Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Making it easier to find Wikiprojects

This is only second time I've been able to find Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory doing either a search or looking from the main menu; not to mention remember there might be a Category:WikiProjects. If oldsters have problems, think about the newbies. Can the following or other things be done to make it easier:

• Portal:Contents doesn't list it and you have to go to Portal:Contents/Portals where you finally find Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory from which you can back track to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council. Add a sentence to the "Portal" section of Portal:Contents saying that WikiProjects also are a portal? And define difference between them there?
• Putting Category:WikiProjects within Category: Content portals?
• Other?

Thanks. CarolMooreDC 20:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Mahalaxmi Hindu Temple of Florence, SC

This is a temple located at 1460 Floyd Circle St. This is the first permanent Hindu Temple in the Florence area and the other surrounding areas in Northeast South Carolina. It was first operated by a brahman and is now operated by an retired indian couple in Florence. This temple is operated off of donations given by visitors to the temple. These donations are taken after prayers and during special ceremonies. Any visitors are welcome to pray here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawan747 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible revitalization of core biographies group

I have proposed one way in which I think the core biographies group of the Biography Project might be perhaps revitalized. Any comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies#Proposed expansion of list would be more than welcome. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh

The project has a way too wide and complex structure, way more than its activity. Can someone advice or lend a hand to cut it down to a proper and manageable size? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I've had a quick look but I can't see any unusual complexity. Where exactly is it? (I've done some archiving as I noticed this hadn't been done since 2008.) --Kleinzach 00:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Since only a handful of not so experienced editors are using it, the sprawled structure and so many pages may not be very helpful for them. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I am also not seeing a problem here. We have a project that has been around since 2007 and has many members with an active talk page. Its well organized and looks maintained. If there is a perceived problem with the group I simply dont see it.Moxy (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Abnormally created project

It looks like the following WikiProject may have been created outside the normal process by an ambitious newcomer: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/women of psychology. Perhaps the creator could be gently requested to submit a proposal. Cheers! Kaldari (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The original page (at Women of Psychology Project prefix:Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/) was moved to its present address by RHaworth [1]. The creator (WebMaven2000) may be getting a little confused by all this! --Kleinzach 04:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Do any of the automated tools help with assessment tagging.

It would be nice to be able to click a couple of check boxes for class, importance, living etc. Do any of them (huggle, AWB, etc) have this feature?--Adam in MO Talk 16:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly. There are a couple bots that do some assessment tagging but not in the way you state. Using AWB you can do some types of tagging but its somewhat manual without building a custom module.

A couple of things you might try. You can scan for things on the main article page like #REDIRECT, stub templates, etc to identify some assessment levels. You can also inherit an assessment from another project if available. I would recommend only using (and excuse the term) reliable projects like US Roads, MILHIST and some of the other more active ones. I would avoid inheriting assessments from inactive or low activity projects if possible. In both cases you would probably need some regex coding to make it work (I have some if you would like it). I hope this helps a little. --Kumioko (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There was such a script (I have a copy), but it doesn't work any longer due to changes in the website (the upgrade from Monobook to Vector). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

starting

Hi I would like to join one of the groups but i can't figure out how. can some one help me with this? and if able on my talk page? Thanx--Cheyenne (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Answered on the users talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Feedback request

Hi! I am contemplating creating a new WP page: How to Write Citations. Before I publish it, I made a draft to get some critique: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Loffy Please take a look, if you have the time, and any feedback regarding this WP page draft is appreciated.

The WP page draft is about a new citation tool found on the web: http://howtowritecitations.com NB!: I am the author behind that tool (http://howtowritecitations.com )

Loffy (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Deletion

I noticed that this WikiProject is not listed in your directory under the contents systems and general maintenance section. I plan to try to get this project active again, so could this be listed? Mad Man American (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I have now added it. When it is definitely active, you can indicate that in the table ("active = yes").

—Wavelength (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Justin Bieber

Is there any wikiproject for Justin Bieber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.203.68.29 (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I expect it would be covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music would be your best bet. That said WP:Canadian music participants seem to prefer talking on article talk pages to get more involed in talks.Moxy (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 30#Template:Persondata

The Persondata template has been listed for deletion or modification at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 30#Template:Persondata. As a project that would be affected if the template is deleted or modifed I am leaving this notice. --Kumioko (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:India articles with comments

Category:India articles with comments, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. This relates to a WP1.0 assessment category used by WP:INDIA, and the discussion has broadened into a wider consideration of such categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Dance

I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dance and I haven't seen much activity there. It seems like a subject that should be more active. Just need some advice on how to get this up again. Sorry if I posted this in the wrong area. Thanks! ReelAngelGirl If I do somthing wrong please let me know 00:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You're in the right area, and it's great to see your enthusiasm. Some suggestions about getting WPDance twirling again can be found here. Good luck! – Lionel ^(talk) 12:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Ravidassia

McKinseies (talk · contribs) could do with some guidance setting up Wikipedia:WikiProject Ravidassia. There's a duplicate page Wikipedia:WikiProject:Ravidassia and a number of talk pages with ill-formatted wikiproject banners - you can find them from Special:Contributions/McKinseies or by looking at Category:WikiProject banners. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Pls help us to start the wikiproject Ravidassia from contributors who can work on it.115.252.127.119 (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding assessment "importance"

