Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Archive 1

message: This is a great idea Kirill! (Another one, yes. But then again, a guy called Lokshin can only have great ideas hehehe... :P) Where do I sign up??? :)
On the subject of PR - yes, the PR is kinda dead and must be reanimated. However, some (=not me) might object that the article might not get a better coverage on project-specific PR. We get 3 (4 if one gets lucky) reviewers per PR at MILHIST, that is not that much. That's why I sworn to PR each and every new article on MILHIST PR... :) Then again, a centralized will may change that.
The directory is long needed, we tried to compile one for WP:FAR and it was a real pain...
Do we need a formal representation? Good question. Yes I think, as making people work together in situations that can sometimes be delicate requires entrusting these people with WP trust beforehand. And yes, these users should be at least experienced editors with a lot of contribs under the belt (and not admins, as adminship is IMHO not a sine qua non for that kind of things). And sure thing, people from great quality project (*whistles* MILHIST...) are needed. Then again, I tend to make complicated institutionnal organizations - must be the accountant speaking inside me... :) And yay for Committee!
Overall, this is a great idea and must see the light! What, unfortunately, it won't improve is keeping good contributors on Wikipedia, but that's another rantstory... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My comments 

message: Sure, count me in too.  I've tried moving WikiProject Trains in a similar direction this month with a unified  banner to cover it and the current subprojects and new task forces (and assessment ratings and comments; I haven't added importance rating yet).  So far, I haven't heard any real complaints, so I'm assuming a tacit approval of this coordination (as I stated on the Trains talk page).  In reading through the description and comments here so far, I don't see anything that I object to, and I can't think of much that's missing right now.  So, yeah, <talk style="FAC">Support</talk>.  B-)  Slambo (Speak) 18:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay, you've twisted my arm... 

message: Is there a Wikiproject focusing on Secret Societies? Geo. 19:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't possibly tell you. It's a secret. --kingboyk 19:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slightly more seriously: no, I'm pretty sure there isn't one. Kirill Lokshin 19:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Would anyone have a problem with me creating one? Geo. 20:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It tends to be a highly contentious topic area, but I suppose that comes with the turf.  I can't think of any other project that would be working in this area, though, so feel free to create one. Kirill Lokshin 20:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry about my little joke, I was fully intending to come back with an answer after a suitable period. As for creating such a project, you're free to do so of course - but maybe first see how much interest there is by asking on relevant talk pages? --kingboyk 20:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good Joke, i will create it Geo. 20:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I encourage you to read the project organization guide, then; the sections on starting a new project are actually somewhat usable now ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret Societies 

message: Just want to drop a comment, that this is a great idea. There are zillions of projects but there is no "council" to, like, umm, manage and navigate these projects. By the way, I'm from the WikiProject Indonesia. Cheers everyone -- Imoeng 08:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really great idea 

message: This is a nice idea, although the name may not be the greatest.  Perhaps something along the lines of WikiProject WikiProjects, WikiProject InterWikiProject Relations.  Those are a little cheesy, but the word council may have improper connotations of athority or the like.  Best to get the ball rolling on the proper name early.  Kevin_b_er 02:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced it's an issue of any concern, but perhaps "Association" might be more usable.  Another option to consider is to switch the word order—to Wikipedia:Council of WikiProjects or Wikipedia:Association of WikiProjects—to make it clear that this is not actually a recursive WikiProject (for any useful definition of WikiProject, anyways). Kirill Lokshin 02:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a much simpler idea - you've misspelled it! WikiProject Counsel is probably closer to what you're actually trying to convey (advice, consultation), rather than the meaning behind council (body of elected reps who serve to formally advise on policy). Girolamo Savonarola 22:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A different name? 

