of the members of WikiProject Sports Olympics have expressed that we should remove the name "Sports" from our project. At the time it was created, it was only meant to be a sub-project of the Sports project, but Olympic-related articles have enumerated and thus have a whole different set of policies. Since you are our parent WikiProject, I figured that I'd let you know before we declare a Revolution. 
:If anyone has any objections, then, against moving our Wikiproject to Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics, off with your heads! (or just drop us a note on the project talk page, or my talk page). └Jared┘┌talk┐  21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem like much of an issue, but you really shouldn't think of it as something like.. respect or even something that is entitled. That's a bad way to think about WikiProjects. Other than that, if it makes sense to change the name then do so, but don't remove connections when you don't need to. Related WikiProjects should still have connections. -- Ned Scott 11:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry; I didn't mean it the way it sounded. I just wanted to take the name "Sports" out of the project. I wasn't thinking to break ties with them. I just wanted to assert that we are capable of having our own named project! └Jared┘┌talk┐  20:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declaration of Independence 

message: Hi guys. Is there anyone who would be interested in helping sort out the issue going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 18:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: It's been suggested that the awards wikiproject be made a taskforce of the council, owing to the fact that it guides the process for wikiproject awards and in light of the proposed wikiproject reforms. I think this is a good idea, as it would ensure turnout for new proposals, something that is lacking at the moment. So, to feel out the waters, would the council be agreeable to taking on wikiproject awards? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so keen on the idea. The Council is more a centralised discussion place than an actual active WikiProject, so having a taskforce would seem somewhat incongruous. Why not attach it to WP:KC instead in some way?--cj | talk 04:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:KC is basically a page with a list of members and some suggestions on how to be nice. I am loathe to do anything whatsoever to it that results in it having "programs". I'm sure you can see where I'm going here. Given that the council is now moving into discussions that are resulting in Wikipedia wide changes (ie, the templates), it seems logical that this be the next step. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't see that there's a logical connection between the purpose of the Council and that of WikiProject Awards. If it can't stand alone, and isn't relevant to some other project or process, then perhaps it'd be best to do away with it.--cj | talk 09:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the one who first proposed the idea, my reasoning was that many of the awards are at this point tied to specific projects. The members of this group, being from so many scattered areas of interest as they are, probably represent the most active, largest cross-section of wikipedia, and on that basis might be among the best people to solicit for opinions on new awards, particularly as many of the existing awards which have already passed muster have been ones in whose creation they were involved. I agree that the connection between the two groups directly could be seen as being rather tenuous, but the members of this group might also be among the most useful contributors to the discussions for the Awards project. John Carter 15:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have to agree with cj. Our business is WikiProjects, no more no less. --kingboyk 15:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We need help to organize film related awards. Right now we have a WP for Academy Awards, which states WP Flms as parent. The project was left mostly unmanned for a while and last time I heard from it had only one active member. But there are many more awards connected with film and with other entertainment media and arts. Lately several more awards and film festivals have started moving and it may be a good time to decide how to contain the various efforts. Is it best to create a film specific project, or task force for film awards/festivals, or to have a wider WP for art and entertainment (or culture) awards? Hoverfish Talk 14:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:AWARDS - taskforce? 

message: Would the rest of you think a Wikipedia:WikiProject Music groups would be a good idea or not? We already have several band-specific projects, with calls for the rest to set up as task forces, and I personally think this might be the best name for the umbrella group. John Carter 19:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose creation of project 

message: Please advise as to what if anything should be done with these pages. John Carter 15:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:MFD is the best place for them, I suspect; neither one seems to have any content worth preserving, and it's not clear that either is a good scope for a project, in any case. Kirill Lokshin 19:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Flextech]] & [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Groups]] 

message: Something weird has happened to the above page. I don't know exactly what is wrong, though, so I mention it here. On a side note, I've gone through and compiled a list of all the different projects which can be found at the Wikipedia:Quick index page starting with WikiProject, Wikiproject, etc., and find a lot of names which aren't on the directory as is. I don't think I quite understand the layout of the directory, so I'll add in those projects whose placement I can be relatively sure I understand (primarily geographical and other fairly definite topics) and probably will list them here when I'm done for the rest of you to sort out. John Carter 14:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mess at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture]] 