Y'know, I really, really kinda hate the idea that assessments seem to actively grade the "importance" of an article. It seems to me to be casting judgments on articles, and that isn't really in our best interests. Maybe we could change the term to something less opinionated, and perhaps change the standard assessment page accordingly? "Priority" might be less problematic, with maybe the existing "importance" text being changed to indicate something to the effect that the priority rating more or less would follow a basic "outline" format, with the highest priority articles being the main article and its most immediate child articles, next being the direct child articles of those first child articles, and so on down the line. Any opinions? John Carter (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that priority is more inline with how most projects use the importance field but I'm not sure its worth the effort of changing it for every project and article at this point. I would be fine with changing it but it would be a major change and a lot of work to replace it. Also, I thought that it priority used to be the commonly used term and it changed to importance a few years ago. --Kumioko (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, all I was really thinking of was basically changing the assessment summary box and, maybe, the standard banner template upon which most of the banners seem to be based. Things like categorization could easily stay the same. John Carter (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh ok. --Kumioko (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography uses "priority", because it's inappropriate to routinely declare some humans to be more important than others. I prefer priority myself, and I believe that any WikiProject may use it, despite the personal preferences of the everything-must-be-identical people who pushed for everyone to use "importance" a while back.

Both options are available in Template:WPBannerMeta. However, I believe you can only have one or the other enabled, so if you switch, you'd probably need a bot to change all the existing instances to your new one.

("Importance", BTW, began with a legitimate question: According to this group of people, how important is it that this article be included in the WP:1.0 offline release of Wikipedia? But that's not how most new users experience it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No disagreement about "importance" in general. But there is probably a bit of a problem in calling so many articles "low importance". That in and of itself might give a lot of editors a reason to back out, if we basically call their work unimportant. "Priority" seems to me anyway to be a more group specific term, and I think editors might be less put out if their article is said to be a low priority to a specific project than of low importance. By the way, regarding the last point, has anyone ever thought of maybe adding at least one priority/importance scale, perhaps "core" or something similar, to indicate those articles which are (or should be) included in the 1.0 release? Doing so might help get a bit more attention to such articles. John Carter (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Although the word “importance” does indicate a somewhat subjective judgement, its use does not seem problematic to me. The ratings are still useful. If a specific biographical article has a high or low “importance” or “priority”, it does not logically follow that the person discussed is necessarily someone with a correspondingly high or low “importance” or “priority”. Wikipedia has Wikipedia:Vital articles and related lists. Please see “The 100” and The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, by Michael H. Hart and Time Person of the Year.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

In some cases, I would agree. I would also point to the various list of major figures in Human Accomplishment. But those are a rather select number. Also, on a bit of a tangent, I wonder exactly how the 1.0 Release list of 30,000 central articles is. I would assume that, to a degree, all of those articles would be some form of "top" or "core" importance. Maybe it could be broken down a bit further, like between Britannica's Macropedia and Micropedia articles, but it might very much help the development of those articles if we could somehow make it clear that any of those articles which clearly and directly link to tee central topic of a given WikiProject or task force were marked as such. Doing so might allow for greater differentiation between the "lesser' articles, as well as maybe help get more people to work on the selected articles. John Carter (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's kind of the point behind the "top-importance" (or "top-priority") rating.

Outside of WikiProjects, there's also the WP:VITAL list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Dallas Cowboys

Would like to start a Dallas Cowboys project under sports/American Football. Any objections? Anyone interested in helping? ThanksJobberone (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As always, a WikiProject is a collection of people, not pages. So your first task is to find several people who would want to work with you. Until then, simply join Wikipedia:WikiProject American football and share your enthusiasm for the Cowboys there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject:National Football League is actually the place to go. There are already subprojects there for a number of other NFL teams. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding guidelines to a project marked as inactive

User:GeorgeLouis asked for help here.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate Florida wikiprojects

WP:Viva Florida 500 WP duplicates the work of WP:WikiProject Florida the only difference being that it is somehow related to a Florida tourism initiative. Dougweller (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

A WikiProject is really a group of people, not a subject area, so that's okay. There's no rule that says two groups of people can't have similar interests. (If the tourism one has gone dormant, then the regular one could "acquire" it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

