Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abortion/Archive 3

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 18:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Although it might make sense to retitle :Category:Abortion by country to :Category:Abortion by region, given the regional subcategories, "...by country" is the naming convention recommended by WP:NCCAT. It also isn't necessary to sort an article into both Category:Abortion by country and one of its subcategories, because, if it's listed in a subcategory of Abortion by country, then it's already listed in Abortion by country. Articles are only listed in two subcategories of :Category:Abortion at the same time if two completely different categories apply to the same topic (for example, Richard Starkie in both :Category:Abortion in the United Kingdom and :Category:Abortion providers, or LifeNews.com in both :Category:Pro-life organizations in the United States and :Category:Abortion in media). Thanks. -Severa  (!!!) 23:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "By country" categorization 

message: Is there an established protocol for the kinds of pages which should be sorted into :Category:WikiProject Abortion articles? Can images, categories, and templates be included, or are such categories strictly limited to encyclopedia articles (e.g. Abortion, Pro-life, Planned Parenthood, etc.)? If you look at other WikiProjects, some, such as WikiProject Novels, have "articles" categories which include non-article content, while others do not.
Also, should non-article class categories (Template, Category, and Non-article) be sorted as subcategories of :Category:Abortion articles by quality, or :Category:WikiProject Abortion articles? -Severa  (!!!) 04:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class categories 

message: This has been a long time coming, but I'm formally leaving WP:Abortion.  There just isn't the slightest morsel of time anymore.  Even here, while I'm on break, I'm barely able to scratch out enough time to leave a paragraph-long goodbye message.  Thanks to everyone in this project; although I've seen eye-to-eye with exactly no one, I respect all of you, and my fondest and strongest memories of Wikipedia are of working on this project.  Perhaps someday I shall return.  Good luck to the project. --BCSWowbagger 18:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm very sorry to see you go, but I can completely understand. I very much appreciate having had you onboard for as long as we did, and also everything you've put into this project. Good luck in the future! -Severa  (!!!) 23:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resignment. 

message: Should this WikiProject perhaps have its own Manual of Style, as in the case of Manual of Style (Islam-related articles), Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles), or Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)? We could use our own MoS to formally outline conventions in terminology which already have precedent throughout the project, such as "pro-life"/"pro-choice" over "anti-abortion"/"pro-abortion", and so forth. I'm not really sure if there's a formal process to creating a specialized MoS, but, it seems like a good idea. Let me know what you think. -Severa  (!!!) 08:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manual of Style 

message: Roe v. Wade is up for  Feature Article Review. Please feel free to drop by if you would like to comment. Thank you! -Severa  (!!!)
Roe v. Wade has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Roe v. Wade'' FAR 

message: Abortion-related violence has a small dispute, and I do not want it to be just between me and the other editor, so I am asking members of this project to review the dispute and comment either way. For the most part, it involves sourcing and what is verifiable, reliable, and notable (i.e. a college newspaper, and lifesite.net).-Andrew c 15:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Andrew. I tried my hand at addressing some of the issues on Abortion-related violence. Also, I created a noticeboard for use in this project a while back, but it's currently not getting much use. Maybe consider posting your input requests there in the future. :-)  -Severa  (!!!) 10:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion-related violence 

message: User:Severa approached me re developing an infobox for abortion. Following brief discussion on what this might entail on my talk page, I have now added a draft version to Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed at Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox Abortion. Discussion on the proposal should be helpd at Wikipedia talk:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox Abortion.
Obvious point is that this applies only to induced abortions (i.e. deliberate terminations) rather than spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) (e.g. complete miscarriage, incomplete miscariage, threatened miscariage David Ruben  Talk  03:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox proposal 

message: A definition concern was raised by an anonymous poster whose wife had a D&E to complete a miscarriage.  Trying to find more information on how the term is defined, I just became more confused.  I'm hoping others can provide more insight to the discussion Talk:Dilation and evacuation#A bit of a problem. Lyrl    Talk     C   16:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology of miscarriage vs. abortion procedures 

message: Please see Category talk:Methods of abortion for a new proposed organizational hierarchy. Comments would be appreciated. -Severa  (!!!) 19:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion has been going on at way too many pages, IMO. So for those trying to keep up, new proposals have been suggested at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 19#Category:Surgical abortion and Category:Medical abortion. Members' imput would be appreciated.-Andrew c 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methods of abortion 

