Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This page was the subject of an MfD discussion closed on 27 May 2007. The result was keep. Xoloz 16:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible for someone to arrange a bot to put the WikiProject Wikipedia template on the larger Wikipedia subcategories that are still unhandled? This could save human time to set up an assessment page, agree on importance standards, and other setting up for the WikiProject. — Pious7 20:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My bot can't do it; Go to

oy^[c]

21:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I manually tagged the remaining articles - it wasn't that much effort. There's now 100 articles in our scope. — Pious7 00:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – The scope has been fixed to be more specific on what biographies fit in this WikiProject. — Pious7 02:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

When I wrote the scope, I put that Wikipedians are in the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia. When I wrote that, however, I was more thinking about Category:Wikipedia people and did not know about all the articles in Category:Notable Wikipedians. When someone put the WikiProject Wikipedia banner on Talk:Tron Øgrim, I realized that there was over 180 other articles that might fit in this WikiProject. Would they fit under the scope of the WikiProject or should we be more specific in our scope to be more focused? If they do fit in this WikiProject, should we have a task force or something similar to cover Wikipedian articles in specific? — Pious7 00:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be more focused. I bet we'd be surprised at how many people with articles also edit Wikipedia (far more than what is currently known), simply as something to do. Editing Wikipedia is just something these people did, and I doubt it's even mentioned in their articles. -- Ned Scott 00:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point, but that raises another question. If it is part of the article, such as Tron Øgrim, should it be part of the WikiProject? Or must it be someone who works for Wikipedia like Jimmy Wales? — Pious7 03:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's a bit of a grey area. I could see it go either way, but I'd learn towards those with significant involvement. -- Ned Scott 03:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Would rewording that line of the scope to "Articles on

Wikipedians who are notable for being involved with Wikipedia." work? That allows people like Jimmy Wales as well as some Wikipedian articles that are primarily about that person and their work with or some controversy on Wikipedia, while not including biography articles that have nothing to do with Wikipedia. — Pious7

12:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that hits the nail on the head. -- Ned Scott 02:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Since we do not have a project for the Wikimedia foundation as a whole, would it not be better to move this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikimedia foundation so as to cover related topics like MediaWiki, Wikimedia Commons etc? I can't see the logic in creating a small project before a larger one exists, and broadening the scope wouldn't add that many more articles anyway, while preventing them from being orphaned. Richard001 01:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. -- Ned Scott 02:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but I think that the problem would be that it wouldn't add too many articles to the scope while the template would have to be changed, the scope almost completely rewritten, and all 101 pages already tagged changed (or perhaps this isn't needed? I'm not quite sure on how templates work). Regardless, it would need a lot of renaming and fixed links (i.e. the assessment categories), but could be done.

Another idea I was considering earlier and that was brought up on the MfD by someone else would be to create a Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki to cover wikis in general and then make this a subproject or taskforce of that, that would increase the scope a lot more of articles that are often without a WikiProject. If this were to become a taskforce, a "Wikipedia=yes" or "Wikimedia=yes" (whichever is agreed upon) could be added to the WikiProject Wiki assessment template to allow the taskforce to still have separate assessment. — Pious7 02:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, that sounds kinda stupid, since Wikim(p)edia are just too different from a wiki in general. I'd rather we keep this as it is, and maybe just add Wikimedia as a separate or child project. ~

oy^[c]

03:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it can't be a child project because it is a parent topic. Wikipedia is just a single part of the foundation. And it certainly isn't an separate project, because they are so related. I had thought there already was a Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikis, that would also be a good idea.

Concerning the template, changing the template will change its appearance on all the pages it already appears on. All that would have to be done is change the name and fix any wayward links etc, and obviously redefine the scope of the project. Probably a bit of work, but it would be better to do this now if it is ever to be done than wait for later. Richard001 06:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it, I think having WikiProject Wikis would cover more articles and probably attract more people. Wikipedia is a wiki, and people who only want to work with Wikipedia-related articles in specific can stay with this project or taskforce without having to worry about the greater WikiProject. It adds, not removes (and it adds a lot, otherwise this would be a rather small WikiProject), and would prevent people from objecting to this in the future (look at the MfD).