And with a swift discussion and a simple page move another useful project is dead. Its funny really that the least productive and active of the projects gobbled up the more productive and active one and successfully killed it. --Kumioko (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you do anything positive anymore? This project is not dead, please don't try to bury it in its infancy. Only recently one of our more experienced editors and administrators, FloNight, expressed an interest in it. It's now a task force. Why is a Virginian posting here anyway? Seriously, you used to do a lot of good work, and now you're complaining on a Florida wikiproject where you don't seem to have any interest? Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Not griping its a point of fact. The editor that created it, maintained it and worked hard on it did a solid stream of edits to it all the way up till January 31st. Many edits a day every day. Since then nothing, only the move stuffing it under WPFlorida. This is exacttly the type of activity you and several others have repeatedly and unfairly blamed me for with WikiProject United States. Forcing other projects to "Join". Yes I left a lot of messages on projects pages but I never forced them to join as you did to this one. To address your other point. I thought I did a lot of good work too and tried very hard too and devoted a lot of time, energy and thought into it. But the community recently showed me how that effort was appreciated and that I needn't waste my time in those areas. So now, I will be primarily spending my time in discussions if at all. --Kumioko (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I was on my way back here to say I can see why you are commenting about a state Wikiproject. Could I have the diffs where I've blamed you for anything? And what I did was try, successfully, to rescue this from deletion. How is that a bad thing? I found the MfD and suggested a solution and without that it might have been deleted. I and others have offered to help the editor who created it. So far as I can tell the editor who created it, Ourhistory153, agreed. Ourhistory153 has edited only once this month but that edit doesn't suggest the task force is dead. Dougweller (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well perhaps I was a bit strong in words but I still don't think that there was a need to delete it or merge it if the person was working on it didn't want it. It amounted to a there are more of us than there are of you discussion. IMO, the project was doing fine. I thought that you had made several comments in the past when I temporarily sucked Florida and several of the Florida projects into the Supported projects list of WPUS, after leaving a discussion open for quite a long time on the projects talk page, with no reply. I then, without argument as far as I remember, put them back as requested and without incident. I even did a bunch of work to created some missing categories and subpages (like setting up article alerts and Featured content pages). I made a lot of comments and discussions though so I am frankly too lazy to go dig for them. They are likely under my talk page archive or the WPUFlorida talk page archive. --Kumioko (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, nothing to do with me, you must be thinking of someone else, so far as I can remember or see on the archives I never got involved in that. I still think I rescued it from MfD and hopefully gave it more clout as a task force of the Florida wikiproject. Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well for what its worth I apologize. I think I found who the editor was (not gonna name names) and it wasn't you. I am also glad you spoke up at the MFD. IMO that MFD never should have been submitted in the first place or should have been speedily closed but it would have been a shame if it got deleted. --Kumioko (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's refreshing and encouraging to find we can discuss and settle this amicably. Dougweller (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Me too. --Kumioko (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Indications of relevant reference books, specifically encyclopedias and dictionaries, to individual projects

And he makes yet another obscenely long subject line. Oh, well. The idea is, I think, fairly well expressed in the above. Do the rest of you think that the various WikiProjects out there would benefit from having lists of reference books, specifically including dictionaries and encyclopedias, on one of their project pages? I have been going through EBSCOHost and JSTOR for some lists of some such books, and you can see some of the results, specifically relating to religion/mythology/philosophy, at User:John Carter/Religion reference. I could maybe go through the relevant databanks and generate lists of other reference books as well, and could, I suppose, maybe share the results of such searches with others, if I ever figured out how to share folders like that. Hey, I'm stupid that way. Anyway, I would be interested in what the rest of you might think of the idea. John Carter (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The heading Reference books for WikiProjects is adequately brief and adequately informative.

Please see Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox).

(I am correcting the spelling of encyclopedias in your heading.)

—Wavelength (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I consider your idea to be excellent. I suggest that you continue to generate such lists, and that you add a link to each such list, by means of an entry under See also on each relevant WikiProject page. I suggest that you also maintain a list of links to those lists (possibly called User:John Carter/Reference lists), and that you add a link to that meta-list, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council, under Resources. By the way, you might wish to copy or move those lists from user namespace to project namespace (that is, Wikipedia namespace). For example, you might copy or move User:John Carter/Religion reference to Wikipedia:Religion reference. The meta-list might be copied or moved to Wikipedia:Reference lists.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting in userspace because I hope, ultimately, to break down the existing list into individual lists for each religion/philosophy/religion project, after I've gotten some of the raw data together. The big problem I see eventually is the sheer length. From what little I've done so far on JSTOR alone, I'm figuring that that one site will produce about 20,000 citations for various encyclopedic topics, probably around 1 to 5 thousand books. Maybe, if anyone is interested, they might be able to contact me on whether they would want to share the list I generate and maybe start development of some of the other main topic lists, that might help significantly. John Carter (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I prefer that you work on the lists alone, so that there is uniformity in the style of the lists generated. Because of the volume of work involved, setting priorities is important. Books on "religion/mythology/philosophy" are useful in providing information to people for making decisions about goals and values in living. (Of course, the ability to distinguish fact from fiction is helpful in those decisions.)

I suggest that the next long list be about languages, because of the importance of communication among people of different linguistic backgrounds, especially now as global influences increase the interconnections among billions of human beings.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I intend to eventually work on all of them, but would welcome perhaps other editors maybe doing some of the "setup work" for some of the other major topics with which they are familiar, like History, Military, Law, Medicine, Sports, Visual Arts, Performing Arts, and the like. The current list I am developing is I hope eventually going to be broken into several separate lists for each WikiProject and work group which directly relates to that broad topic area. But, with the huge number of entries in JSTOR and other databanks, I do think it would be welcome if others might be interested in doing some of the "setup" work for other areas. John Carter (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not have a clear idea of what is meant by "setup work". Can you please clarify with a definition or an example (preferably both)? An example might be a particular previous version of User:John Carter/Religion reference, and it might be a particular version of a new list that you could develop to that stage, for the purpose of the clarification.

