Wikipedia talk:WikiProject/Archive 3

message: the WikiProject on Hallucinogens, Entheogens, and Related Topics has very recently been started up; i want to list it here, but don't know where to put it.  It was originally conceived as a descendent project of WikiProject Drugs, dealing with one type of drug in an expanded scope- considering not only chemical factors, but also cultural/historical uses, organizing the associated plants, and so on and so forth.  So it doesn't fit under that on this listing, as it isn't a project dealing with conventional medicine; it also isn't dealing with alternative medicine or anything else in the sciences.  It doesn't really fit under humanities anywhere either . . .  so, uh, any suggestions on where this should go? see the project page, categorization page and the categoriziation talk page for more info on the project, and maybe we can figure out where to put this.  I'm rather surprised there isn't a general "other" section . . .  thanks!  --Heah (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like you need to join #wpbootcamp on irc WP:NCH and post an original research paper on ...
Oh never mind. hmm.Your statement:
 It doesn't really fit under humanities anywhere either ...
Is untrue. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Counterculture is your daddy! Quinobi 17:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  where to put this project? 

message: I think we should have a WikiProject that aims to correct links that lead to disambiguation pages etc. --Jawr256 09:03, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
:Such a project exists: 
*[ W:WikiProject_Red_Link_Recovery
**By the way. Disambiguation pages make great context switches. Quinobi 18:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject disambiguation. --Smack (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation pages 

message: A bit of reorg is clearly needed as the original page was getting very messy. The list of WPrjs and the "why"/"how-to" do not belong together - people usually aren't looking for both at the same time.  I've taken initial steps to split out the list from the "how-to", but my approach isn't necessarily best. (It's easy enough to rearange though).
*Suggestion one - as I've done it (with list on its own page).
*Suggestion two - put list back on WikiProject page (keep a brief overview to explain what they are), and move the "Why" and "How To" section over to Wikipedia:WikiProject_best_practices
Thoughts anyone? Manning 10:41, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
:We put Wikipedia:WikiProjectCentral over there for the WikiProject Why and How stuff and the top-matter that was above the main list, with the intention of leaving the main list where it was at Wikipedia:WikiProject.  Wikipedia:WikiProject_best_practices would remain the primary advisory document, and WikiProjectCentral would be for discusions related to what goes where, What WikiProjects are extranious, malformed, active, inactive, misplaced, missing or whatever. Then we might work on the main listing, structuring the tree from parent/child data as we work it through, maybe doing some clipping and merging. The m:Wikiproject_group on meta would be a place to coordinate topic-focused Wikiprojects across the Various language wikipedias and sister projects, Wiktionary, Commons etc. Like say Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music_genres with the same general topic at the commons. (example naming conventions, whatever). I don't know. This forum had gone dead and I and a couple of others were just trying to help. Sorry if it makes no sense. Quinobi 19:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorg time

message: OK I'd like to clarify, then, the possible value of WikiProjectCentral:
#It is an effort to improve the communication and organization of WikiProjects as a whole.
#It will help to increase the dialog between and amongst Wikiprojects and a new group at meta - the m:Wikiproject_group
#It will help Wikipedia:WikiProjects as a Community of practice within the larger Wikipedia Community to produce news and goings-on for the Wikipedia:Signpost publised through WikiPraxis a bi-weekly or monthly column subtitled News from WikiProject Central.
#It will help to hash out the Wikipedia:List_of_WikiProjects on a separate page from the Wikipedia:WikiProject main list.
I propose:
# Wikipedia:List_of_WikiProjects becomes a flat alphabetical listing of all projects in :Category:WikiProjects
# Wikipedia:WikiProject becomes a treed listing of the family of active Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects
# Wikipedia:WikiProject_best_practices remains the definitive guide to starting and maintaining WikiProjects.
# Wikipedia:WikiProjectCentral will be for all the functions outlined above.
I hope this makes sense and can be a help to increase the energy and self-organization level of Wikiprojects au generale and not a hinderance or point of contention. But hey! I'm easy to get along with. If ya'll think this is just a nuesance, let me know and I'll just drop it. A placeholder for the page is already there. Please let me know what you think of these proposals. TIA Quinobi 18:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: 18:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProjectCentral

message: Does anyone know of a WikiProject that has been completed, in the sense of having had a stated scope and goals and having met those goals in such a way that the project could be inactivated as a result of success rather than a lack of interested resource? Courtland 16:19, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
:There are some, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Years, that are pretty much done; the goal was to create a template for year pages, and one was created, and is in use.  I wouldn't mark them as inactive, but they do seem complete. JesseW 07:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completed WikiProjects 

message: Request for comment: I adapted the project notices for talk pages for two categories: :Category:Webcomics and :Category:Cycling. Might this help attract attention to the projects, if they're linked prominently in the main category? Or perhaps in all the decendant categories too? --Christopherlin 03:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project tags on category pages 

message: I've taken more than a passing interest in Portal:Biology, Portal:Technology, and Portal:Science.  I'm more interested in working on content than presentation/style, though, so I could really use some people to go look at these portals and fix up all of the content issues.  Biology, especially, is still using the old portal format (not the box-header stuff).  Thanks in advance for your help!  --Cyde Weys votetalk 00:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal work 

message: As the original creator of the Wikiproject concept, perhaps some history might be useful, particularly as the comment about "5-10 users" derives from my original proposal. 
I coined the term Wikiproject back in the days (Sept or Oct 2001) when Wikipedia was still completely chaotic. What's more, we had a user (Cunctator) who would launch into a massive flame war if anyone ever attempted to put any form of structure into the 'pedia (Cunctator ultimately drove Larry Sanger over the edge). Hence when I drafted the original proposal I was very cautious to point out that this idea was to simply assist the coordination of the efforts of a group of people. The motivation for the proposal was the tremendous difficulty we were having getting consistency for the "Countries of the World" articles.
However, understand this was back in the days when there were no more than 25-30 regular editors (and you could still find topics like "Princess Diana" and "trombone" for which there was no article), so finding 5-10 people who might contribute was far from a certain thing. Also, in those days the body of editors was far more tight-knit: it was reasonable to know every other editor. 
Nowadays the editorial community is much larger and far more impersonal (not a bad thing, just the natural consequence of growth). Consequently, it is more reasonable to embark on a Wikiproject as there is a good chance that someone will turn up at some stage. Certainly some projects will appear inactive at some stages, but the odds of editors turning up at some point in time is much better.
My point is, I don't feel that the "5-10 users" comment has the same significance and relevance that it had back in 2001. A simple emphasis that creating a Wikiproject involves a degree of overhead should be sufficient. 
Regards Manning 23:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The offending "5-10 users" comment and history 

message: Hi all. Zhigangsuo is a pretty new user, and he seems to still be learning about Wikipedia. I migrated a project he created in the mainspace to Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy of Mechanicians. If anyone wanted to help keep an eye on his contributions and offer assistance when needed, I would appreciate it (he probably would as well). ~MDD4696 21:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helping a new user 

message: Hello! I hoped ppl working on this project might help me in digging out a peice of information Ive been searching in wiki and the net in general for a while with not much success, which could even be of some relevance to this project, regarding alternative education. I remember hearing it often mentioned that university reforms and lack of 'progressive' educational methods in them being a significant part of the complaints of the students in 68' France, but cannot find much detail - about specific alternatives that were advocated then. I also mention this cuz I percieve an americacentric bias of much of wikipedia, present in many articles , and certanly in many articles of this project too, so I hoped to bring some attention to this fact as well... --Aryah 21:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 68' France?