message: This is not a WikiProject proposal so much as a request for input. There is a new Graphics Lab project that is trying to find a place in the English Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia talk:Graphic Lab#Merge with Wikipedia:Requested pictures for a discussion on how it could be integrated into existing projects to avoid conflicts and confusion. Thanks! MithrandirMage 01:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphics Lab 

message: Anyone here know how to add the requested specs to the new 1.0 project banner as requested here? John Carter 17:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version 1.0 project banner 

message: Apparently User:Voice of All has taken it upon him/herself to do a mass-deletion of categories, including at least one from WP:ETHNIC. I'm trying to establish whether or not he/she notified anyone of this action (it doesn't seem so... but I'm not certain...). Meanwhile, check your cats. Perhaps some of yours were deleted as well... --Ling.Nut 19:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it perhaps among those listed at User:Betacommand/Datadump/To be Deleted, as VoA is indicating in the deletion logs? If so, this is a clearing of empty categories per WP:CSD C1, though I'm not sure why assessment categories (like :Category:A-Class Bangladesh articles) need to be deleted. Also :Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action has been restored, if that's the one you meant.  Gimmetrow 22:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Many many assessments categories got deleted (I've restored a dozen or so). However, the folks concerned have been given an ear bashing already; it's yesterday's news and I'm sure it won't happen again. If anybody (non admin) finds a category red which should be blue and if they're not an admin, they can either recreate it or ask me or the original deleter to restore it. --kingboyk 22:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are a ton of categories here! I've already undeleted over 200, and I only got to FA-Class before my wrist started hurting. Can someone else help here? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'm worried this will happen again. It happened earlier this month and I let a few admins know and apparently it happened again.↔NMajdan•talk 14:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  I believe "a ton" = 3700. I wish I could help, but have schoolwork & have done too much Wiki lately already. Sorry. --Ling.Nut 23:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, at most it is another... 500. Sigh. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did they delete them manually or with a bot? I'd send them the list and say you deleted them, now you can restore them :) Harsh but fair methinks. --kingboyk 23:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think manually, or at least, with Firefox tabs or something similar. Still... it's a lot. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah so was I, and I complained loudly. I think they've heard enough :) --kingboyk 22:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Some of our categories are indeed deleted: Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Assessment (See the red links half way trough). I'd like them back. We aren't even fully active yet, and simply because that takes long, the cat's get deleted. I don't like that at all. Good work on catching this major screwup from the people involved. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 03:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there or can there be some rule to notify a WikiProject before CfD'ing a category (and other important templates and articles, like lists) that bears its talk-page WP template? It often happens that we find a closed CfD or AfD with no one in WP Films having been notified to participate. Hoverfish Talk 14:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check your wikiproject's categories for deletions! 

message: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject#Proposed template for talk pages of articles. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 09:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed template for talk pages of articles 

message: This is a list of the projects which I have just recently added to the directory. I haven't quite figured out how that thing is actually supposed to work, so if you see any which should be added to other sections please feel free to do so. I should note that each of these new projects is currently in at least one place in the directory, but, as I put them there, maybe not the right place. John Carter 21:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New WikiProjects 

message: See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Tulips.  Slambo (Speak) 10:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a wikiproject on tulips? --tjstrf talk 11:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not supposed to, really.  (I suspect that someone created it after seen the examples in the project guide, which I had constructed on the—apparently mistaken—assumption that nobody would actually want a WikiProject for tulips, and hence that the example could be a purely hypothetical one.) Kirill Lokshin 11:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol! That's great. --kingboyk 11:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:Tulips nominated for deletion 

message: Hello, all. There are still over 150 proposed projects over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. I dunno, but I think that's kinda a lot. If any of you think that those that already have over 5 members (there are a few of them) should be started, please feel free to do so. John Carter 19:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposals page 

message: It has recently come to my attention that some people can construe some of the phrasing in some of the importance parameters (particularly the phrase "generally notable" outside the field of the project) as the basis for challenging the existing less-than-top importance ranking of some articles. Suggest that anyone who has such phrasing intact on the assessment page maybe change it to "particularly generally notable" or something else to help reduce the possibility of such challenges arising again. John Carter 15:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phrasing on assessment page 