Also, would you like helpers to do the setting up on subpages in your user space, or on subpages in their user space? If you dedicate a special subpage in your user space, specifically with instructions on how to help, that would probably be beneficial. My Google search for how to delegate reported many results.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Right now, all I think I am doing is "setup work." My intention, as I think I said, but maybe not clearly enough, is to ultimately break down the existing list into separate sections which would be directly relevant to individual related WikiProjects, and, maybe with their consent, adding that material to either the project page or a subpage. Basically, I'm thinking there might be more of those groups by the time I'm finished, and don't want to have to do revisions later. If any other editors were interested in maybe doing the same thing with other broad topic areas, I would be more than willing to give them what assistance I can, like, for instance, e-mailing them the citations I've gotten from JSTOR and maybe elsewhere as I gather them.

I do think it would be potentially a great benefit to newer editors, and those not overwhelmingly familiar with the current research on a topic, to have such lists available, and maybe where doable individual articles on the reference works, at least indicating their described strengths and weaknesses if any, both for indications of current academic opinions on some developing or controversial topics and, possibly, indications as to at least some topics which might be notable enough for a separate article which don't yet have them. If anyone did wish to do something similar with another topic, I think I would at least need their e-mail, to send them the citations lists, but that would be about it. I would be willing to offer whatever assistance I could to such people as well, but think that, basically, the objective might be the most important thing, and however it would be gotten to would reasonable be up to any interested individuals to determine what would work best for them. John Carter (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Your latest reply clarifies things, somewhat.

Anyway, EBSCO Publishing seems to require registration, and access to JSTOR for non-registrants seems to be limited.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, given the amount of information I have yet to access, it was probably a bit premature anyway. I will try to send myself e-mails of all the information I find, and, when I am done, maybe start similar discussion at a time when action could be quickly implemented. John Carter (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking for help/tools for a couple of tasks

I've been working on shoring up WP:ALASKA, since the task appears to have languished for several years. Two issues came up. First, the article total of Category:WikiProject Alaska articles and the sum total of articles in the subcategories of Category:Alaska articles by importance add up to the same number. However, the sum total of articles in the subcategories of Category:Alaska articles by quality add up to 3 articles more than this. Does this mean that there are three articles which are somehow tagged for quality twice? If so, are automated tools available to check for and fix the problem? Second, Wikipedia:WikiProject Alaska/Alaska recent changes could stand to be updated. There was something on that article's talk page about perhaps automated tools available to generate an article list, but I'm also clueless about that. I can't imagine it being so hard to do otherwise, albeit probably rather clunky.RadioKAOS (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

As for numbers, you should probably go by the project summary table. Clicking on "lists" and "logs" will give you more options. User:Femto Bot is updating project watchlists, so to update Alaska recent changes you should contact User:Rich Farmbrough on his talk page and put in a bot request. Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring categories, there are 5 pages in the "quality" tree not in the "importance" tree, three from portal space and 2 from Wikipedia space. Conversely there is one page (Wikipedia talk:AK in the "importance" tree and not in the quality tree. I have added WikiProject Alaska to Femto Bot's task list. Rich Farmbrough, 20:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC).

I fixed the categorisation issues. Rich Farmbrough, 20:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC).

Active versus inactive

Sorry if this may seem a bit simplistic as a question but what is the diff? I've recently created a few articles on Soviet military awards and after seeing just how poorly the subject is covered (actually, I'm freaked out considering this isn't exactly a new subject), have decided to carry on in what should result in well over 50 new articles on the subject in the next 5 to 6 months. Then I see Wiki Project SOVIET UNION is inactive for some weird reason... Exactly what impact if any will the "inactive" tag have on my work? Will this influx of articles re activate the category? Is it because of a lack of volunteers? Cheers! Fdutil (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

A project becomes inactive if there is no visible activity on the project pages. A more mechanical approach could look at the assesments/taggings and see if there is any activity there. I am currently a member of a project where the only ongoing activity is tagging and assessing of articles in scope. Editors might or might not use the resulting lists/statistics to decide which articles they work on. Agathoclea (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

A WikiProject is a group of people who say that they want to work together. It is not a subject area. If the "group of people" isn't active, then the WikiProject (by definition) isn't active. But that doesn't say anything at all about how active the non-group members in the articles. Sometimes a WikiProject goes inactive because things are going so well in the articles, or (more commonly) because so few people are working on these articles, that no formally organized group is necessary.

By the way, if you'd like, you can try to WP:REVIVE that WikiProject. If the previous group of people has gone dormant, then "friendly takeover" by a new group of people is normally welcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent discussion about project scope and articles tagging

I just wanted to leave a quick not about an issue that I feel seriously undermines the integrity of Wikiproject's. There is a discussion at Village pump (policy) about whether a WikiProject and its members are allowed to set their own scope and tag articles they believe are in it or if the community or another WikiProject can tell them no. The prevailing argument is that they can. Since the council covers WikiProjects and the policy that governs what a project can and cannot do I wanted to inform the council of this development so that the applicable policies can be changed. --Kumioko (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles#Multiple-editor ownership. It seems to me that probably a very large number of articles can reasonably be overseen by more than one WikiProject each. To the question of reaching a consensus accepted by everyone, I have no simple answer.

