Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Archive 14

Try this link it might help, Category:Articles slanted towards recent events. --75.154.186.99 (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes! Thank your very much.

Looking at a couple of recent proposals for (Modern Talking; oldid), and a previous one (Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/The Kinks; oldid), where both had a substantial amount of test templates, and other material before I removed them, ( Modern Talking also added a banner linking to the proposal at Template:Wikipedia ads), should there be any stated limits on the amount of test material, sandboxing, and advertising the proposal. I'm fine if it's in userspace, but those proposal pages can get a bit unwieldy with excessive sandboxing on the proposal subpage.

I'm also wondering if we should append some sort of AFD style template to the top of the header, similar to the keep, delete, and header templates with proposed and categories (below Category:Wikipedia WikiProjects) for the subpages, since I think people have been removing some from the proposal page without archiving the discussion, which leaves some dangling subpages out there. Although it's all for tracking, since we can't really dictate whether or not to create a project.

One last thing I think that would be helpful to add to proposals would be to ask the proposer to identify at least one (preferably two, or more) parent projects for the new project, since of a lot of the more narrow scoped ones don't seem to have ever considered or tried existing projects. -Optigan13 (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, should we add an oppose section? I've seen them created by users, or comments posted as Oppose in the Discussion section. -Optigan13 (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've created several of the archival templates, and will try to go through and archive the proposals tomorrow. -Optigan13 (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There are now 0 projects which have chosen to add the new Book-class to their quality scales to help keep track of Wikipedia:Books within their scope. Although it is early days, this seems to be a class may become widely used by a significant number of WikiProjects in the future and I'm looking to gauge whether there is support for adding this class to the 'extended quality scale' bundle of classes (which currently consists of all the standard classes plus Category, Template, Image, Disambig, Project, and Portal). This would make it a bit easier to add support for Book-class to project banners, although it would mean that we are imposing this new class on all 0 projects which are using the extended scale. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that projects who don't feel like adopting the book-class could always request to return to the previous behaviour. No project approached so-far declined the implementation when offered, the response ranging from indifferent (the mentality being "nothing gets broken, so who cares:) to enthusiastic.

Benefits of including it in the extended scale means more users looking at books, thus more books, thus more feedback on books, and thus better books for readers. (I do have a certain conflict of interest here since I work with the people who are developing the book tools.)

WP Physics

} 08:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm just trying to figure out how this fits into the grand scheme of things, both on en.wiki and relative to wikibooks. The extension itself is largely for compiling everything into one file (PDF or other format) for offline access, including simple saving and printing, correct? How will this namespace fit in relative to the Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, and those outlines? I'll try to play around with one in my userspace to get a feel for them. I'm just trying to get a sense of them to see what kind of maintenance will be needed, and any conflicts before we go into a much wider usage. -Optigan13 (talk) 08:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the typical maintenance of the Book namespace itself will be relatively low since it's a relatively low-traffic namespace (for the moment at the least). It involves building a collection of related article and giving them a structure. Books need to abide by all policies (neutrality, blp, no original research, etc...), so that's an issue that will be encountered from time to time.

More janitorial tasks will be merging duplicate (or strongly overlapping) books, making sure that books have correct structures, are correctly categorized, and so on. I want to create a

naming conventions

, which is a very rough draft at the moment), etc... And then there's also making sure that articles render nicely (which often means excluding templates from print, or developing print versions of templates)...

I hope that answers.

WP Physics

} 09:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

After playing with them some more I'm okay with implementing the Book class. I'm still not sure how this will affect the similar pages, but I can't think of anything so bad as to cause us to hold off on it. It will likely cause some conflict and a some maintenance burden (probably light) by adding to the number of variations on ways we present material, but nothing that can't be handled, reverted, etc. Have there been any

WP:Miscellany for Deletion on books created yet? Has there been any discussion on the MoS side of things yet? It's probably good to get the ball rolling on that so they can adapt as features to book class are added. -Optigan13 (talk

) 09:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there's been a couple of MfDs related to books. (See here.) Nothing on the MoS for now, but I've made a

WP Physics

} 21:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a necessary move, as WikiProjects are becoming increasingly popular. By adding it to the extended list, it will be there to be used more anyway, and, as User:Headbomb pointed out, the books scheme will become more popular and more users will hopefully become more alert to it. 95jb14 (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC), founder of WikiProject Latin.

How does a "book" differ from the much-disputed "outlines of knowledge"? Why not just call them "lists"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well take a look at

WP Physics

} 22:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No to this proposal (though I'm not sure why it's being discussed here rather than

I may be recalling incorrectly, but weren't the redirects removed because too much projects didn't want to keep track of redirects? I don't think this would be the case with books, considering none refused so far.

WP Physics

} 03:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

To address the first point, this page is the main discussion page for WikiProject-related issues. I think

Template talk:WPBannerMeta should be kept for technical discussion on how to implement things rather than gauging consensus on whether things are a good idea or not. There are quite a few editors who are concerned that far-reaching decisions which can affect hundreds of WikiProjects can be made on a template talk page watched by relatively few editors. Although I don't share these concerns, I do understand them and it has led, in some cases, to suspicion of the meta-banner and the feeling that decisions are made in secret. — Martin (MSGJ · talk

) 17:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how useful it is a proposal or essay, as it seems redundant to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Inter-WikiProject coordination, especially as it is specifically directed at WikiProjects for English counties. -Optigan13 (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

95jb14, you might like to look at the task force system. It 'merges' small projects into one larger project, but allows each group to maintain a separate page.