The only question is whether this should remain as project and become a subproject or switch to being a taskforce. Either way, I think the separate assessment should be kept with a "Wikipedia=yes" tag in the new assessment box, which might be the hardest thing to do in adding the new WikiProject. If it were a taskforce, I think it would be better if it were a Wikipedia (and not Wikimedia) taskforce, as a taskforce should be focused. — Pious7 13:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

After talking on IRC with

Edboy, we've determined that it would probably be better to give this WikiProject a few weeks to see if it can make it on its own before making it a subproject or taskforce. And I think that making a Wikipedia:WikiProject Encyclopedias (Encyclopediae?) might be more fitting than one for Wikis as a lot of articles under this WikiProject wouldn't fit under the scope of something wiki-related articles. There's a lot of encyclopedia-related articles, possibly more than those for wikis. — Pious7

14:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I just read the section above after posting this. Looks like I had the same idea when I was offline earlier on today as the user who proposed this above.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree - this would really help improve all Wiki projects as a whole.

Shruti14

23:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the scope was too narrow. Should this be made into a taskforce or sub-WikiProject of a new, broader, WikiProject like I had previously suggested? — Pious7 05:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swati Wikipedia. PrimeHunter 01:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hope nobody minds me adding myself to the project.

Past work includes authoring the current Reliability of Wikipedia, revamping the current History of Wikipedia, authoring Wikipedia:Editorial oversight and control and the rewrite and redesign of the current long-term Wikipedia:About.

I'm not sure what to contribute, but articles that help editors and 3rd parties know about wikipedia and understand its workings and structure and background and culture, interests me. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I will like to note that article under the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia are written in language that only Wikipedians know. For example, the

It's

Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China. PrimeHunter

03:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, strangers who don't know anything about Wikipedia can't use these articles.

^T/C

17:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kashubian Wikipedia (25 Sept 2007) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Two protected redirects need to be changed. The redirects for

Why the 'NA' in the assessment? Surely the quality of this article (list) is important, and it's currently very poor. Richard001 06:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Per above headline, how might I do that? --

What is the idea about? Ideas can be suggested in a lot of places depending on what it is about. Maybe Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) is of help. PrimeHunter 16:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The description is already there. --

I am one of the members of the Hall of Fame project, but I acknowledge it's lack of activity. I was wondering whether the members of this project would be willing to take on the functions that project has set out for itself. John Carter (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawaiian Wikipedia. I wasn't aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kashubian Wikipedia but now I am. Oh, and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Wikipedia language editions

The key question is, how notable should a wikipedia site be before it gets an article on the EN Wiki? Hawaii has 1216 articles. Finnish has 120,000 articles. Cheyenne has 11 articles. Surely there is a cut off. Or is /everything/ wikipedia does notable? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The articles on Wikipedia that we have or could have is something that I think requires more discussion and planning. The abscence of an article on the community despite there being one on deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia seems a strange hierarchical gap to me, for instance. For more on this see talk:deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Richard001 (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wikipedias. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think

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

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 23:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any sourced etymology about Wikimedia 'Commons', e.g. in relation with the historical

So it looks like the name is pretty much set now. But what about the WMF projects - do they fall within the scope? I think they should because they aren't covered by another project (unless you count something very general like WikiProject websites), they are linked to from Wikipedia pages, and the Wikimedia Foundation was founded after Wikipedia and is in some sense a 'child' of it. Anyway, I'm going to treat such articles as falling under the project unless there is a consensus not to. Richard001 (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new

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 06:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not "remove" any articles, I redirected them for failing all notability guidelines (like

Fram (talk

) 06:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

As I suggested on the AfD, I think there is probably a solution here that everyone can be happy with. If there is no place to merge, Meta already hosts this type of information, and may be willing to take these pages. Gigs (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with these pages existing on meta, of course. They are also all listed on