See also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS sub-guidelines: Independent and can contradict MOS? (permanent link here) for a related discussion.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally I am inclined to agree. However in a recent discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States an ANI between me and MArkvs88 and a few others regarding this "policy" the "community consensus" has been fervently indicating otherwise. Additionally, it was voiced by Diego and a couple of others that, projects cannot dictate their own scopes or tag articles and that if a few editors outside that consense together, they can overrule a WikiProjects members. There are dark days in the future of Wikipedia I sense, dark days in deed...I am getting visions of He who shall not be named.--Kumioko (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you previously by a couple editors. It says in the WikiProject Guideline Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Identify_the_best_structure: "WikiProject - This format is best for topics with thousands, or at least several hundred, of pages in the proposed scope. You'll still want to investigate any related projects, because they may already have a task force covering the same topic." which heavily indicates if there are other projects covering that area you should probably not include it in your scope. -DJSasso (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stop, your making me dizzy. The bottom line is the WPUS members set their scope. If you don't like it go and discuss it on the project page. I haev already stated I am done there. If they want to shutdown the project, break it into pieces or refine its scope its fine because I'm tired of being the one left holding the bag when the dust settles. --Kumioko (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This is disruptive, Kumioko. You are welcome to encourage participation in the pump discussion, but this is simply forum shopping. Whether or not the community is "correct" is not up to the maintainers of this page, but to the community, and you are welcome to continue to discuss with that group of people. Looking for a different answer here is simply the incorrect behavior. --Izno (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how many times we are going to have to repeat this until it sinks in. Please go read WP:WikiProject coordination. If necessary, please memorize the following sentences from that section: A WikiProject's members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project, which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project. Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article. If you have trouble understanding the meaning of those sentences, please let me know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS which is a policy not a guideline like that sentence prevents WikiProjects from overruling the greater community if the community thinks the scope of a particular project is too large. -DJSasso (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that you will find any evidence of any such community sentiment; the community so far has been remarkably restrained in telling its WP:VOLUNTEERs which articles they're supposed to be interested in and which ones they're not allowed to be interested in. But I agree that LOCALCONSENSUS applies: the couple of editors at some local article have no business whatsoever telling a 70-member WikiProject that they aren't allowed to express an interest in an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with people telling people what they are supposed to be interested in. People are free to be interested in whatever they want. But the wider community can say that wikiproject A shouldn't cover x articles since its entire scope is identical to wikiproject b and that discussion for those articles should take place at the already existing project instead of creating a second one with an identical scope. Which in the end would be more beneficial than splitting up the discussion causing there to be less discussion in both places and possibly causing the two projects to be working at cross purposes. -DJSasso (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not logical. If the WikiProject is interested in an article, they need to tag it. Tagging it is the only way for that article to appear in the list of articles they're interested in (and therefore to get bot-based updates on what's happening to the article). Refusing to let them tag the article is functionally equivalent to telling them that they're not allowed to be interested in the article or track its status. You and I have no business telling editors which articles they're allowed to track.

We do not have a rule that says WikiProject scopes cannot overlap. In fact, we have rules that say that projects with absolutely identical scopes are permitted. A WikiProject is not its scope; it's the people. If two groups of people want to work on the same articles, but not work with each other, then that's okay with us. I can even give you examples of this happening. For example, every article within WP:WikiProject First aid's scope is also within WP:EMS's scope. I agree that having multiple groups working on any given article can lead to conflict, but sometimes we end up with separate groups anyway, and telling people that "you have to play with everyone" didn't work in Kindergarten, and it certainly won't work here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

We certainly do there is language all throughout the guideline suggesting that we do not overlap projects if its not necessary. Just because discussions happen on the same page does not mean they have to play together. Again all a wikiproject is, is a centralized place to talk about a group of articles. It isn't the articles, its not the people either, its just a place to discuss and a tool to help people work on a group of articles. First Aid is a task force not a wikiproject and is inactive.....and EMS is inactive....so not really a good example. In fact its a perfect example of what I said. EMS should be redirected and merged into First Aid especially since they both are inactive. And as for telling people what they can track...this in no way tells them what they can track. The are still more than capable of tracking any article they wish. You just join another wikiproject or you get your bot to make a combined list. It isn't difficult. -DJSasso (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of what the "guidelines" may suggest we break the rule all the time. Take for example, WikiProjects Biography, the various projects like MILHist with Biography task forces, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, Another example is WikiProject Aviation, the other various aviation related projects and the MILHIST aviation. Really the bottom line is that if a group or editors want to start a project, even if its a duplicate scope, then we should let them. It certainly doesn't harm the pedia to have 2 banners on an article and we are only justifying projects having ownership over articles by enabling them to say that they can. The fact remains, as I and others have said, there are many reasons, above simple tagging, that make tagging an article useful to a project. Besides just visibility of the project, there are bots that need it, it allows easier catgeorization (WikiProject X articles vice selecting hundreds or thousands of categories), etc. --Kumioko (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

DJSasso, your assertion that "all a wikiproject is, is a centralized place to talk about a group of articles" is simply wrong. A WikiProject is a group of people. See the definition in the first sentence of WP:WikiProject: "A WikiProject is a group of editors that want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia."

As for what "should" happen to EMS and First Aid, let me point out that they were once merged, and that the First Aid folks pitched a screaming fit over it. We cannot force our volunteers to merge if they don't want to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That amounts to the same thing. Anyone talking on the page is that group of people. The project itself is just a means of facilitating the people working together to do whatever. Whether you are talking on page X or page Y it doesn't really affect what you can or can't do since the location doesn't change your ability to work on those articles. Just that there is a page is the important part. A WikiProject is just a tool that helps those people work together. It's not a cool kids club or anything else, that people treat it that way isn't good. -DJSasso (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not just a matter of "anyone talking on the page". I post notes to a lot of WikiProjects, and nobody mistakes me for a member or participant in those groups, even though I'm "talking on the page". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

A new welcome template suggesting a WikiProject

I designed one, see here for details. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. What do people think about using this only with active WikiProjects? Rich Farmbrough, 20:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC).