WP:MED also uses it. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 07:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

With task forces, overlap is permitted. For example, there is WikiProject Trains. An article on a railway station will come under the taskforce WikiProject Stations, and an article on a British railway line will come under the taskforce WikiProject UK Railways. A British railway station will therefore come under both taskforces, and the article's talk page would be tagged thus:

{{

TrainsWikiProject

|UK=yes|stations=yes}}

which bundles all three projects together as one project and two taskforces. See London Paddington station for an actual example of an article which falls within four taskforces. Hope this helps. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be advised a conversation regarding naming conventions for WikiProjects covering metropolitan areas

Certainly, that would be the best way to do it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could use <s></s> to strike out your entry, which will allow you to give a reason; for example, this:

<s>[[User:Redrose64|Redrose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 14:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)</s> sorry, but pressure of work forces me to withdraw --~~~~

produces this:

Redrose64 (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC) sorry, but pressure of work forces me to withdraw --Redrose64 (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you don't need to give a reason, so it's entirely up to you. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As a stickler for best HTML practices, I must point out that the semantically-correct tag to use would be <del></del>.
(That's because <s></s> is merely presentational markup that says "render this with a line through the middle", whereas <del></del> says "this text has been deleted or redacted. browser, you determine how that should be displayed.")
FWIW.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 08:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite right: that's what

WP:REDACT says to do; but I'm sure that I have seen the <s></s> documented somewhere in WP (and it is commonly used too). Go with <del></del> then. --Redrose64 (talk

) 11:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You can always just not edit WikiProject-related pages... member lists need to be taken with a slight amount of sodium chloride anyways.

cool stuff

) 07:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There's also the option of moving yourself to the inactive section (or page) of a participant list which many wikiprojects use. -Optigan13 (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The category for writers who served in the military was nominated for deletion. You can voice your opinion and reasons to Keep, Delete, or otherwise here.

Also, the category for actors who served in the military was nominated for deletion. You can voice your views here.

Lastly, the category for musicians who served in the military, for which you can voice your opinion here.

Thank you, Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Any Wikiproject that is not identifying unreferenced BLPs, may find them deleted in upcoming months, creating more work for project members.

A recent ArbCom motion supported admins who were beginning to delete large numbers of unreferenced BLPs. In response, the community has taken up proposals for dealing with the potential libel problems with unreferenced BLPs at this page: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people.

It seems to be fairly easy for any Wikiproject to monitor BLPs that have been prodded for deletion, since (I'm told) this can be done with

Any editor can easily use

AutoWikiBrowser's list comparer to generate a list like this one I have done for the New Jersey project. If you just save the list as text with wiki markup and copy and paste to a project page, you don't need to use AWB to do the edit, and do not need to be approved for editing with the tool. I did it this way because WPNJ doesn't currently use a bot to tag all the articles in our categories, and I wanted to cast a wide net. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me}

04:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been working on cleaning up the listings in the project directory. A lot has been done, but it still needs work. Would anyone be interested in helping out?
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 06:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to help out when I have time, is there any particular logic you're using to go through and update the pages? In the long run I think this is something that would be better handled via an on wiki bot, I think Clockworksoul's Igor is a step in that direction, but it looks like the last mediawiki update might have caused some issues. -Optigan13 (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Mainly for now I was trying to clean up incorrectly-linked secondary listings ("redirects" as I call them). I've come across plenty of circular linkages in the process, but most are just pointing to old page names of the correct categories.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 03:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you just working from top to bottom (Wikipedia's contents systems to Wikipedia maintenance), and where are you at now? Just want to make sure we don't work on top of each other. -Optigan13 (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Lol uhhhh... up 'til now, no. Don't remember how I got started, but so far I've done Culture, Culture/Language and literature, Culture/Philosophy and religion, Geographical, Geo./Africa, Geo./Asia, History and society, Science, and Wikipedia.
Keep in mind that all I've done is to correct red links in secondary listings only. I didn't check the ones that were already blue, not did I mess with red links in other fields.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 04:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I've started by merging all those individual contents systems listing into the wikipedia page. I'll try to continue to work through the wikipedia page and work my way up, but I might jump over to Geo/Americas. I've tagged some projects as inactive and will see how that goes, I think the number of truly inactive projects is underrepresented. I'll try to do some other general fixes but I'm trying to look at the inactivity as well as the Root category and the namespaces to get a sense if the structure of the directories needs adjustment. -Optigan13 (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the stuff!
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 15:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made a first pass on the Wikipedia section. As I figured there are several inactive projects that I've updated. I'm going to go through the Americas project pages tonight to see how many are inactive there, and after a few days have passed update their directory listings. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so much work! I would be doing more, but I just don't have time for it.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 05:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have requested that all Projects that are under the scope of WikiProject Animals register their Active status here I will update the Council Directory listing after all project status's have been confirmed. This may be an idea that could be suggested system wide that all projects confirm there status to ensure we have the most up to date information avaliable not only to other WikiProjects but to editors that are looking for a Project to join. In an unrelated matter, has there ever been a suggestion of a formal council project that overseas all the WikiProjects, such as a formal list of members that is comprised of WikiProject Coordinators that decide on matters related to WikiProjects and assists with conflict resolution, very similiar to ArbCom except exclusively for the WikiProjects. Regards ZooPro 09:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think updating the pages is a great idea. thanks zoopro. Not too sure on coordination yet but there are cross-biology issues that's for sure. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC).