Fram (talk

) 14:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is a current AfD on this topic at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Northern_Sámi_Wikipedia. A lot of foreign language Wikipedias were recently prodded; I remove the prod tags as I believe a community decision on what to do with these articles is best. I prefer to keep them all as I think any Wikipedia project is inherently notable enough to be mentioned within en:Wikipedia, but am open to other ideas of merging or transwiki. Fences and windows (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If we did, I think it would be a shining example for the systemic bias people to point to. :) Gigs (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, like "we have a systemic bias in favour of ourselves"...
      Fram (talk
      ) 07:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Shouldn't we
        practice what we preach? Gigs (talk
        ) 15:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is a new AFD topic Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gan Wikipedia (2nd nomination). Lot of smaller language Wikipedias needs to redirect into List of Wikipedias article. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 12:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Please realize that AfD is NOT required for an article to be redirected. Just redirect. --
    talk
    ) 07:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• I support the general idea that smaller Wikipedia's should be redirected to List of Wikipedias. One thing to keep in mind is that, regardless of what is done, if anything is changed (delete or merge/redirect) whoever takes on that task should be willing to take care of the nav box links and any other linked articles at the same time (which a redirect should work fine for). Ω (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• So what exactly is a smaller wiki? Can you provide something specific since this ruling is to be applied globally? Fram's wants to delete a wiki with 100,000 articles because the quality is not good. So is it the amount of articles or the just Fram's opinion of the quality? --MarsRover (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not really only "my" opinion of the quality, the
    Fram (talk
    ) 20:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You never "prod"-ed the article and it is hard to include evidence when the article is gone. Since you are effectively deleting the article don't you think you should provide some evidence you even tried to find sources? Quite frankly this could be the most extensive collection of Volapukian knowledge ever assembled but we'll never know. btw, if this wiki is a "serious problem" wouldn't an article about it be useful? --MarsRover (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to prod an article before I can redirect. You could have added some evidence after you reverted the redirect (you still can). What is Volapukian knowledge? It is just knowledge, but translated (by bots) in this language. It is no "new" or otherwise unavailable knowledge. But all this is tangential: if it meets

Fram (talk

) 07:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the Volapuk Wikipedia is clearly one of the smaller Wikipedias when you ignore the artificially inflated number of articles and look at the number of editors and edits. Over seven days, less than 100 edits, most of them (some 90%) added or corrected interwikilinks.[1]

Fram (talk

) 10:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We now have had 11 additional AfD's since the start of this discussion, with only one of those started by me, and all eleven have ended in redirect.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. This seems to support the position that every Wikipedia language version article without reliable independent sources should be redirected to List of Wikipedias. Articles with reliable independent sources should be dealt with separately, as some may still warrant redirection, while others may be better off with their own article (some of the lartger Wikipedias are undoubtedly notable on their own).

Can everyone agree that, while you personally may prefer separate articles for these Wikipedias, the current consensus is for them to be redirected? If there is no agreement on this, either an RfC will have to be started or more AfD's will have to be conducted. I hope we can avoid these time consuming processes though.

Make sure you make a good effort at finding sources, including in foreign languages, and you merge as much information as possible when redirecting. Fences&Windows 01:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The people wanting to keep those articles as separate entities (and the people who created these articles in the first place, and those who undid the redirects and opposed the prods as well) should look for sources if they want to have a separate article. Like

Fram (talk

) 07:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Refusing to look for sources before a redirect isn't very constructive. A "simple redirect" effectively deletes the article as far as readers as concerned. Fences&Windows 19:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Not less constructive than removing a prod without adressing any of the problems, I would say... And in most cases, the articles have very little info, most of which is in the List of Wikipedias as well (it exists, approximate size, and link to it), so the redirect is not a deletion at all, just a different presentation of the same info.