message: I've been informed there are "too many articles in general Abortion cat", while I don't think that is remotely the case I could suggest some sub cats. "Abortion in society" or "Abortion debate" category could take 3-4 articles, I'll be bold and do it, moving ABC to that cat as well. But I'd reiterate 17/18 articles in the main cat weren't that many to begin with. - RoyBoy 800 00:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. - RoyBoy 800 00:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization 

message: I gather from a brief browse through the Wikiquote Abortion page that it is something of a no man's land. I believe that this page could benefit from a little attention and an even hand. Would anyone be willing to review this page to ensure that the selected quotations are relevant and that it reflects the same standards of notability and neutrality expected here on Wikipedia? -Severa  (!!!) 12:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiquote 

message: I recently placed an RFC regarding terminology regarding the organism/child which develops in the womb.  The request does not spring from a particular lack of consensus, but from the desire for discussion regarding the basic need to have a single NPOV term which seems to be lacking.  Please take a moment to make your suggestions, the discussion is at the Talk:Abortion_debate.—Red Baron 16:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: Does anyone else think that there are now enough articles in :Category:Abortion providers, :Category:Pro-life activists, :Category:Pro-choice activists, and :Category:Abortion-related violence to warrant the creation of a biographical stub tag? I am beginning to wonder if "This abortion-related article is a stub" is a bit of an awkward fit when applied to an article about a person. "This biographical article related to abortion is a stub" would seem a more suitable description. -Severa  (!!!) 08:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography stub? 

message: A WikiProject for pregnancy and childbirth related articles has been proposed. For more information and to express interest, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Pregnancy_and_childbirth. Thanks! --Ginkgo100talk 23:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed WikiProject 

message: * 22 August Leslee Unruh --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:PROD]] nominations 

message: Just wanted to alert members of the project of Colorado Right to Life. At first glace, it seems to be a bit too detailed/verbose for an encyclopedia entry, and of course needs sources. Just wanted to see if anyone wanted to give the article a once over.-Andrew c [talk] 22:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, anyone want to look at this diff? Probably could be summed up in a few sentences, if it's notable in the first place.-Andrew c [talk] 23:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I overhauled the Colorado Right to Life article and attempted to source most of the information in it. The split between Colorado Right to Life and National Right to Life seems to have produced a fair amount of press coverage. -Severa (!!!) 16:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article alert: Colorado Right to Life 

message: I've just converted :Image:USMinorAbortionLawsMap.png to svg but I couldn't make out what colour D.C. had. If anyone knows can you please drop a line here or on my talk page or on the image talk page. The same goes for :Image:USMandatoryWaitingPeriodLaws.png although I haven't converted that one yet. /Lokal_Profil 19:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Image:USMinorAbortionLawsMap.png fixed. Other map still needs D.C. though. /Lokal_Profil 12:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same thing goes for D.C.'s colour in :Image:USPreAbortionCounsellingLaws.png. /Lokal_Profil 03:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And :image:Map of US feticide laws.png (previously FETICIDEMAP.png) /Lokal_Profil 03:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Converted maps 

message: Members of this project may be interested in this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student LifeNet (3rd nomination). --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Student LifeNet 

message: I would be interested in creating the following articles: Abortion in China, Abortion in Japan, Abortion in Indonesia, Abortion in Singapore, and Abortion in Thailand. However, I need sources/references. If somebody could list some references or sources for me to use for the articles, I would gladly create the articles. Thanks! --Grrrlriot (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needing Sources/References 

message: The following categories seem to cover the same thing:
* :Category:NA-Class Abortion articles
* :Category:NA-Class Abortion pages
* :Category:Non-article Abortion pages
For Project-related subcategories, I suggest deleting two of the above categories and forming the following hierarchy:
::Category:NA-Class Abortion articles
:::Category:Category-Class Abortion articles
:::Category:Disambig-Class Abortion articles
:::Category:Image-Class Abortion articles
:::Category:List-Class Abortion articles
:::Category:Portal-Class Abortion articles
:::Category:Redirect-Class Abortion articles
:::Category:Template-Class Abortion articles
-- GregManninLB (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a distinction being made between articles and pages, where the latter would refer to images, templates, categories, etc? If not, then it seems those categories really are redundant. Even if that distinction is being made, surely only two categories would be necessary, unless there's supposed to be a hierarchy where "NA-Class Abortion articles" and "NA-Class Abortion pages both are subcategories of "Non-article Abortion pages". -GTBacchus(talk) 11:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate categories 