message: If there is only a boilerplate/template saying "WikiProject etc" in a discussion page, wouldn't it be helpful if the programming made it so that anything written between " {{  }} " would not flag a page for content? So that it would keep a page discussion tab "red" and users would know that there is no discussion to click the tab for? Nagelfar 16:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How would people see the WikiProject tags, then? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 17:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion page wikiproject boilerplates 

message: Don't know if this is the right place to post this, but would anyone, particularly those in Dutchess County, New York be interested on helping me with the county routes in that county? There are about 100 of them, and I have neither the time nor the information to write a nice, big, article on all of them. Would anyone be interested in helping me? http://www.empirestateroads.com/cr/crdutchess.html was very helpful. Smartyshoe 22:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dutchess County Routes- anyone interested

message: Did "WikiProject Central" (see discussions #WikiProject WikiProject and #WikiProjectCentral above) ever happen? There was a flurry of activity on this topic in July (Template:WikiProject overhaul and m:Wikiproject_group creation), but there hasn't been any unified effort to standardize WikiProjects since then. Wikipedia:WikiProjectCentral reverts to this project page now.
I've contributed to several projects in the past, although not extensively (see my user page for examples). I get frustrated easily as I begin working on a project because documentation and a common process always seems to be lacking; yes, this is the nature of Wikipedia, but this is also why I'm writing this call for help!
Is Wikipedia:WikiProject a WikiProject in itself? If so, I think we need to follow our own Suggestions for new projects (identifying scope, to-do list, goals, etc.). It would be helpful to have a group of people that not only answers people's questions about WikiProjects, but also standardizes the style of WikiProject pages and clarifies its purpose. For example, while the Template:WikiProject is quite extensive, a lot of the sections on it seem redundant; its talk page would do well to describe what each area means. It would also be helpful to review and update the various WikiProject pages across sister projects.
===Participants===
Please add your name to the Participants list and a one-phrase introduction of why you'd like to help out with something like this. If we don't have more than two or three people dedicated to this, I don't think it would be worth doing an overhaul. Use Discussion for more details.
*User:RockOfVictory - Standardization of WikiProjects.
*CQ - co-founder of m:Wikiproject group
===Discussion===
Why in the world would we want to standardize WikiProjects?  Each one (at least of the highly active ones) has been working in whatever fashion is most appropriate, given its topic area and editor force; trying to force them all into a single form is likely to be more harmful than not. Kirill Lokshin 00:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to see you again, Kirill! Yeah, seeing your WikiProject Military history is inspiring. I guess I'm used to working on some other projects that aren't as well organized. I'd still like to see the Template:WikiProject explained better, though. --J. J. 03:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  The template could use a better explanation.  More generally, though, I think it needs to be trimmed considerably; right now, there's a pile of cruft in there that most projects will never use, and using it to generate a page produces an initial project that looks utterly lost in its own red tape. Kirill Lokshin 03:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I definately agree that the template needs an overhaul but I also agree that WikiProjects are by nature best left as freeform as possible. Metadata, however such as creation dates, scope and number of participants could be implemented from a centralized facility of some sort. This "facility" should be consensus-driven IMO (not a cabal). See and think about Wikiproject group at meta below. CQ 18:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised WikiProject Central goals 

message: Why in the world would we want to standardize WikiProjects?  Each one (at least of the highly active ones) has been working in whatever fashion is most appropriate, given its topic area and editor force; trying to force them all into a single form is likely to be more harmful than not. Kirill Lokshin 00:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to see you again, Kirill! Yeah, seeing your WikiProject Military history is inspiring. I guess I'm used to working on some other projects that aren't as well organized. I'd still like to see the Template:WikiProject explained better, though. --J. J. 03:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  The template could use a better explanation.  More generally, though, I think it needs to be trimmed considerably; right now, there's a pile of cruft in there that most projects will never use, and using it to generate a page produces an initial project that looks utterly lost in its own red tape. Kirill Lokshin 03:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I definately agree that the template needs an overhaul but I also agree that WikiProjects are by nature best left as freeform as possible. Metadata, however such as creation dates, scope and number of participants could be implemented from a centralized facility of some sort. This "facility" should be consensus-driven IMO (not a cabal). See and think about Wikiproject group at meta below. CQ 18:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: How about making it a standard that all the main Wikiprojects display a trophy box on their project page? That is, a table displaying all the featued article a project has spawned, like on WP:Chem. It seems to me as an interesting an informative peice of information, that could spur on a healthy competion, further increasing the output of the projects. mastodon 12:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That could get rather... long... in some cases; it's also redundant with the category-based listing for any projects that use the 1.0 assessment scheme (e.g. :Category:FA-Class military history articles). Kirill Lokshin 13:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trophy box 