Fram (talk

) 19:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to apologise for deprodding, if that's what you're driving at. Obviously deleting those article was not uncontroversial, and deprodding forced a discussion. Fences&Windows 20:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to apologize, you just shouldn't lecture other people on what they should do when your actions suffer from the same problems: deprodding was correct, deprodding and improving would have been much better. If someone here does something correctly, pointing out that they could do an even better job if they spent more time on it is notonly not helpful, it is insulting and patronizing, since we are all volunteers with a limited amount of time and a truckload of possible improvements to make.

Fram (talk

) 08:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And what is exactly the problem you have with Serbian Wikipedia, if I may ask? With almost 90.000 articles and 14.000 editors, various changes per minute, 93 featured articles that are of equal (if some of them not better) quality as those in English Wikipedia, I think Serbian Wikipedia is in NOT among "unimportant" or "small" Wikipedias... Please, indulge mu curiosity, and tell me why did you do this and who and where decided about that? --Maduixa (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As you can see at the start of this section, I stated that consensuswas established that "This seems to support the position that every Wikipedia language version article without reliable independent sources should be redirected to List of Wikipedias. " Size, number of editors, article quality, ... are not relevant for this.

Fram (talk

) 07:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've requested a peer review of Wikipedia to see if a FA bid would be advisable. If anyone has time to do the review, it would be much appreciated. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This shows that the creator of the page added the two project banners and stated it as "mid importance". The creator of a page is not unbiased in determining such. Can someone please re-evaluate the importance? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Shankbone
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Santiago (2nd nomination)

Cirt (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that its importance within this project be rerated as Top rather than Mid. Additionally, I think it is more of a C or even Start class article than a B.

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the

FYI, The encyclopedia that anyone can edit has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There's an RFD on

For the time being, there is no purpose. Ideally, there would be a Portal:Wikipedia which, like other portals, would contains links to articles, lists and other content related to Wikipedia (rather than simply directing to the Main Page). I just joined this project a few days ago, and am generally interested in Wikipedia-related content, but I don't know the status of the portal or why there is not one. Maybe a portal needs to be created? Sorry I cannot be of more assistance at this time. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Concerning that {{Portal|Wikipedia}} is currently just a redirect to the main page, any objections to removing if from all article's it's used on? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

No one's objected to removal, and it's been a mouth sense I brought this problem up. I'll remove them. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll also change it's Icon to File:X mark.svg to prevent it's use. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm doing research for Wikiquote, if anyone knows of interesting or pithy quotes about q:MediaWiki, please let me know at q:Talk:MediaWiki, it would be most appreciated! Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Wales on millionaire.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Jimbo Wales the Indian.png has been nominated for deletion -- `65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello all,
See: User:Shirt58/Frederick Jackson (singer).
The article for Jackson was speedily deleted twice on 27 Jul 2013. I suspect that this was because there was an online promotional campaign involved with him singing Porgy in a recent revival of Porgy and Bess.
Most of the references to his work appear to mentions in German-language sources. Could you possibly have a little look into this, and give opinions about whether an article for him would be viable right now?
Thank you! Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, comment on wrong project page.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The article

This is a notice to let you know about

.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. 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". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by

here

.

Thanks. —

WP Physics

} 09:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Relevant AFD discussion page

Please see Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. AFD discussion is at, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia and history

I found: Bosworth, Alex. "What Is Wikipedia ... And How Does It Treat History?" History News Network. December 20, 2004. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

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 Wikipedia 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 23:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Expanding scope

I suggest to make this for all of the Wikimedia Foundation, since this WikiProject seems to be for all. I suggest renaming to WikiProject Wikimedia Foundation. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 21:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Apologies can I beg for help!

Apologies about this, but I recently (September 2011) added some questions to the Official Wikipediholism Test and got the numeration of new questions wrong. Is any one in this group able to help? Many thanks,ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Logo of Wikipedia

Hi! Would anybody be interested in looking at a discussion about a quote?