message: I want to create a WikiProject on the Tudors. There don't seem to be a lot of history wikiprojects and those there are are very broad (ie, all of antiquity, or the entire Aztec civilisation). There is a WikiProject European history, but it was only set up two months ago and exists in a  very rudimentary form. So, should I set this up as a separate project, or try and form a taskforce of EUROHIST, even though it will probably overshadow the main project? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean something like WP:BROY, or a more general project on the entire Tudor period? Kirill Lokshin 02:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire Tudor period, from Henry VIII to Elizabeth. I'm not talking fashions and stuff, but things like Kett's Rebellion and the Elizabethan Religious Settlement. History. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest a task force of WP:ENGLAND, then.  The "Tudor period" really only makes sense as a topic in the context of British history; going all the way up to European history doesn't seem helpful (particularly given the fact that that project is entirely catatonic).  Kirill Lokshin 03:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, but WP:ENGLAND has only been around three months and seems equally inactive. Same problem, really. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would presume that starting an active task force would kick some life into it, then. There's no need to set up an entire project and all the necessary (and boring) structuring and so on - it's a waste of time for you and confers no special privileges. Girolamo Savonarola 18:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about WikiProject 

message: Thanks for all the input above!  The discussion has now been brought up at the Village Pump. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Banner Discussion (2) 

message: Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject reform#The scope, regarding WikiProject scopes getting off track. I think a lot of stuff can be cleared up by better work load distribution and less redundant tagging, and the WikiProject scope is in the center of that. -- Ned Scott 00:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject banners and scopes 

message: Special:Contributions/BetacommandBot
No, just... NO. -- Ned Scott 01:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Lists tagging EVERY ARTICLE that is "list of" 

message: At Wikipedia talk:Notability#A different view I suggested that WikiProjects might be more involved in determining notability. I am aware that many projects already do this. For example, the Wine Project wrote Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a wine guide and use this a guideline for merging or even deleting articles. The Scouting Project has criteria for which Scouting organisations are notable. Troops and Groups are not. Countries, States and Counties are. Many sporting projects have similar notions of notability. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability is showing a lack of consensus about notability with one group wanting a more bureaucratic tendency to measure notability in terms of sources. Others, including myself, think that notability and sources are different. We decide whether a topic is notable, but only write the article if sources are sufficient to verify a reasonable amount of content. I thnk WikiProjects could play a useful role, but the objection is that Projects will say "Eh, throw everything you can find in." to quote one critic. The answer is to develop ways that Projects have criteria and that these are open to debate and improvement from outside. Is this feasible? Please add your views here. I promised to add this here earlier but I have been busy and start a full wikibreak in 24 hours from now for four days. I may not be able to add anything further until the weekend. --Bduke 22:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reservations I might personally have is that several of the smaller or perhaps "more focused" projects (like, for instance, those that deal with a single video game series) might find that, in their own eyes, they might feel an obligation to create individual articles on comparative trivia to justify the continuation of the project. However, if the various projects were to perhaps "come together" and create general guidelines for notability, in such a way that perhaps all the projects are involved in all the notability requirements, it might work. Certainly, I can see how my own project Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints, would consider virtually every saint notable. (In fact, I regret to say that I have in fact already said something to that effect. At least, every saint with an individual commemoration.) We might be able to offer valuable outside opinion on notability for statuary, however. Similarly, Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture might be able to provide some valuable outsider input on whether my own assertion about saints is valid. I can see difficulties with this specific approach proposed, but there are others which might not have the same problems. John Carter 00:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Projects and notability

message: Would any of you fine, wonderful, nay frankly awesome and inspiring, people know what to do with the various proposals on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page that don't seem to be going anywhere? John Carter 00:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they've been sitting for a long time (i.e. many months) with little interest, I don't see any reason why we can't just remove them.  There are, quite honestly, a fair number of proposals that just aren't going to work out. Kirill Lokshin 01:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think they should be archived, so that people know not to propose them again for a while.  -- TimNelson 11:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dormant Proposals? 

message: What can you if you think you are involved in a project that is being sabataged by people whose actions seem counter to the stated policies of wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thaddeus Slamp (talk • contribs) 04:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes -- TimNelson 11:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  please help. 