message: Given that our guide is finally starting to look usable, I've merged the old "Best practices" page (or what parts of it were actually sensible, anyways) into it.  I've also trimmed the main WikiProject page to a much leaner form, saving all of the incidental recommendations for the guide.
One point that hasn't been mentioned is the Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects page.  It seems to be rather badly organized and under-maintained, but I think that some form of informal request-for-advice area for new projects would be worthwhile.  Might it be a good idea to move that page here (trimming it of much of its accreted red tape in the process)? Kirill Lokshin 19:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea to me. Probably a few of the proposals could be archived too. --kingboyk 19:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:PJ]] and project proposals 

message: :Category:Participants in WikiProjects is a bit of a mess, and I think we ought to agree on a naming convention and then submit a bulk nomination to WP:CFD. Since shorter category names are generally better, I favour renaming the category to :Category: WikiProjects participants and all subcats to Category:WikiProject Name participants. An acceptable alternative is to retain the name and move all subcats to Category:Participants in WikiProject Name. Thoughts? --kingboyk 10:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Last time somebody tried this, it was a horrible mess due to the "participants" versus "members" distinction; I very much doubt that trying to force everybody to adopt one usage versus the other will go over well.  We might be able to get away with a rename to WikiProject Name [members/participants] (as the project prefers), though. Kirill Lokshin 11:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'm fine with both participants and members, as long as we get the format "WikiProject (title) (members or participants)" for all. We could also adopt the approach of :category:Wikipedians by organization and just go with "Wikipedians in WikiProject (title)". Regardless, we should get consensus around what we can get consensus around, and nothing else.--Mike Selinker 14:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Participants in WikiProjects]] 

message: This might sound like a stupid idea; actually, it probably will.  But as I indicated on the project page I have been trying to add the appropriate project banners to the talk pages of every article I work on.  In anticipation of this, I have created a list about ten pages long of all the project banners which might be appropriate for inclusion on such a page.  I was thinking of creating a specific page containing them all, so that others might be able to know both what projects are out there and how to indicate whether they think a specific project deals with pages such as the ones they have created or recently edited.  I actually tentatively started such a page, and quickly realized that I was putting that page itself in the area of each project whose banner I put on the page. Do the rest of you think that there would be any specific objection from any projects if such a page were created for the potential use of other editors?  If yes, do you think that the banners of inactive projects, which could potentially become active again, should be included as well or not?  Also, clearly, if such a page is ever created, I would anticipate that the page itself would indicate which types of articles a particular banner belongs on.  I welcome any response.  Badbilltucker 14:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already a page which lists WikiProject banners. Give me a few minutes and I'll try to find it. --kingboyk 14:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Template_messages/Talk_namespace#WikiProject_notices --kingboyk 14:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also :Category:WikiProject banners, which tends to be a bit easier to navigate. Kirill Lokshin 14:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of them are quite useful.  The only drawback I think they both have is that all those projects which use the {WikiProjectNotice|Your name here}} banner are omitted. If they could be added to either of the lists, however, they would completely satisfy my request, and thank you both for pointing them out to me. Badbilltucker 15:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Banners page? 

message: User:Slim Virgin has expressed some concerns about the importance= field. We've been discussing it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Tagging_BLPs. Possibilities for WPBio include abandoning importance or, perhaps, on a WP1 scale, renaming it "priority". Please read the discussion and add any comments or proposals you wish to make. --kingboyk 08:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance field in assessments 

message: I'm not as fond of userboxes in my "projects" section.. anyione want to make a banner like most projects have that isn't a user box? I'm lazy or I would...  :) Maybe I still will. ++Lar: t/c 01:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we seem to have picked up  and  (yes, these are two separate templates!), both of which are intended to tag pages into the project.  Since we don't appear to be doing that, why not turn one (or both!) of them into a full-size user banner? Kirill Lokshin 03:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just redirected one to the other, so scratch the part about there being two identical but separate banners ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The most useful convention I've seen was the one that grew up out of the userbox conventions; if the main project banner was , the banner for userpages would be  and the main userbox would be .  It's not clear how useful that is now that WP:GUS is on; are these "banners" going to be considered just big userboxes and moved to project-space as well? Kirill Lokshin 09:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I guess I WON'T use those empty templats then but rather use ones in conformance iwth your naming convention. However should XYZ be "Council" or "WPCouncil"... the former word is widely used and using it may pollute the namespace. no idea about Gus and project membership banners. Project membership typically is not very controversial (with some notable exceptions)++Lar: t/c 12:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen both - and -type naming used quite widely; the alternate capitalization () seems to be somewhat less common, as it's a bit harder to guess from the project name/shortcut. Kirill Lokshin 12:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WPCouncil=WikiProject Council, that's my favoured form of template name - perhaps I'm just strange! :) "WikiProject Council" is too long - the shorter the name the easier it is to remember. WPCOUNCIL is OK! --kingboyk 20:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non userbox banner?