• Talk:Logo_of_Wikipedia#Controversial_and_barely_notable_quote_removed

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources

I found:

• "What is Causing the Decline in Wikipedia Participation?" Masters of Media University of Amsterdam. September 20, 2009.

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Paid editing on Wikipedia

Hi folks. I assessed this new article as C-class, with High importance for WikiProject Wikipedia. Please see

(COI Declaration)

  12:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

Hi there, I'm notifying this WikiProject due to its relevance to Freedom of speech. I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggested change of scope and goal of this project

This project has been tagged as inactive.

Wikipedia needs to be more concious of its own history - and this project and a potential changing and narrowing of scope could be an excellent container project for the important outlining and tabulating of the history of the project.

It needs to tie in the history and ebss and flows of all wikimedia projects and activities - and the various groups within the larger wiki community.

Suggested change in the goals should be:

To develop and maintain the navigation pages for the subject Wikipedia, including:

Outline of Wikipedia

Category:Wikipedia

Template:Wikipedia

suggested change: this project should drop any aspect the technical support of the project,

and be more reflexive of the components of wikipedia - keeping track of the overall history of wikipedia and wikimedia - suggest that Outline should have its own project...

To expand and improve Wikipedia's coverage on notable Wikipedia-related subjects.

To improve Wikipedia-related articles, especially in expanding the numerous stubs.

suggested change: to drop this aspect of content formation, and deal with the larger picture evolution of wikimedia, and wikipedia projects

To ensure the neutrality in Wikipedia-related articles.

To enforce WP:UNDUE on the articles in our scope to ensure neutrality.

drop this completely - this project needs to be focused on keeping track of the larger project - not housekeeping which is ably managed elsewhere

To ensure that all Wikipedia-related articles consist of reliable and verifiable content.

drop this completely - a more narrower focus is more manageable

Scope

The Outline of Wikipedia and everything listed in it.

drop - allow Outline article content creators have a specific project and separate this project from Outline article issues

Articles on subjects directly related to Wikipedia. Articles on each edition of Wikipedia. Articles on Wikipedians who are notable for being involved with Wikipedia. Other Wikipedia-related articles, especially in Category:Wikipedia or its subcategories.

• • Suggested 're-alignment' of this project entails dropping any content policing function and much more an historical, tabulation, and documentation project of the journey of chapters, wikimedia, wikipedia and other aspects over time - and a careful archiving where rquired - of the changes in the projects, and the meta wiki domain - that which ties all the projects together.

• • A salient reminder of the need for a project like this one are the 'way back' machines and web archives that seek to save parts of the web that simply vanish over time. There is a need to have a project where wikimedia wikipedia history is adequately organised and collectedm and doesnt get lost in whatever way in 'project-less' corners of wikipedia.

Please note this above comment will be spammed at some other project pages over time - if you have already seen it, please understand re-jigging projects requires some duplication of the message.

sats

13:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I love your idea. You've perfectly described a new WikiProject. Rather than replace this WikiProject with the new one, might I suggest making it a distinct WikiProject of its own? Wikipedia as a subject in the encyclopedia needs all the help it can get. The Wikipedia WikiProject page, though often apparently inactive, nonetheless provides guidance (like a help page) to anyone interested in improving what Wikipedia reports to the world about itself. It helps point them in the right direction. Please leave it intact.

Like most other WikiProjects, WikiProject Wikipedia is content-based. That is, it is concerned with the coverage of a particular subject in the encyclopedia. Its subject: Wikipedia itself. While WikiProject Geography focuses on improving geographical articles and access to them, WikiProject Wikipedia does the same thing for content in Wikipedia about Wikipedia. All subject areas need attention, and focusing that attention is what WikiProjects are all about.

Concerning outlines and other navigation system pages, what they do for WikiProjects is gather all articles about the target subject to a convenient place, where they can be better organized, more easily accessed, and monitored. By revealing what the subject includes, they clarify exactly what topics, and which articles, each WikiProject is concerned with. Thus, for WikiProjects, navigation pages serve as article management tools.

Now, back to your new project idea...