message: The projects related to Wikipedia maintenence are horribly disorganized and often overlap.  Please see my proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Directory#Proposal for organizing Wikipedia Maintenence projects.  Fishal 21:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for organizing Wikipedia Maintenence projects

message: Is is possible to suggest an idea for a proposal for a project, but not be involved? 147.197.215.16 17:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly is. I did so for the "Methodism" proposal. But, one way or another, it would probably help to set up an account and post the addition under the account name. John Carter 17:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: Is there a bot which can sort things into alphabetical order? If not, should i leave a request at the bots page to do this for the proposals? Simply south 17:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as nobody has objected, i have left a suggestion at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Sorting. Simply south 13:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What needs to be sorted? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Often the proposals are out of alphabetical order and i thought it would be easier to navigate that way. Simply south 15:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting 

message: This may be somewhat excessive navel-gazing, but I am curious if there is any list or otherwise collated data somewhere as to the list of the largest WikiProjects by number of participants or by various other measures of degree of activity. Just purely out of curiosity. LordAmeth 10:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, if we use "number of task forces" as the measurement, then the largest are WPMILHIST and WPBIO.  -- TimNelson 02:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject History 

message: Hi,
I'm in an information-gathering stage to determine whether it would make sense to create some kind of Wikiproject on a set of topics.  The article began as a single article, but is clearly going to branch out pretty quickly.  I think that a Child Project, or even a Task Force, would be more appropriate than a full WikiProject.  The question I have is, the topics in question could easily fall into 2, or even 3, larger topics.  Some of the topics that branch out from this probably would be better placed in a different category entirely.  
The specific topic I'm referring to is "dyslexia."  Depending on how you look at it, it could be categorized under neurological or psychological conditions; education; special education (a child project of Education).  The articles that will branch out from this topic will range from eduation law, special education, learning disabilities and educational methods and instructional interventions, to several branches of psychology, neuropsychology, psyciatric diagnoses, brain research, neuroimaging, etc. 
If I were going to choose, I would probably go with neuroscience.  But, the Education project is much more extensive and organized.  However, I don't know if that is an advantage or disadvantage.
Would love feedback on how best to categorize topics that could easily fall into more than one.
Thanks in advance!
Rosmoran 19:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are already a few task forces/work groups which are "descendant" projects of more than one project. I would think that maybe some sort of combination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine (which I think deals with medical conditions in general, probably including dyslexia) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Education might be the best way to go. You might want to contact both groups regarding the possible creation of such a mutual task force/work group, and maybe some others. Listing the idea as a proposed project on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page, indicating in the comments that you would be interested in determining which if any extant projects your proposal would be a task force or work group of, might be a good idea as well. John Carter 19:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Exploring the possibility of creating Wikiproject, Child, or Task Force

message: As I'm adding code to  this week (testing in User:Slambo/TWP test) to add quality and importance categories for UK Railways and New Zealand Railways subprojects, I noticed the little message at the top of the page that said the template is 32k long.  After trying to work out how to reduce the code and the maintenance complexity yesterday, the thought struck me of putting each subproject's code into a subtemplate so a snippet of the main template would look something like...
  |-
 {{#ifeq:|yes|
 |-
 {{#ifeq:|yes|
and so on with one {{#ifeq: line for each of the subproject identifier params.  The value to continued template maintenance should be obvious, but I'm left with the question of how much this would increase the server load for affected pages.  In short, is this a good strategy?  Slambo (Speak) 18:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I was recently reminded when asking about adding a bunch of  templates for references, Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banner code size and complexity 

message: I am currently in the process of trying to update the Project Directory. You really don't want to know just how many little projects are out there. Anyway, to vent a little, I created User:Warlordjohncarter/WikiProject WikiProject Proliferation. I hope no one decides to delete it. John Carter 01:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahaha, I like it. -- Ned Scott 01:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at WP:REFORM - we're trying to get a handle on the situation... SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad joke 

message: It seems to me that the massive number of articles we have on Art/Literature/Architecture/Culture/Nosepicking in 1492/1678/983BC, given the low content of virtually all of them, would be better off merged into their respective and equally empty year articles, possibly creating some half decent helpful articles in the process. It is however a gargantuan task taking in many hundreds of articles, and I am somewhat loathe to attempt it on my own. Is there a wikiproject that covers these articles, or a group covering such maintenence that I can call on for assistance? 62.30.56.116 23:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject covering years? 