I find ZooPro's actions questionable for several reasons:

1: He has been going around templating a lot of animal related projects. Here's an example: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes#Important WikiProject Notice.

2: He has not discussed this before going ahead. I can't find any discussion about this over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals. And his above message was put here after templating the projects. Had he discussed this he could have avoided several mistakes.

3: We already have the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Science. It is better to ask the WikiProjects to update that listing, instead of creating a duplicate in the form of Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals/Directory.

4: ZooPro's duplicate list lacks explanation what it is and what the different columns mean and what should be put in them. While the central list has such explanations. When I pointed that out his answer boiled down to "if you're to stupid to understand that then it is your problem". Or at least that is how I understand his answer.

5: ZooPro's duplicate list doesn't link to and doesn't even mention the existence of the central list.

6: Using a box to communicate with the WikiProjects is bound to cause negative reactions, since we usually associate boxes with warnings and top of page notices, not messages. So please use a simple text message, not a box, when communicating with the WikiProjects.

7: A minor thing: The template he uses is of the wrong type, it should not be an {{ambox}}, it should be a brown {{tmbox}} since it is used on talk pages.

8: His answer to questions about this on his talk page mostly boils down to "this is a simple administrative action that has no need or usage to be discussed" which to me sounds like "I have decided this so now you guys must jump through hoops for me".

9: He clearly has stated that if we don't jump through hoops for him he will add a template at the top of the WikiProjects' main pages marking them as "inactive". That can be interpreted as a threat.

10: For projects with wider scope like WikiProject Animals (or rather editors from those projects) to behave like they rule over more specialised projects like WikiProject Fishes always is very provocative. I see this all the time, like people from WikiProject Mathematics every now and then come to WikiProject Cryptography and tries to boss around. (Which gets especially silly since maths is just a very small part of what cryptography is about.) The WikiProjects are not hierarchies, they are separate workgroups with very different needs and often different ways to do things.

I might sound irritated, and I am, since all the points above together is a pretty irritating total. I hope ZooPro and others might learn from this so these mistakes aren't repeated to often.

--David Göthberg (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

David, I think you're overreacting.

ZooPro has requested a response: Who cares? Projects are free to respond, or to ignore the request. There's no rule that says you have to do anything about his request.

ZooPro has "threatened" to mark non-responsive projects {{

semi-active

}}, if that seems appropriate to them. Inactive projects are supposed to be tagged out; the template page even provides a standardized, zero-notice recommendation for identifying inactive projects.

If you really understood that it is absolutely impossible for any editor to force a group of volunteers to do anything on Wikipedia, I think you'd find this sort of behavior much less threatening. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel threatened, I meant that ZooPro's behaviour is highly irritating and detrimental. What I meant with point 9 above is that he tries to threaten the WikiProjects to obey his orders, which really isn't threatening but just very irritating and ridiculous. That he more or less calls us stupid when we ask how that list works is very rude, and thus again very irritating. He tries to force people to do as he wishes, but as you stated and I already knew, you can't force Wikipedians. Wikipedia is run on consensus, not on orders from single editors. Sure, we should be bold in editing, but it isn't bold to try to boss other users around. So all he achieves is irritation which will instead decrease the possibility of fruitful cooperation. He is a bad representative for "his" WikiProject. He claims that he represents WikiProject Animals in these things, in spite that it has not been discussed at all in that project. He hasn't even announced these things there so his fellow project members are probably not even aware of this.

Note that I am not objecting to that ZooPro wants to collect status information from different WikiProjects, I am objecting to the way he is doing it.

--David Göthberg (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree David you are overreacting and have done nothing but question me as an editor as opposed to my actions to better help the wikiproject. My reasons for creating the list within the WikiProject Animals area was so it was centralized and editors didnt have to patrol throught the directory looking for thier project. It was and is my intention to after some period of time move the updated information into the database as stated. I fail to see why i would need to discuss asking projects if they are active. It would be like two paramedics discussing wether to check if someone has a pulse. In all aspects i find you to be a rather rude. How dare you claim i used words such as if you're to stupid to understand that then it is your problem,and were have i threatened anyone????????? For something as simple as assessing if a project is active or not, you sure are making a BIG deal out of nothing. This is more of a personal attack on myself rather then a discussion on the status of projects. I would direct you to

Furthemore out of the large amount of editors that responded you are the ONLY ONE who has a problem. Some seeked clarification and it was given they accepted it. You are the only editor out of every editor that noticed the "Notice" to have a problem, seems like consensus is against you. I do nothing but attempt to help the WikiProjects that are related to WikiProject Animals and for you to say otherwise is insulting. ZooPro 02:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

David, I think you misunderstood ZooPro's actions. ZooPro wanted to get an idea of what projects under WikiProject Animals' scope were still active. Therefore, he created a page for that and sent a notice to all the related WikiProjects. What is he asking them to do? To all merge with WikiProject Animals? To delete all their pages? To all file a monthly report with him? No, he is just requesting that the projects show whether they are active or not. What is he "threatening" to do? Yes, he'll tag them as inactive if they don't respond within a week. From my experience (limited as it is :) ), active members of a project would be happy to show that they are alive and editing well. But, say the message goes unnoticed for a week. So, ZooPro tags the project as inactive. What will happen? Nothing, really, except people knowing no one works on it. If, however, people are active, they will just take off the template and in the process, show that the project is still active. Doesn't that accomplish the original purpose? He isn't making any arbitrary changes to projects, he is just getting a view of the projects under Animals. I am sure that ZooPro was not intending to usurp the purposes of the larger directory. Cheers, The Arbiter^★_★^★ 02:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

David you are not even listed as a participant/member of WikiProject Fishes, I was under the assumption you actually took part in WikiProject Fishes and were concerned for your project, clearly not now i am convinced this is a personal attack. ZooPro 02:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You guys haven't understood a thing I have said. As I wrote over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals#Templating related WikiProjects: "User ZooPro is trying to collect status information from related WikiProjects. That might be a good idea, but he is doing it in a bad way." So what I am reacting against is not what he is doing, but how he does it.

Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes#Important WikiProject Notice he claims that "the Message comes from WikiProjects Animals", but he had not discussed it and not even announced it over at WikiProject Animals. If you go around doing things in the name of a project, then the least you can do is to mention on the project's talk page what you are doing so other participants in the project knows what is going on and can comment or even help out if they want. When I announced it for him over at WikiProject Animals he responded here with "You ... are making this a WikiProject wide problem by announcing it on all the project pages". It seems ZooPro thinks it is a bad thing to inform his fellow project participants of what is going on. But remember, Wikipedia is about cooperation, not about single editors like ZooPro ruling over other editors.

His way of handling all this (including small things like using terms as "parent project") shows that he thinks that WikiProject Animals rules over the related projects such as WikiProject Fishes. But that's wrong, no WikiProject rules over another WikiProject. And a single user certainly doesn't rule over other WikiProjects, and also not over the WikiProject where he happens to be a participant.

And by the way, I am not a member of any of these WikiProjects, I just happened to have WikiProject Fishes on my watchlist since I had been doing work on the fish disambig box. We who work with disambig boxes want to add that box to the list of recommended disambig boxes, so I went to WikiProject Fishes asking them for input about that. I prefer to announce things and ask people that it concerns before I take larger actions. Even if those actions seem uncontroversial and straightforward. Surprisingly often some other user then comes with ideas for improvements or even suggests a whole other way to do it that is better. So announcing first often pays of well. ZooPro: That is something you should learn too.

So ZooPro, what you need to learn from this is these things:

• You don't rule over others.
• When you do things in the name of a project, then announce it on the project's talkpage.
• When people ask what the things you are doing means, then don't ridicule them.

Again, Wikipedia is about cooperation, as in people working together and listening to each other, not as in "obey or else". Wikipedia is not about single editors ruling over other editors.

--David Göthberg (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You have still failed to explain to me with any comprehension how you have come to the conclusion that i am ruling over the wikiprojects, I would caution you not to claim that you know how i think as you have above. I am well aware no project rules over any other and have made no claim as such, yes i did state that you made this a wikiproject wide problem because you decided to comment on a number of talk pages and ensured that the disussion was broken and only your POV was seen. I would also ask that you provide some sort of source's for you point of claiming i ridicule editors? I think i explained the situation rather well on my talk page, 1 editor understood my logic, you were the only editor who has so far failed in that aspect. Why would i discuss an action that has been done countless times in the past by many projects.

WP:BB would come into play here though anyway. You still have not explained what "In a bad way" means, your comments have done nothing but attack me and my contributions. You have not given any examples and you have not provided a "solution" (not that i believe a problem even exists). What i think is a Bad thing is you dragging my name through the mud for no good reason, your only reason so far is because you believe you are correct (in that same thought does that mean everyone who had no problem with my actions is wrong?). You dont seem to be making sense, no one else in the project/s seems to have a problem except you so does that not show i took the correct action?, Perhaps my only error is not using the correct talk page template a rather trivial issue at best. Sad to think that something so simple has turned into what can only be described as a circus. In future would you like me to post to the talk page every one of my intended actions to better the project? Every time i assess an article should it be discussed on the talk page even if i only intended to rate it a stub?, Every time i edit a WikiProject Animals tagged article should i discuss it on the talk page? This is what you are asking is it not?, it is nothing more and nothing less then red tape gone mad. I have not once attacked you and i am proud of this, however your repeated attempts to make me comform to your standards by telling me what i need to do and learn is once again insulting, I work very well as a team member on the WikiProjects if you had cared to take a look at my contributions or talk page archive you would see this, in fact if you had cared to ask me you would know this. I will not change how i edit and contribute as it has worked well so far and i foresee no genuine reason to change. ZooPro

11:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this is what you want then??? Even though the coordinators have done that action many many times in the past without discussion and no one has ever had a problem?? Is this really what it has come too? Every action i make on the project should be discussed in detail?? If this is the case then why would anyone want to join a project less rubbish to go through as a freelance editor?? This is ultimatly what you are asking. ZooPro 12:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys? This isn't helping anything. It would probably be a good idea to take a breath, accept some wires got crossed and move on. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think that ZooPro thinks that he can rule over others. He is the coordinator of several wikiprojects, including mammals, and does everything in good faith. If he really thought he ruled over others, he wouldn't have let me co-coordinate WikiProjects Zoo and Mammals with him. Secondly, about ZooPro not saying anything on the Animals talk page, ok, so maybe he should have. But he obviously is not trying to sneak something by the Animals project without anyone knowing it...he just didn't think to announce it. So, just a minor mistake...easily correctable, and absolutely no harm done anywhere. (Really, I don't see how ZooPro's actions harmed anything.) Finally, ZooPro didn't "ridicule" you. You are kind of making a big deal out of a little matter. And, I'm not sure where ZooPro said "obey, or else". So, in conclusion, please, David, you've made your point, and there isn't really anything else to say. ZooPro didn't harm anyone, so it really isn't a big deal. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 01:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I will take Sabine's Sunbird and The Arbiters advice and leave it at that. There is far more important things to be concerned with i am rather annoyed at myself that i spent so much time on this anyway. ZooPro 02:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I found Wikipedia:WikiProject Durham NC - which was a WikiProject about one city in North Carolina. I didn't see this as a feasible goal alone, so I proposed changing the scope here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Durham_NC#Scope - I stated that I would change the scope myself if I found no activity in seven days. Over seven days passed with no reply, so I altered the project page and reset the scope. With no activity present, I believe there are no objections with my decision. Now, I would like to rename the project page to the "Raleigh-Durham WikiProject" - How do I do this? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