If I get you right, it's about understanding how Wikipedia came to be and what it has evolved into. This is of essential importance and its ramifications are far-reaching. A well-structured history of Wikipedia would keep the heritage of Wikipedia alive, which in turn would help put everything into perspective for new editors, and for editors who write about Wikipedia (such as those at The SignPost). Concerning new editors, this is directly relevant to Wikipedia's main introductory page about Wikipedia, Wikipedia:About, and could help make that critical page easier to digest. First impressions are very important, and Wikipedia:About is often one of the earliest pages that newcomers read about the encyclopedia. In its current form, it is somewhat daunting.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia can't directly report about itself in the encyclopedia (as that would be considered original research). But it can do so in project space, including highly visible project-level pages such as Wikipedia:About, the help pages, and at the Community portal.

One area that your project idea has particular significance to and which it overlaps, is Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention. That WikiProject has recently added a section about itself to the Community portal, including its Editor of the Week spotlight feature. Heritage helps give people a sense of belonging, by characterizing the thing they belong to, and this is highly relevant to editor retention. I strongly recommend that you pay them a visit.

In summary, I think your WikiProject idea is fantastic. Which brings us to the question of what to call it. I have a (humble) suggestion: "Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Heritage".

I hope my comments have been helpful or at least thought-provoking. I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 17:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedians by length of activity

It's kind of interesting to see lists of Wikipedians by article count or other factors, but I'd really love to see a list of the Top 1000 or Top 5000 Wikipedians by the length of time the Editor has been active on Wikipedia.
I know that I've seen a few user pages with Infoboxes that say an Editor has been active 8 or 9 years and one that had 10 years. But I came across an active Editor that joined in 2001! I think that 12 years of activity is notable and I was wondering if accounts had some numerical assignment and a list could be made of the earliest accounts on Wikipedia. Is there a program or bot that can put this together? Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Just discovered these out-of-date pages, like Wikipedians in order of arrival, 2001, but it was created by people adding their names on to the list. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Another list of Wikipedians in order of arrival. –Quiddity (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Quiddity! Much appreciated. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor

Help with technical details are invited, and specifically there's discussion about merging, and use of "WYSIWYG" at Talk:VisualEditor#WYSIWYG. Widefox; talk 23:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning Wikipedia article and Arbitration committee

This article discusses the rename of the Chelsea Manning article and the Arbitration committee:

• Hern, Alex. "Chelsea Manning name row: Wikipedia editors banned from trans pages." The Guardian. October 24, 2013.

It could be a useful source. Talk:Chelsea_Manning already notes the Guardian article as one of the media organization articles that mentions the Chelsea Manning article. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible new sources about Wikipedia from the NYT and Washington Post

• Newman, Judith. "Wikipedia-Mania." The New York Times. January 8, 2014.
• Lauer, Matt J. "Commentary: The problem with Wikipedia."
  Washington Post
  . March 17, 2014.
  • This is an excerpt of a company-published blog post, as stated by the page: "The Problem with Wikipedia" by Qorvis Communications, LLC (Archive) (the original location automatically redirects to another website)
  • The author was a partner of Qorvis Communications and the president of Qorvis Geopolitical Solutions.
  • Therefore from my understanding this can only be used for opinion-related content and not factual content.

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Adrianne Wadewitz deletion discussion notice

1. Adrianne Wadewitz
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrianne Wadewitz

There is an ongoing deletion discussion taking place now about whether or not to have a biographical article about Adrianne Wadewitz on Wikipedia.

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrianne Wadewitz.

For those newer to Wikipedia, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Notability.

— Cirt (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Wiki Education Foundation

1. Wiki Education Foundation
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wiki Education Foundation

There is a deletion discussion ongoing for article Wiki Education Foundation.

Discussion page is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wiki Education Foundation.

— Cirt (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The Impact of Wikipedia by Adrianne Wadewitz

1. Vgrigas
2. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Impact of Wikipedia by Adrianne Wadewitz

I've nominated the video file

Vgrigas

for Featured Picture candidacy.