message: I noticed this Sandbox from a editor User:ACBest/TempSandbox appearing in all of the Australian Projects and others, should this be really placed this way, as its showing up in all the Categories and coming up with them being all FA-Class and Top Importance. This person is not with our Australian Project. Boylo 23:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you tried asking them to take it off as it is messing with all of the categories? Greeves (talk • contribs) 23:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No as i am fairly new to Wiki and am not sure on the protocols for this type of thing.Boylo
From looking at User:ACBest/Sandbox it appears he is a template designer for WikiProjects, so will let him be, thx anyway.Boylo 00:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe this is something that admins need to decide on if its allowed or the WikiProject Council, as if everyone starts to do the same, it will become a form of Category vandalism for all the Projects in time. Thats why i had mentioned it here. Boylo 02:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it would ever become an issue. Even if it did, we can easily make banners exclude the user namespace from being categorized. Many of the banners have "class=NA" which will remove them from any important categories. -- Ned Scott 03:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly enough,  already auto-excluded the page since it was a user page. -- Ned Scott 03:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Sandbox  

message: I've been doing assessments for the veterinary medicine wikiproject, and I've noticed that when I leave a comment following assessment, it is linked to within the banner.  This is great, and I do not want to change the banner template.  However, if there are banners from other projects also present, some of those may display any comments within their banners.  I don't want to change the banner templates of those projects either, but when I make a comment, it is about the article from a veterinary medicine standpoint, and sometimes it looks strange to see it within a different banner.  See Talk:Canine herpesvirus for a mild example of what I am talking about.  My question is, can we do anything about this, or is it really not that big a deal?  --Joelmills 18:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine by me. Generally, the comments page is for comments on how to expand the article. If there is anyone in the Dogs project who wants to help, and can find sources to add the content, well and good, they'll see the comments. As long as the comments aren't about something that specifically relates exclusively to a specific project (like maybe requesting a certain article layout or something similar) there shouldn't be any real problem. John Carter 18:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on the "Comments" section of project banners 

message: This WikiProject is actively seeking recruitment and is in danger of foundering. Although there are 75 editors signed up on the participants page, there are only around six editors actively reverting vandalism, adding and refining content, and working on collaborations, and this has been the case for over a year. Real life may call some of these editors away at any time, leaving this project defunct, and hundreds of articles open to vandalism and inaccuracies.
If you are interested in improving Wikipedia's dinosaur coverage, whether you are a professional or amateur, please consider signing up and actively participating on WP:DINO. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs]]

message: Any ideas from the rest of you of what this is supposed to be? John Carter 00:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm think the same thing as you are! Greeves (talk • contribs) 01:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you speedy that as nonsense or no-context? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can try. John Carter 20:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Certification Links]] 

message: I have recently tried to update the project directory. If anyone knows how to break down the entries in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Wikipedia, please feel free to do so. John Carter 00:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: I don't know what do you think?, but in my boredom I created this template (Template:ScottishWikiProjectActivity), for the Scottish WikiProject, to measure members activity, this can be transcluded in the users or Wikiproject pages, both as reminder and a motivator of the WikiProject council. You can choose any given period of time: By monthly, bimonthly or trimonthly basis, to count user contributions, project dormancy or project notability.  Also it can be customized to facilitate the task of the  WikiProject Editorial Team 1.0 for representing the quality status of articles at glance. Let me know your comments. Here it is how this works for now. (If you would like I can change the colors as well).
 
Example:
The UserTalk, WikiProject, Mainspace and Activity parameters are all optional.  Use only the ones that are appropriate for the situation.  Typically, the Top, Left, Bottom and Right sections will be filled in, as a minimum; to determine inactivity within a predetermined period of time. User Inactive is depicted like this A and Active with  an A.
Color	Meaning    	Values
Left 	UserTalk   	0-30
Top  	WikiProject	0-30
Right	Mainspace  	0-30
Right	Activity   	A, A*
◙JMK◙ -22:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participation Drive 

message: We may soon have a bot available for assisting in assessment and determining which articles relevant to a project have and have not been tagged. The details to date are at Wikipedia:Bot requests#"Cross-reference" bot. John Carter 17:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a great idea, it looks like it will be useful.  Thanks to all concerned, Walkerma 19:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New bot 