message: Merging the activities of this project into a task force on reproductive medicine has been suggested.  Please comment in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces#Reproductive medicine. LyrlTalk     C   21:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The new task force for WikiProject Medicine on reproductive medicine has been created.  The task force's page is here and all interested editors are welcome.  Please also consider listing this as a related project/task force on your main page.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of this project 

message: As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level.  The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
*The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.  
*The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.  
*A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.  
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at :Category:C-Class_articles.  If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages.  The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. 
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme.  This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year.  Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme 

message: Someone has put a note in at Family Planning Association saying that they shared a headquarters with a eugenics association in the 1930s.  Do any of you have an opinion as to whether this is notable?  I'd have thought sharing a building was hardly a big deal, and even if it was I think anyone interested in social welfare was interested in eugenics in the 1930s, and it sounds like a way to smear the modern organisation.  We don't go around making as much of a deal that the Royal Society started out by talking about alchemy. The Wednesday Island (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it notable if a contraception charity shared a building with a eugenics charity eighty years ago? 

message: Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. 
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. 
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Abortion 

message: Hi!  I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate.  This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group.  If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinators' working group 

message: This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles tagged by their banner enter a workflow such as Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, and Peer review (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found at here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features.
The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts".
This is an automated message sent out by Addbot to all wikiprojects per request ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 20:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Article alerts|Article alerts]] 

message: Why is Germany in map not in blue ? Here in Germany abortion is legal on request. I live in Germany and women have the right to have an abortion on request. GLGermann (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany in map 

message: Hello there, I know that many editors have an ambivalent standing towards Simple English Wikipedia. With hopefully simpler sentences and easier vocabulary SEWP caters for a possibly wider audience than EnWP. I am leaving a message here because SEWP also has an article on abortion, and I intend to get that article the status of Good Article there (the lesser of the two better-quality article categories). I would therefore invite editors that are interested in working with us to have a look at the article on SEWP. I am sorry if this message turns out to be a little off-topic here. --Eptalon (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple English? 

message: Apologies for the notice, but this is being posted to every WikiProject to avoid accusations of systemic bias. Hiding T  13:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NOT#PLOT 

message: Pro-death is not the same as pro-choice, Pro-choice advocates are people who believe in the choice of having an abortion and the choice of having a child. Pro-death advocates, although scarce, are people in support of the death penalty and other means of ending life. The Squicks (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Pro-death' 

message: This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under its scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Sweeps invitation 

message: Is there an official members list? If there isn't we should make one. -Words in sanskrit (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that active of a WikiProject, but we do have Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion/Participants.-Andrew c [talk] 20:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Members List 

message: I'm asking for some input over at the talk page for the Murder of George Tiller article. The article was originally "Murder of George Tiller", but was changed to "Assassination of George Tiller" a few months ago. Recently, a user changed it back to "Murder", which has led to a debate between that user and myself over which title is most appropriate. The two of us have debated the issue at the talk page, but so far we're the only ones to participate in the discussion, so I'd appreciate it if anybody would like to visit there and provide their own feedback. I'd like to establish some sort of consensus one way or the other... — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Tiller: Assassination or Murder? 

message: Just wanted to mention the ABC article has had GA status for a while now. Could it be upgraded from B? - RoyBoy 16:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call.  Done and done. - Schrandit (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thx! - RoyBoy 03:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis]] 

message: This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP 1.0 bot announcement 

message: Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.
The two opposing positions which have the most support is:  
# supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
# opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect
Comments are welcome.  Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment. 
Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help. 
===Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people===
;List of cleanup articles for your project
If you don't already have Cleanup listings,   Cleanup listings is a bot which collects all tagged unreferenced biographies of living people, plus other lists onto one page in your project. 
It is very easy to add to your project:  simply add a template to a page of your project! Instructions
A list of examples is here  
;Moving unreferenced blp articles to special "incubation pages" 
If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page",  contact me, User talk:Ikip
;Watchlisting all unreferenced articles
If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
Ikip  09:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on Biographies of living people 