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Impact of Wikipedia by Adrianne Wadewitz.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Skepchickal

1. File:Skepchickal.jpg
2. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Skepchickal

I've nominated this photograph by Ragesoss, for Featured Picture consideration.

Discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Skepchickal.

— Cirt (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Adrianne Wadewitz for Peer review

1. Adrianne Wadewitz
2. Wikipedia:Peer review/Adrianne Wadewitz/archive1

I've nominated the article Adrianne Wadewitz for Peer review.

Discussion is at the peer review subpage, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Adrianne Wadewitz/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Archived some threads

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Message about the 'Nupedia' page.

I believe that there is way too much bias towards the old Nupedia, while up until recently there was information on it. Perhaps it would be better if we stopped refering to it as 'Defunct' and started to include some information on the wikian update. Or at least put in a section about it. It does seem slightly fishy when you see that Wikipedia son't mention their competing site, but call it defunct. Don't get me wrong, I'm trying to be civil, but this issue needs adressing. I will make the edit myself, this is just a warning to stop it being rolbacked within two seconds. Mistoop (talk) 06:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

New articles

We have a new article on

Gendergap. Jane (talk

) 08:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles on U.S. states and the frequencies of words used

I found this thing:

• Blatt, Ben. "How Does Wikipedia Describe Your State?" Slate. May 12, 2014.

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Automatically generating Wikipedia articles

• Sauper, Christina and Regina Barzilay. "Automatically Generating Wikipedia Articles: A Structure-Aware Approach" (Archive). Massachusetts Institute of Technology Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Write Wikipedia articles about books used as sources by Wikipedia articles

Please write Wikipedia articles about books used as sources by Wikipedia articles. Having these articles can help Wikipedians determine the trustworthiness and aspects of the books they use as sources.

My instructions:

• 1. Search a university database like this: http://info.lib.uh.edu (After entering the book's title, go to the left pane and select "reviews"). If you see at least two book reviews, you know the book is notable as per
  WP:GNG - You can also get a 14 day trial to Booklist
  and search for reviews there.
• 2. If you see book reviews, try using
  WP:RX
  to obtain personal copies.
• 3. Write your article using the book reviews as sources.

WhisperToMe (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Dispute over the establishment of the Arabic Wikipedia

Please see: Talk:Arabic_Wikipedia#Credit_for_establishing_the_Arabic_Wikipedia WhisperToMe (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

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)

2014 book The Innovators good source for articles about Wikipedia

The 2014 book

The Innovators: How a Group of Inventors, Hackers, Geniuses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution

is a good source for articles about Wikipedia.

The article History of Wikipedia specifically mentioned:

• ISBN 978-1476708690. 'History of Wikipedia' and its talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia {{cite book}}: External link in |quote= (help
  )

Also a positive mention on page 440:

• ISBN 978-1476708690
  . Tellingly and laudably, Wikipedia's entries on its own history and the roles of Wales and Sanger have turned out, after much fighting on the discussion boards, to be balanced and objective.

— Cirt (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Also an excerpt from the book published by The Daily Beast:

• Isaacson, Walter (October 19, 2014). "You Can Look It Up: The Wikipedia Story". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on October 20, 2014. Retrieved October 25, 2014.

— Cirt (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times: Wikipedia Emerges as Trusted Internet Source for Ebola Information

• Cohen, Noam (October 26, 2014). "Wikipedia Emerges as Trusted Internet Source for Ebola Information". The New York Times. Retrieved October 28, 2014.

Might be a useful source for use in relevant articles. — Cirt (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Wikipedia articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

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) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride

You are invited to participate in

Wiki Loves Pride

!

• What?
  Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT
  culture and history, including pride events
• When? June 2015
• How can you help?

  1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work

  here

  2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see

  examples from last year

  )

  3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please

leave a message on the campaign's main talk page

.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:OR drohowa

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Believer (talk • contribs) 15:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)