First off I'd ping WP:WikiProject North Carolina to see what they think. I think a good chunk of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces#Converting existing_projects to task forces is fairly applicable to this. -Optigan13 (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the Durham/Raleigh/Cary area is entirely in North Carolina, the task force idea is a possibility. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to tag the project as {{

inactive

}}, given that there was exactly one talk page messages during 2009, and not care about what the nominal scope is.

Given that there are comments (ever) from only five editors, only one of whom is still active, it might be more appropriate to take it to TFD rather than proposing a task force merge. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I was actually pointing at the task force conversion checklist as the steps for moving a project's name would be very similar. I'm going to have a look at the various Americas projects tonight to see what the general activity level is. I agree an MFD might be better at this point for this project. Regional projects suffer especially hard from people who sign up based on having lived there, etc. only to have very limited project participation. In general I think we should move to strong centralized projects with broad scopes and larger pools of participants. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I also believe that regional projects need to be encouraged to cover their entire metropolitan areas to increase catchment and viability. For instance the Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia etc projects cover their entire metropolitan areas. That means the Chicago one, for instance, also covers Gary, Indiana, Aurora, Illinois, etc. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily talking about simply city based projects to broaden to regional projects, but more of a general large projects. I'm working through the Americas page of the project directory, and a lot of what I see is uneven activity of state level projects, and thinking that moving to a system of a centralized US project with 50 + DC + Puerto Rico task forces, etc might be an effective system. I'm not planning to try to implement this any time soon, but I think evaluating the effectiveness of something like that versus the current setup is worth considering. In the meantime I think developing effective tools/bots for projects, cleaning up the directory, updating and making sure the guide is comprehensive, and other tasks would be useful for projects regardless of size will help for now. -Optigan13 (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's understandable that different states have different participation levels since they are of uneven sizes, uneven demographics, and of differing population levels. I would imagine that the project of California would have more participation than, say, Wyoming.

If one wants to make each state a task force, then how would one deal with the metropolitan area projects, especially the really popular ones? What about state projects that have high participation levels?

I think the reason why the US articles have so many projects is because of the high activity regarding US articles. The U.S. federal Government itself has its own wikiproject. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure on what would happen to the metro task forces, either trying to get people to agree to move up and group together more, or to leave them be and have an odd gap. I'm also speaking not just about the regional US projects, but also things like merging WP:WikiProject Illustration into Images and Media, the Caribbean nation projects into one, and other ways to pool a decreasing or limited number of participants together to form effective projects. Right now I don't think large projects are feasible without a plan on what people want to get out of projects and tools to automate maintenance. -Optigan13 (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I am going to propose making

I'm bringing this here so I don't have to ask each individual project if the page falls into their domain. A user has been adding tons of wikiprojects to the Sakis Rouvas. I tried to trim out some projects I didn't feel fit according to their scopes[2] and the user reverted calling it a pointless edit[3] and then informed me that i was way off[4]. Can someone weigh? Is this overkill? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, generally speaking, it's up to individual projects to determine their scope. Some of those tags do look rather questionable, but I don't think you can get a definitive answer without asking each of the projects in question to take a look at the article and determine whether it's in-scope for them. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The other editor is a declared fan of Sakis Rouvas. I perceive a POV issue. The other editor will, of course, deny it because that is the nature of POV issues. JimCubb (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for your input. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've noticed an inactive Wikiproject that I'm interested in, I was just wondering, what steps should I take to taking it over and getting up and running again? --Lcawte/WebCoder11 (^Ta_lk) 13:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You could post to the talk page to see if anyone responds. Or check out who used to be involved and see if they are still active on Wikipedia; if so, they might like to get involved again. The user categories are another way to try and find editors with a certain interest. Basically, I advise you get a core of people on board before starting out, so you can collaborate and also share the load. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Projects benefit from members that are willing to talk about what they're doing. If you've got two or three people that post a note every now and again -- I'm working on this article, I have a question about this, does anyone have a suggestion for that -- then it feels more 'alive' and tends to grow over time. A lot of steady editors rely heavily on their watchlists, and a page that isn't being edited is effectively invisible to them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion about cleaning up unreferenced articles about living people (BLPs). A solution which has come up again and again, and which has gotten overwhelming support, is the use of Cleanup listings in some capacity.^[1]

Cleanup listings is a list of cleanup articles for each wikiproject on one designated page. A bot then collects all relevant tagged unreferenced biographies of living people, plus other lists onto one page in the wikiproject. This bot is updated regularly. As the page states: "Approximately 27% of all Wikipedia articles are flagged for cleanup. To deal with this enormous backlog, it seems reasonable to involve the topical WikiProjects in the cleanup process."

Adding this bot is very easy to add to a project: simply add a template to a new or existing page of the project.