Activity is in the eye of a beholder :) Directing a newbie to inactive project should not hurt him more than directing him nowhere, and maybe s/he will even revitalize it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

On the flip side, I know that new editors have enough issues with the culture shock of Wikipedia in general; asking or implying that they should help to revitalize a dead/dying project could stifle any enthusiasm for the project as a whole. Which isn't to say it's a bad idea, but that I know I probably would have gone "what the hell, are you nuts?" :) --Izno (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Directing a newbie to an inactive project is a terrible idea. When I started, I thought they were a great place to get help, and only slowly realized how many projects are empty echoing wastelands. Reviving a dead project is a second-semester activity, not something you want to send a newbie off to do, unless you want to disillusion them right off the bat. Franamax (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I second Franamax's opinion. An alternative might be to suggest they browse the Signpost's extensive archive of interviewed WikiProjects to give them an idea of the breadth of the active WikiProject communities they could join. -Mabeenot (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Does a new project have to be proposed here first or can it simply begin?

I am attempting to start a project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Occupy movement and believe there are more than the needed users interested and more than enough articles. I would like to attempt to fast track this as a clean up effort and allow users interested a more centralized area to discuss article improvements and keep the articles within guidelines and policy which many lack. Is this a big no no, or is it alright to begin?--Amadscientist (talk) 09:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. I recommend removing the space and capitalizing P: Wikipedia:WikiProject Occupy movement.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe this project should use the recommended proposal page and show a good faith attempt to stick to suggested guidelines and policy. Lead by example and not by ignorance!--Amadscientist (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest adding it to the proposals page as well. We have at times in the past had projects started with the best of intentions which, for whatever reason, get few if any really interested editors and ultimately become, unfortunately, themselves a bit of a task in cleaning up. Also, I think, maybe, that it might be useful to perhaps at least consider broadening the scope to include the Arab spring and other related movements. John Carter (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

That is actually a good idea. Should that be added to the finished proposal or just to the scope when started?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd personaly add it to the proposal, as it might help draw a few more editors in at an early stage, and the more people involved early the better. John Carter (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Good call! Thanks! Done--Amadscientist (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

To Wavelength and John Carter's good advice, I'll add this: don't start creating pages for the group until you have an actual group of people. If only a couple of people are interested, then you're better off "camping" at a related, larger WikiProject (perhaps WikiProject Sociology or WikiProject Politics). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm not even going to sandbox anything. When there are enough people interested I will begin.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Guidance for maintenance WikiProjects

Just a quick question. The proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Merge has nearly enough support to get started. Reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide, it appears that that guide is mainly focused on topical WikiProjects. Is there any specific guidance available for people starting maintenance WikiProjects? Quasihuman | Talk 23:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Conservatism

WikiProject Conservatism has been operating now for approximately one year without a clear scope. Several discussions have taken place on the project talk page during that time, with no clear and specific scope ever emerging. As a result of this lack of purpose, the project has unfortunately disrupted multiple topics, such as atheism and LGBT-related articles, as its most active members add project tags to articles that they personally believe are appropriate. This has lead to members "declaring war" on unrelated topics, such as the recent tagging of militant atheism which caused a huge dispute, and the more recent tagging of Christianity and sexuality topics. I would like to ask this council to conduct a formal review of the stated scope of this project and to take a look at the articles being currently tagged. I've reviewed this situation over the last week, and I think the tagging is excessive and is being used to create a battleground atmosphere by culture warriors who are using the project, not to improve encyclopedia articles, but to target views they disagree with and wish to remove. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

As a member of WikiProject Conservatism, I find this attack on the project utterly offensive. This is, to me, a slander on each and every of our 70+ members, an assumption of bad faith without any sort of backing evidence or proof.

We do indeed have a scope and, despite the ideas of outside editors that our (admittedly broad) scope is unacceptable, it is there. This project has been repeatedly attacked for our scope, most notably in its deletion nomination, despite the fact that it is the sole responsibility of the WikiProject to define its scope, not outside influences. This means we can in fact decide to remove or include an article, as does every other WikiProject. It is a basic right of a project to do such and we utilize the right.

As it stands, our project is devoted to conservatism of all forms, and our broad scope represents that. It is not, as the editor above suggests, a vendetta to destroy the WikiProject. Toa Nidhiki05 01:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please declare your scope here, and compare it to other similar projects. I don't see any specific scope stated. I do see many, many complaints made by members of the Wikipedia community about your article tagging as off-topic, and I see many, many disputes and edit wars seemingly caused by your tagging and patrol of articles outside your scope, which as far as I can tell, does not exist. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This editor's behavior over the past week or so has been erratic to say the least. These accusations are just... bizarre. I think an RFCU may be necessary to protect the community from this users rants and ravings. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please remember to address questions and avoid attacking other editors. Viriditas (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If you took more than a cursory look at the talk page you would see it in the FAQ, Viriditas. Toa Nidhiki05