message: This is a shamless request for membership. We hope to improve the articles related to American animation, including the use of an infobox for short Looney Tunes and Mickey Mouse types of cartoon films. If you're interested, pelase join us! --FuriousFreddy 04:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation]] 

message: WikiProject Broadway has been recently renamed Wikiproject Musicals, but it is still parented by WikiProject New York Theatre.  The thrust behind the name change is that the focus of the project tended to be toward musicals: as they tend to have productions all over the world, the previous name was misleading.  Having the parent of Wikiproject New York Theater is also limiting, and I was thinking of moving it up a level under WikiProject Theatre.  I think it would probably help our membership slightly, but does it really matter?  Should I decide to do so, what would the process be?  Would I have to talk to Wikiproject Theatre or just go ahead and switch some links around?  —  MusicMaker 04:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, the entire concept of "parent" and "descendant" WikiProjects is just a holdover from the original idea for structuring them, and has never had any formal control associated with it (beyond what the two projects agree to, anyways). Kirill Lokshin 04:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response!  I left a message on the talk for WikiProject Theatre to make sure it was okay with them before I made the move.  —  MusicMaker 06:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving projects revisited 

message: Just wanted to give you a heads up if you see WikiProject proposals that are about biographies, i.e. Kings and Queens of X or Shopkeepers of Y that WikiProject Biography has been reorganized and are creating task forces a la Military history project and can fold them into our Meta project. Saves resources, etc... plange 16:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography projects 

message: Hi, as far as I know there is no Wikiproject for the United States. There are however tons of articles with US only issues, several cetegories and a almost completely unmaintained portal. A Wiki project would be ideal for US articles. I don't know if this is the right place to vioce the idea but I welcome any input or suggestions. Signaturebrendel 23:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here Here, Signature! I think Wikiproject United States is long overdue and might be a good place to develope the new template (see next post). CQ 18:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiproject United States

message: The Wikiproject group at meta has some ideas for improving the WikiProject way of doing things via a new Template:Wikiproject (currently redirects to Template:WikiProject).
The new template will hopefully foster better coordination between languages, topics and sister projects, as well as the integration of WP:1 assessments and the like. There may even be a way to incorpoate some more useful metadata into the template. 
Please have a look and participate in the discussion there if you have the time and inclination. Thanks!  • 18:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject group at meta 

message: i am thinking of starting a wikiproject, once i have started the wikiproject can i put it on my own website(remote loading) or should i link it to the wikiproject article that is on wikipedia.com, of coruse proper citation of credits to wikipedia will be given in both isntance.
i am jsut asking so that i don't break any rules and get listed on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks
CQ +800gmt 22:02 WST Saturday, August 12, 2006
:Why would you wanna do that???--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As explained here, remote loading is not feasible: follow instructions there.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remote loading or hard linking 

message: The Section on joining doesn't tell you how to join. I would like to join a Wikiproject that I have seen, but as a relative newcomer I don't know how to do so. neilj
:Usually you just add your name to the "Members" or "Participants" list on the project page.  If there isn't one, it's probably best to ask the project, as it may have an arbitrarily complicated arrangement for keeping track of its members. Kirill Lokshin 12:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no section on joining. So if I wanted to join a Wikiproject, I just edit the Members/Participants list, add my Username/Signature, click save page, and I'm done? Thanks. AstroHurricane001 18:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. I think the basic idea is even that people don't even have to "join", but that doing so is more for spreading the word about the WikiProject, and showing a support for it, etc. -- Ned Scott 19:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joining 