The 616 projects which already have this cleanup listing and use this bot are here an example is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject London/Cleanup listing.

How about generating a special page for all wikiprojects not already subscribed? (my own idea first proposed here)

Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 14:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the WolterBot listings are particularly useful, since they use database dumps rather than live data. The London listing, for example, is dated 28 November, and a spot check shows that many of the entries are no longer tagged with the specified maintenance issues. Sending project members hunting through month-old lists isn't going to be the most productive use of anyone's time; we really need something that's no more than a few days old.

It may be possible to do something more efficient by way of categories rather than direct bot listings, incidentally; if there were some way to create intersection categories between WikiProject articles and articles needing cleanup, that would solve both problems. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: Intersection categories: See

Wikipedia:CatScan

).

Wikipedia:WikiProject London/Cleanup listing was lasted updated on 22:26, 10 December 2009, as all listings were. A cleanup listing would be a good start for a lot of projects, and better than what many wikiprojects have now. The bot only runs every month or two. Sigh. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 15:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, a lot of projects might not have any BLPs within their scope; creating empty "lists" for them doesn't seem like a good use of anyone's time. I'd suggest generating, offline, a list for every project, and then inviting those projects whose lists are above a certain size (e.g. 100 articles) to take part in the effort. It's generally a good idea to get the project to say that they're interested in participating, even if the list would be generated anyways; doing otherwise increases the risk that the list will simply be ignored. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 20:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent points as always, I asked Does a list exist of all BLP related wikiprojects? and FloNight responded, "While some would have more than others, almost every type of wikiproject could have a BLP related article because they are broad in the way that they cover topics. Who would have thought that Equine would have that many unref BLP articles." Before he wrote that, I never thought of BLPs being so expansive.

Two editors criticized me for inviting wikiprojects King Arthur, the Bible, and Death to use User:B._Wolterding/Cleanup_listings. I can think of several living authors which regularly write on such subjects.

I agree 100% make sure the project feels involved, otherwise the list will be ignored.

Betacommand's offer turns this whole conversation on its head. Thanks. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 22:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I posted a question in the talk page of the project a while ago and got no answer so far. There has been no activity on the page for a few months but some people are editing the pages covered by the Project. How can I find out who the coordinators are for this project to try to get it moving again? I could help with coordinating some things but I don't have the skills I think I would need to take over if the Project needs to have a whole regime change (if that makes any sense). Marine79 (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well not all projects have active, formal coordinators. Try to respond to any open talk page posts if you can so people know the project is alive. Take a look at the contributions of participants listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject South Carolina or Category:WikiProject South Carolina participants and if they've been making recent edits try dropping them a note about how you're trying to revive the project, and if they'd be interested in helping with that. -Optigan13 (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll see if I can spread around the South Carolina portal... WhisperToMe (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been searching high and low for a hotel/motel wikiproject that would cover:

• Hotel Grand Chancellor, Hobart
• Hotel Grand Chancellor, Launceston
• Wrest Point Hotel Casino
• Hotel Canberra
• The Newport Arms Hotel, Newport Australia
• Australia Hotel

thats just a few Australian hotels to name. I've found wikiproject food and drink as well as wikiproject casinos. But no project that covers a hotel. If i'm correct in saying there is no such project how does one go in creating or requesting a new wikiproject? Regards Wiki ian 08:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Hotels seems to be what you are looking for, though the project looks fairly moribund. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If we are to have no list of Council participants, shouldn't this category also go? I imagine that removing it from the userbox would be a good first step. Waltham, The Duke of 10:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have finally emptied the category (some pages were rather persistent). I have removed category inclusion from three templates—Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Userbox, Template:WikiProject Council and Template:User label WPCouncil—and adjusted the documentation accordingly, but I suggest that someone should have a look at them anyway, as the templates and/or their documentations may be anachronistic regarding the use of terms like "participants". Waltham, The Duke of 10:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I have noticed that

As there are only 18 non-articles within the scope of the WikiProject I wouldn't have thought it worthwhile at this stage. The way to change this in the future is to change the |QUALITY_SCALE= parameter of Template:WikiProject Bahrain. Full details about this can be found at Template:WPBannerMeta#Assessment. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand. The wikiproject was actually dead for a while, so many articls/templates/etc have not yet been tagged. I will look into the above details soon. Thanks. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 00:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I recently nominated Category:Image-Class articles to be merged into Category:File-Class articles as they pretty much cover the same scope (full rationale can be found at the discussion page). It was pointed out that these categories are populated by WikiProject banners and should be brought here for discussion. Is there a reason why these two categories are separate or why they should be kept separate? This would help move things along (or halt them, depending on the response). Regards. — ξ^xplicit 23:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 25#Category:Chile_articles_with_comments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the kind of worst case scenario for wikipedia, where people are deprived from their hard earned money with false advertising.

Wikipedia articles are on sale as printed books for 50 dollars in Amazon.com with no warning in amazon yet as printed in 4th page of the "book" after you buy it

We require a huge task force that can put a warning to thousands of similar titles in amazon.com as customer review so that people might be warned about this issue. Read

VDM Publishing House

for details.