message: ;List of cleanup articles for your project
If you don't already have Cleanup listings,   Cleanup listings is a bot which collects all tagged unreferenced biographies of living people, plus other lists onto one page in your project. 
It is very easy to add to your project:  simply add a template to a page of your project! Instructions
A list of examples is here  
;Moving unreferenced blp articles to special "incubation pages" 
If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page",  contact me, User talk:Ikip
;Watchlisting all unreferenced articles
If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
Ikip  09:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

message: I recently created a new section, Pro-life_movement#Polling.  It contains extensive info on Gallup polling of abortion that is not truly addressed anywhere else on Wikipedia, although the Societal_attitudes_towards_abortion#North_.26_Central_America page appears to touch on one of the polls briefly.  At any rate, Andrew c suggested I keep this in a central location (a good suggestion), and I am considering now adding this into the Societal attitudes page, or else creating a new page on U.S. abortion polling, but am concerned there is no section specifically for U.S. abortion polling there.  Plus, given the worldwide emphasis, this valuable information could be easily overlooked, as it would lie further down the page.  
At any rate, I'm thinking this might be useful information for the abortion Wiki project, not just for this page but possibly for citation on other abortion-related pages as well.  Perhaps a U.S. abortion polling page could be created, with a summary mentioned on the Societal attitudes page?  The information really well illustrates where American attitudes on abortion lie, however, in revealing that most support abortion only in cases like life of the mother or rape/incest.  I'm looking for input on how to go about organizing this data on Wikipedia.  --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion Polling Data 

message: Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone.  Articles were selected based on their assessed  importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Abortion articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details.  You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010.  As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide.  Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback! 
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your feedback.  I agree that we should be careful to be seen to be balanced; we will definitely add in Pro-Choice to balance with Pro-Life.  Regarding something to balance Papa Don't Preach, however, If These Walls Could Talk (ITWCT) is a Start-Class article with cleanup tags, so I feel reluctant to select it.  Would Vera Drake suffice?  That's B-Class, and it gets almost twice the page views of ITWCT, and there are 11 other language versions for Vera Drake vs. only 5 for ITWCT.  Please let me know.  Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release 

message: Hello there! Replies to an ongoing RfC at Talk:Crisis pregnancy center have been sparser than might be helpful, so I thought I should mention it over here. We're trying to decide whether, based on our sources' description of CPCs' religious affiliation, personnel, and behavior (detailed in a paragraph in the article for your easy consumption) it is best to describe them as "Christian," "run by Christians," or "affiliated with a Christian organization." Thanks! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting more eyes on an ongoing RfC under this project's scope 

message: There is now a proposed general Manual of Style for Religion and other articles relating to ethoses or belief systems at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. Any input would be welcome. I personally believe at least one of the reasons why many articles in this field have been as contentious as they have been is because of lack of such guidelines, and would very much welcome any input from others to help come up with some generally acceptable solutions to some of these problems. John Carter (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed MOS for Religion 

message: If anyone is familiar with Swedish abortion law, please contribute at that article on the situation post-22-weeks.  84.203.34.111 (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Abortion in Sweden]] 

message: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, an RFC that will affect the title of the articles currently titled Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to legal abortion if consensus is found in favor of its conclusions, is now in its community feedback phase and ready for editors to register opinions and arguments.  Please add your feedback; thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage]] ready for community feedback 

message: Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on the WikiProject X proposal 

message: This is a notice about :Category:Abortion articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert attention 

message: Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject X is live! 

message: I have proposed merging this project into Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's Health. See discussion here. Harej (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger 

message: We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month,  will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of .
 
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
* The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
* The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
* The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).
We're grateful to  for his original , and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of , and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular pages report 

message: Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for information on WP1.0 web tool 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at :Talk:Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act.  Wes sideman (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Talk:Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act]]

message: Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a  parameter to , which can display a general quality assessment, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to , and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass  a new  parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project-independent quality assessments 

message: Forced abortion of Feng Jianmei has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article reassessment for [[Forced abortion of Feng Jianmei]] 

message: I am contacting this project as it uses . I am working on a new project to make it easier to set up WikiProjects with built-in bot reports. As a proof of concept, see Wikipedia:Vaccine safety/Sources. If this is something you might find useful, your support at User:Credibility bot would be appreciated. Thank you. Harej (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credibility bot