Please answer this question: what is the specific scope of WikiProject Conservatism and how does it compare to the scope of similar projects? I would like to quote from the WPC guide: "The statement of scope need not be elaborate or detailed, but it should allow prospective members and other editors to determine whether or not any given article is likely to fall within the scope of the group's work." This problem has been communicated to the group for some time with no resolution in sight. I therefore ask that this council determine the proper scope for the project and make any necessary recommendations that would help resolve this issue. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is disruptive editing. To the extent that the project is a problem at all, it would be if it were being used to WP:CANVASS project members for the purpose of creating disruption. If such canvasing is occurring for the purposes of maintaining a battleground, the individual editors doing the canvasing can be dealt with appropriately. I don't think there is anything to do with the project in and of itself. aprock (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProjects are not required to have a sensible or natural scope. The scope can be just as arbitrary as the editors' watchlists.

See what the Guide says: "WikiProjects are allowed to have strange, arbitrary, or unpredictable scopes ("Tulips, except for my least favorite species, plus my favorite photo software")..." We strongly recommend that scopes not be strange, arbitrary, or unpredictable (because sensible scopes are associated with project success), but they are permitted to do so.

Fundamentally, a WikiProject is a group of people. If you've got a group that wants to work on whatever they find at Special:Random today, then that's okay with us. Project scopes are not supposed to duplicate the category/content structures. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not a member of this (or any) Wikiproject. I find the OP statements, however, to be far more "disruptive" than any alleged acts of this Wikipoject on any articles. Wen anyone iterates argumentation on multiple boards, my own suggestion is the Collect's Law applies: The person who posts the greatest amount of repeated verbiage to a discussion, is least likely to be correct. Collect (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Time to move on. Personal vendettas are not our concerns here. Moxy (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt has issued a number of invitatiions to the project to editors expressing a conservative view and none at all to editors who have not. Many of the invitees are new editors or have long block/sanction histories. Then he has tagged articles which do not clearly belong to conservatism. It seems that the purpose of the project is to lobby for a particular view, which is contrary to neutrality and canvassing. TFD (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Lionel can invite whoever he wants, as can you or me. Anyone can, as a matter or fact. If I were going to start a WikiProject, I would try and get editors interested in the subject involved - a good place to look might be fans or people who share the views and interest in that subject. It doesn't make much sense to ask an editor who hates hip-hop music to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Hip hop, would it? You seem to think it is wrong to invite editors that are interested in the subject and that Lionelt is evil for not inviting x person. Why the hell can't you do it if you think they deserve an invite?

As for tagging, that is, once again, a right of editors to do so. Any editor, in or out of the project, can tag an article. If you think it doesn't belong (which is relative, being that some people may have different views on what belongs than others), you are more than welcome to start a discussion to remove it. That's how WIkiProjects work - collaborations and discussion.

As usual, all your 'concerns' about the project are directed at a particular editor, and if you find his editing disruptive you can do it at the proper channel - AN/I, or something along that line. Instead, you seem to want the project deleted or renamed to your liking, so of course you would want to blame the entire project rather than one editor. It's a classic case of guilt by association - 'I think x editor is bad so the whole project is bad and needs to be deleted'. Toa Nidhiki05 20:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I went looking for the faq that is supposed to contain the scope and couldn't find it. It seems like such a simple question, 'what's the scope of your project', that it's very hard to understand the apparent reluctance to supply a direct answer. And when I see a leading member of the project referring to another editor's posts as "rants and ravings" more alarm bells go off. I don't expect responsible editors to talk like that. There are legitimate concerns being expressed about the project. They may be wrong (although that hasn't yet been demonstrated to my satisfaction), but their expression is legitimate. Dougweller (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It is on the top of the talk page, and the scope is the fifth question down. It is very hard to miss and quite frankly it is getting old telling people where it is. Toa Nidhiki05 20:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is there a question of the scope of WP Conservatism? The scope maybe broad, but it has been clearly hashed out in multiple discussions on the WikiProject's talk page. Are we to next require a RFC for every article that is tagged by every WikiProject in order to come up with a consensus that said WikiProject should include it under its purview? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've found it now. I expected it to be linked from one of the main pages, but then I also expected a simple answer here and was disappointed. Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me if I'm reading this wrong: when I look at the project scope all I see is a circular statement that amounts to, and I'm paraphrasing, "the scope of WikiProject Conservatism is conservatism". How does this, according to the guide, enable users "to determine whether or not any given article is likely to fall within the scope of the group's work." For an example of a project scope that does this, please look at WikiProject Libertarianism. The scope of that project "includes coverage of the different libertarian philosophies and alternatives, as well as libertarian political action, parties and candidates worldwide." Would the members of WikiProject Conservatism say that their scope is the same or similar? If so, would they be willing to say so on the project page? Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The scope, whatever it ends up being, needs to be made clear to all so that article tagging can also be clear to all. Binksternet (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, no. The scope needs to be clear to the members themselves, because they need to know which articles they're working on. It's their job, not ours, to tag the articles they're supporting for their WikiProject. It's usually convenient for them if the rest of us can figure out the scope well enough to help them with their task, but if we can't, then we'll just make our best guess (or ignore them and help some other WikiProject), and they will just have to clean up the mess we make.