message: Hi!! Though there are couple of sites like infoplease and worldometer, I think it would be a great idea to start a wikiproject. havent found anything relevant to this as of now here. I think this can be just collating data and statistics than an extrapolation like worldometer does. Data like world population,male-female ratio, number of cars being built, world GDP, country GDP, even growth of GDP can be put with cross-refernces.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriks8 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 10 September 2006
:Hello,
:there are several things you can do:
:* you can find much useful info in the Guide to WikiProject creation.
:* browse the list of Wikiprojects and Directory of WikiProjects to see if there is no related WP.
:* Start the WP on a User/Subpage, and put it on the List of proposed WikiProjects.
:* Maybe your idea can be a Task Force of an existing project, e.g. WikiProject countries? Or it can be a child of an existing parent WP.
:For more questions, don't hesitate to ask the WikiProject Council.
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interested to suggest a Wikiproject on world statistics 

message: As the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory is already an all-too-brief table that requires a drill-down to get to the actual lists, is it really necessary to add another drill-down from the WikiProject page? Couldn't the top-level table just be merged into Wikipedia:WikiProject? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's easy enough to transclude here (as I've done now); actually merging it would be more problematic, as it's used on all the directory subpages as a navigation template. Kirill Lokshin 23:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!!! — RJH (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Directory of Projects 

message: Is this page the redirect for Wikipedia:WikiProject Canaanite languages? Badbilltucker 22:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have nominated this redirect for deletion. See this section at WP:RFD/Log/2006-10-16. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why .... 

message: Have any WikiProjects started up on radio programmes? Simply south 17:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of which I am aware of. Some projects deal with a program which served as both a TV and radio program (Wikipedia:WikiProject Dad's Army, Wikipedia:WikiProject HHGTTG, among others), but those are the only ones out there right now. Badbilltucker 18:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now a proposed project dealing with radio at Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects#Radio. Anyone interested should feel free to indicate such there. Badbilltucker 19:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio 

message: Is there a WikiProject on Africa? Many African pages need to be imroved. XYZ CrVo 03:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware of no such project dealing with the continent overall, and I acknowledge the lack of quality of many of the existing articles. If you would be interested in being a part of such a project you might want to list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects and see if anyone else would be interested in joining. Alternately, just add a mention to it there as a requested project, and mention it on the Africa-related notice board. Badbilltucker 19:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Africa 

message: Is there a renaissance wikiproject? This seems important enough to merit one, yet, I can't seem to find it. Could someone direct me to it, or to the closest thing there is? Samboha 23:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there really is anything like that yet, although, like you said, there should be enough information to create one. The best thing I can think of is to propose one at the Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects and then drop notes with all the existing WikiProjects that you think have significant ties to the Renaissance. They should then be able to tell you if they know of any, and/or whether they think the project should become a free-standing project of its own or one which might work as a sub-project of another existing project. There are several benefits to becoming a subproject of an existing project, if you can find one that your proposal could fit in with. You's probably want to read the Project Guide for some further suggestions regarding how to start and organize a new project or subproject. Badbilltucker 15:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaissance project? 

message: I am not sure if it is appropriate to bring Wikipedia:WikiProject Philmont Scout Ranch up for deletion, but it only has five members and 19 articles. I have no idea where guidance might be for such a thing. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 20:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've never even considered something like this before. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 14:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might consider contacting WikiProject Scouting regarding whether they'd want to take it on as a subproject as well. That sort of action regarding inactive projects has been gaining a lot of support lately. Badbilltucker 18:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a great idea.--Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 21:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion? 

message: Where was the "Let it Burn" (Usher- 2004) music video shot? More specifically, what was the location of the cemetery scene? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.213.88.141 (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music Video Locations 

message: I'd found Template:CatDiscuss and Template:CatMaintain and (aside from they seem to be named backwards) wasn't entirely happy with them for WProj purposes.  So for your WikiProjectifying pleasure:
* Template:CatMaintainPageWP
* Template:CatMaintainTalkWP
These can come in handy for when your project is overhauling a messy bunch of categories, or if people keep doing boneheaded things in them even after you've cleaned it up. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New WProj-oriented Category & Category talk header templates  

message: --NE2 02:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  WikiProject categories should be on the article's talk page (and are usually added by a template tag, in any case). Kirill Lokshin 02:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone revert all of his edits? --NE2 02:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this the right way to mark a WikiProject?