Not sure right place to post, but feel free to move or duplicate the thread elsewhere. Kasaalan (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Composers project biographical infoboxes RfC debate

The specific issues are

1. The
   WP:WikiProject Contemporary music, and WP:WikiProject Classical music
   itself, are all opposed to the use of biographic infoboxes
2. The members of those projects often remove these boxes per the strong consensus to do so at those projects
3. Some editors not involved in any of those projects have raised objections to this removal citing "non-ownership" of articles as one of their objections
4. The "ownership" issue is seen as a red herring due to the fact that consensus is across the board at these projects concerning the non-inclusion and removal of infoboxes and due to the tacit acceptance of that consensus in the "Word of caution" found
   here at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography
   .

A very fair statement of the situation has just been put together at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#A new perspective. I'd encourage as many people as possible to give it an open-minded review and post constructive comments there. This is an ongoing issue that needs to be properly resolved, through a widely-participated review. Please come and give your thoughts on the statement linked. Happy‑melon 16:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well projects dont own the articles no one does, however the problem is that you have 1 editer v's a project full of editors. I have always felt that projects should be given the ability to determine through consensus on how the articles under there project are managed, this is true for naming conventions and in some cases what info boxes are displayed. ZooPro 01:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, projects have zero authority. Projects are not allowed to re-write the

WP:MOS

or issue blanket exceptions to it; they are not allowed to declare that the normal content policies only apply to articles outside their scope; they aren't, in short, allowed to overrule any community-wide consensus, by saying, "Well, me and my three friends at the WikiProject have all agreed that the community is wrong, and that means that the project has a 'consensus' to overrule any editor that disagrees with us".

It happens that many projects have put together some good (and even excellent) advice. That advice (when good) has been accepted by the community (and rejected when bad) -- a project can do

WP:POLICY#Proposals

, just like any individual -- but the mere fact that the editors choose to call themselves a WikiProject gives them zero authority.

The CM dispute also doesn't seem to be one editor vs a "project full of editors": it appears to be many individual editors vs about four noisy editors at a small project. One of them asserts that this is their tenth major battle over this issue in the last three years, which suggests that their so-called 'consensus' is, at minimum, strongly disputed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Projects have the authority of their individual editors. When those editors have special expertise, when they have served the reader and contributed to the

encyclopedia

, they deserve respect.

The

Composers Project is a model of its kind: 5,000-odd maintained articles, a stable category tree, written assessments down to B class, well-organized archives etc. etc. Participants of this, and all other projects, should be allowed to develop their own project guidelines. --Kleinzach

04:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, they can write down any advice they want. They can also advocate for changes to community-wide guidelines and policies.

What they ("you", since you're a major player in this dispute) cannot do is force non-members to follow their unofficial advice in any article, even in an article that the members who wrote the advice have been working on.

WP:WikiProject Classical music/Style guidelines is the non-authoritative and frequently disputed views of a very small number of editors. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 06:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read the project guidelines (not policies - that's just a red herring) before posting here. They are based on consensus at every level. No one is forcing anything on anybody, although some people have tried to force inappropriate boxes on the editors who have been developing the articles. --Kleinzach 07:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That might be how it should be but it is far from how it is, there is alot of contradiction about what projects can and cannot do. projects dont have "Authority" however they do have policies that allow them to do certian things and this also varies greatly, for instance some of the Animal project have different naming conventions that dont follow the MOS however they are allowed to do this because the policies say they can. I think you will find that it varys greatly across the board. I dont have an opinion on the matter either way, however if there is a policy then it should be followed. ZooPro 03:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The Classical Music and related projects have been scrupulous about trying to comply with WP policies and indeed the MoS. No one has ever claimed otherwise. If we found any discrepancies I'm sure the projects would address the issues. I don't know about the Animal project case, but I'd assume there are some knowledgeable editors there who have good reason for their naming convention practices. It's very difficult for contributors with real editorial or technical skills to get improvements made to the MoS. --Kleinzach 08:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Projects do not have any

WP:WikiProject Botany's naming convention; it's everyone's naming convention for plants. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 06:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, they're project guidelines, not policies. In the case of

WP:WikiProject Botany and it's important that we encourage them to take the lead in developing the naming convention. It would be bad if I, a non-botanist, started disrupting their project, telling them what to do. --Kleinzach

08:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, they're not

WP:Guideline: it's advice from a couple of editors. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 06:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

See Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects. 94 projects have guidelines. --Kleinzach 06:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I may as well answer here... Basically:

If the WikiProject style guideline has received general consensus through the procedures listed at Wikipedia proposals, then the WikiProject style guideline additionally may be categorized as an English Wikipedia style guideline or a Manual of Style guideline. Please post a message at WT:Manual of Style if you would like to include your WikiProject style guideline as an official Wikipedia style guideline. We encourage people to write style guidelines on new topics, but general group efforts work best.

The category page itself explains, in other words. --

I would very much like to hear

clipman

07:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed that the

• Proposal rejected by admin and discussion moved off Composers project talk page. New link:
  clipman
  18:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if I could help create a new WikiProject on The Last Apprentice(The Wardstone Chronicles), and through it a new portal. --Thanks! TrueKandra TK (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I recommend you ask advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. This is an active project which has many sub-projects, and you might find some other editors there to help you. Good luck. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#'NA-importance articles' categories for a discussion concerning the purpose of and need for 'NA-importance articles' categories. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if we can do better with maintaining participant lists for projects. For instance, I can imagine a bot annotating participant names, identifying those which haven't edited for over a year (maybe moving to a separate subsection). Permabanned editors should also be identifiable, and moved to an archive section or something. Also, I'm thinking about ways to encourage more participation in projects and cooperation between projects, possibly bot-assisted to save work. (I've added a section