message: Many WikiProjects are now using the WP:1.0 assessment scheme to categorize articles.  For articles, all projects are using the same categorization scheme, as required by the bot:
:Project articles by quality
::FA-Class Project articles
::A-Class Project articles
::GA-Class Project articles
::B-Class Project articles
::Start-Class Project articles
::Stub-Class Project articles
However, the problem is for non-article categories.  Many projects use Cat, Dab, Image, List, NA, Portal, and Template classes.  Previous discussions at WP:1.0 have resulted in letting each project to what they want with the "non-standard" grades.  As such, use of these grades, and their categorization has never been standardized.  If you take a look at :Category:Articles by quality (which should parallel all "Project articles by quality"), in addition to the standard categories there are:
::Category:Category-Class articles
::Category:Disamb-Class articles
::Category:Image-Class articles
::Category:List-Class articles
::Category:NA-Class articles
::Category:Portal-Class articles
::Category:Template-Class articles
::Category:Unassessed-Class articles
Within each of these categories, there is great variety in what each project is calling its own category.  Some of the categories are named like "X-Class Project pages", because not all of the classifications are used on articles.  Additionally, there are differences in using "Disambig" vs "Disamb" vs "Dab" vs "Disambiguation", "NA-Class" vs "Non-article", and "Unassessed-Class" vs "Unassessed".
Another possible problem is having these non-article categories within a category named for containing articles ("Articles by quality").  I think it would be nice to try and come up project guidelines/conventions for classification and categorization of all pages, and not just articles rated for WP:1.0.  It would be nice to have a consistent structure for finding all pages within any WikiProject.  I like the structure used by several current projects where all of the categories are placed in "Project articles by quality", which is in "WikiProject Project articles."  (Besides "by quality", "WikiProject Project articles" also typically contains "Project articles by importance", "Project articles needing expert attention", "Project articles with comments", and "Requests for Project peer review".)  I like this organization, since all of the class categories are together in one parent category.  The articles and non-articles could split up, but I think this would add an unnecessary level of categorization.  Any ideas or suggestions?  --Scott Alter 21:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article category standardization 

message: I have set up a resource center on Wikipedia. Can this be moved onto the main Wikipedia while I still retain control over the center? Please respond on my page ASAP. I will be gone for three weeks about 12 or so hours after this message got posted.
Signed,
Defender 911
23:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot really have any control anywhere; Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. So no, you cannot have full control of it there. Also, at User talk:Defender 911/WikiResource John makes a good point; there is no real need for this page. Greeves (talk • contribs) 01:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Afterthought: This is not really a WikiProject, so why are you asking here at WT:COUNCIL? Greeves (talk • contribs) 01:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking again, it kind of is a WikiProject of sorts. Greeves (talk • contribs) 03:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:WikiResource Center 

message: What is the conventional, polite way to propose the inclusion of a page into a given WikiProject? Is there a template to do this? It seems like it would be presumptuous to add the tag to an article's discussion page if I'm not officially "part" of the WikiProject in question. \sim Lenoxus " * " 22:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hunh.  That's a good question.  Me personally, I'd just add the project banner.  If I had a question about it, I'd post a note on the project's talk page. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could also add it to the "New Articles" section of the project page if such a section exists, or just drop a note on the project's talk page. Generally, though, the banner is fairly effective. John Carter 13:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ask at the WikiProject's talk page... there is no need to make a template for tasks that can successfully be accomplished by talking.  Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing a page for inclusion 

message: I think it has enough interested user, so shouldn't it be started.--Shadyaftrmathgunit 22:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like someone's done this -- TimNelson 03:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#G-Unit_Records|WikiProject G-Unit Records Proposal]] 

message: I note that there is a separate  banner for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Muslim history task force. Is this usual? John Carter 18:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe so. Task forces usually have their banners integrated into their project's banner. Also, you can still receive all the assessment features you would with a separate banner. Greeves (talk • contribs) 02:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Task force banner? 

message: There's a new  header, based on , , , and the like, and serving the same purpose, for WikiProject's main pages. It absorbs a lot of the boilerplate WikiProject lead-section wording, so that projects can have more customized introductions more easily, without over-editing doing away with important links and information at page-top. Please deploy on your projects. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 05:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, what exactly is the point?  A simple link to Wikipedia:WikiProject will take care of the people who don't know what the term is without taking up a huge block of space at the top of the page. Kirill 13:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New [[Template:Project]] header, like [[Template:Guideline]], [[Template:Essay]], etc.