This has since evolved into a generic RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people. Comments invited. –xeno^talk 18:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC on using a Wikiproject Tag (2)

An

RfC on using a Wikiproject Tag (3)

Discussion has been closed, with the conclusion that these are useful for identifying articles of interest to a project. Further discussion on things arising from that discussion, issues identified, etc. are referred here for further discussion. Mish (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite the RfC, which closed with a consensus that groups of editors can work on whatever articles they please, just like the Council's guide says, it looks like there's still some slow edit warring on the original page to prevent the 'wrong kind' of editors from announcing their willingness to support the article's development. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion at

76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I realize that there are some additional details here, but ultimately I take a "live and let live" line with this sort of dispute: If WP:CANADA freely chooses to advertise other WikiProjects with statements like "This article is also supported by WikiProject Ontario," then you may not prohibit them from doing so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but they are imposing their importance scale onto Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal, and their importance ratings, meaning that articles get placed into two Vancouver/Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal importance categories, one of them will almost invariably be "low", regardless of how highly important it is to Vancouver/Toronto/Ottawa/Montreal. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 07:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, when this thread started it was already unanimously agreed on the template's talk page that cities should have separate importance ratings. The issue now is whether the template should default to WPCanada's main importance rating when the city's project doesn't have an importance rating. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

More specifically:

clipman

16:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The idea is simple: Articles, which broach the issue of a non-language-bordered content, i.e. wood, go (verb), or hand but as well nuclear weapons and sex, can enjoy the knowledge & expertise of two (or more) Wikipedias by this project. Of course one Wikipedia can jump on the bandwagon, if for example the article Avignon is in review of the french-speaking WP, too, there is no constriction on principle.
The standard lingua franca would be english, other arrangements are possible. The main sense of this poject is the to establish a good connection between the diffrent review-pages.
I thought of

• a bot, which creates an automatic message to all review pages, if there is the same article in review process (connect already ongoing reviews).
• "ambassadors", who get the information on articles in "their own WP", which are wanted to work over, and afterwards they speak to the "ambassadors" of some other Wikipedias and try to initiate a multilingual review (start new cooperation).

What do you say? --Hæggis (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC) P.S.: who finds some mistakes, can eat them ;)

Have you looked at

Wikipedia:WikiProject Echo? -Optigan13 (talk

) 06:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I´m going to link this discussion point there. If I unterstood it correctly, the sense of this project is to translate articles by a one-lingual team (means people only from the en-WP). The suggested project here intends a multi-lingual team of two or more Wikipedias. The users shall internationally interlingually work together, so there´s an meta-review in both (or more) wikipedias.

If there´s the case of connecting already ongoing reviews, there will be one review page for two (or more) articles, but just in diffrent Wikipedias, after all for one and the same

lemma

. And if there´s a new cooperation, the project members will furthermore suppose to round up the group, that means they coordinate (only at the beginning) the comprehensive cooperation.

Generally they translate some sources, clarify diffrences (often mistakes/bias by inaccuracy in a special thing) between two articles, which contents the same subtext, make networking between user portals & specific projects (surely cruelly english ;) and try to get the maximum effect for both (or more) teams, means the best output – i.e. the improvement of the lemma Chronos in english-speaking and german-speaking Wikipedia with an similar qualitative end result of collaborative review. Greets, --Hæggis (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There are a whole collection of articles found at Category:Horrible Histories. Created by me initially but unable to be upkept due to inexperience in advanced editing and unavailability to edit due to other commitments, this whole category has become a bit of a mess. Some of the larger articles (such as

P.S. Upon recent experimentation with some articles and a translation program, I am very confused to what other language article have written about the series. For example the Portuguese version classifies the whole "collection" as The Horrible and appears to have books written especially for the Portuguese language, unreleased in English.--Coin945 (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. I have compiled a variety of different sources on different aspects of the Horrible histories franchise. Hopefully i will be able to sift through them to locate the most reliable ones. I have done this so any editors interested in aiding the growth of these articles will have a variety of useful sites at their instant disposable. They are located at: Talk:Horrible_Histories#2009_interview.--Coin945 (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that we are probably getting to the point that many of our more important articles and subjects are already using the more accessible and easily available sources, and that we are probably getting to the point that it might help editors wanting to work on specific subjects to have real lists of some of the sources available. Creating separate articles for many of these bibliographies, and linking to them in the main article(s) for the topics involved, would both help interested editors find sources relevant to the subjects, and maybe, in some cases, make it easier for school groups to find and develop articles to a good level. These bibliography articles could also, reasoably, be linked to from the project page of any clearly relevant WikiProject or task force.

I am not myself sure what the criteria for inclusion of a given work in a bibliography article should be, but I think being listed in a work which is itself a pure bibliography, or having multiple reviews, should be sufficient. I am also curious how such bibliographic articles should be structured, particularly regarding adding some descriptive text about the work in question. Also, there is a question as to how much attention and space should be given to journal articles and other articles, books dealing only partially with the main topic, and works devoted to the subject.

I have found that some topics, like Wallis and Futuna, have virtually nothing available in English about them, at least in terms of scholarly articles or books devoted to the subject. In that particular case, there is much more, although still not a lot, available in French. Would it be proper to list such foreign language sources in an English bibliography article, or would it be better to have separate articles for each language which has enough listed sources available to merit such articles? My own opinion would be to support the multiple articles, but I would welcome any comment. John Carter (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds worth discussing - but here's probably not the place. I suggest

WP:VPD might be a good place to develop this idea. Rd232 ^talk

21:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)