This is both a philosophical and a practical issue: it's their job, but frankly even with the most explicit, detailed scope possible, mistakes and borderline cases will happen. You'll find a lot of edit summaries that say "Rm WPMED template (page is not within scope)" in my contributions, despite WPMED having a project scope definition that runs to two screenfuls. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

But, that's not what the guide says. It specifically says that the scope "should allow prospective members and other editors to determine whether or not any given article is likely to fall within the scope of the group's work." In other words, WikiProjects aren't just for the members, they are for the entire community, whether they are members or not. And we have many instances of non-members complaining about the tagging of articles by this project over the last year. You can't just ignore the problem and hope it goes away. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's the best practice, and we recommend (but do not require) it because it provides specific, clear benefits (e.g., assistance from other editors in tagging articles). But if they don't want that benefit, then it's not required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Being a part of the community is not voluntary. WikiProjects are not just for members. They serve all editors, members or not. Viriditas (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Failing to provide a very detailed description of your group's scope that is clear to all other editors, including those who are so upset about the group's existence that their willingness to understand the scope is questionable, does not make the group "not part of the community". This group's scope seems to be just as clear and detailed as WP:WikiProject Football#Scope, WP:WikiProject Food and drink#Scope, and hundreds of others. I see no reason to impose a higher standard on them merely because you aren't sure what they'll think is "related to conservatism". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Being a part of the community and being subject to feedback from the community isn't a "higher standard", it's required. Anyone should be able to determine whether an article should fall under the scope of the group. Many editors have said that they cannot and have criticized the selection of articles by the group. One likely explanation for this problem is a weak and ambiguous scope that appears weaker and ambiguous than virtually every other politically-related project. This is not football nor a food. Please endeavor to make analogies and comparisons relevant. "WikiProject Conservatism covers the topic of conservatism" isn't a helpful or informative scope. A helpful and informative scope would read something like "The Conservatism project improves topics related to different philosophies of conservatism and alternatives, as well as political action, parties and candidates related to conservatism worldwide," which is a derivative from the Libertarianism scope. Does this scope match the current scope of conservatism? I have asked several times and I have received no answer. Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This is certainly an issue worthy of some investigation. Viriditas's comment should not dismissed as "rants and ravings". Just a week and a half ago, in the wake of the militant atheism incident of February 9 to 11, I suggested this discussion as one of a number of needed follow-ups. In general, the task of tagging articles should be left to a given WikiProject, and specific justification for each and every tag need not be required. But a WikiProject should make a clear statement that defines its scope and I'm not sure WikiProject Conservatism does that adequately; for a point of comparison one might want to consider the clear and detailed statement of scope for WikiProject College football. While we should allow WikiProjects to be "strange" and serve the idiosyncratic interests of a given group of editors, when a subject is controversial and politically-charged we need to be careful that the function of the WikiProject is to enhance neutral coverage of that subject, not to advance the POVs of those who endorse the philosophies of the subject. Some of the personal statements of interest made here by WikiProject Conservatism members suggest that their aim is the problematic later (i.e. POV advancement), not the constructive former (i.e. neutral encyclopedia building). It also strikes me as problematic that we have a WikiProject Conservatism, but don't have a WikiProject Liberalism. Organization of editing around these two ideologies ought to be done with some measure of parity and cooperation, perhaps each as taskforce under the aegis of WikiProject Politics. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a WikiProject Socialism, which is the true counterpart and has just as large (perhaps even POV-pushing) and has more articles than us tagged. Liberalism is not a synonym for social liberalism worldwide. Additionally, blanket accusations of POV-pushing on the Project are an accusation against each and every member of the Project and should be leveled only with clear evidence,. Toa Nidhiki05 03:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you respond directly to Jweiss11's comments and stop changing the subject? Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Toa Nidhiki05 03:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Then I must ask you to stop participating in this discussion per Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, which asks editors to communicate and focus on the discussion and not to ignore questions. This is to avoid any semblance of obstruction that some POV pushing editors might wish to bring to the topic. Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I will not do that. I refuse to answer the same question more than once just because you don't like the answer or 'didn't hear it'. I ask you to stop hounding an entire project that has responded to every single 'issue' you bring up dozens of times in many, many talk page sections. You are accusing an entire project (ie. dozens of members including myself) of severe issues of POV-pushing and disruption and haven't provided a shred of evidence to back it up, and quite frankly I'm getting ticked off by it. There are millions of articles to edit - maybe you should do that instead of make unfounded allegations against an entire WikiProject. Toa Nidhiki05 04:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You haven't answered any questions. When asked what the scope of WikiProject Conservatism is, you refuse to reply. The project page says "WikiProject Conservatism is a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to conservatism." In other words, "The Conservatism project improves topics related to Conservatism". That's not an acceptable statement of scope, and this kind of deliberate ambiguity has led to multiple disputes and conflicts. Compare the Conservatism scope to the WikiProject Libertarianism scope which says that the project "includes coverage of the different libertarian philosophies and alternatives, as well as libertarian political action, parties and candidates worldwide." That is fairly specific. Would you say that the scope of WikiProject Conservatism is about the same? If it is, should it be changed to say "The Conservatism project improves topics related to different philosophies of conservatism and alternatives, as well as political action, parties and candidates related to conservatism worldwide." Is this accurate? Does it leave anything out? Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Jweiss, you misunderstand the purpose of WikiProjects. They are not content areas. They are groups of people who want to work together to improve the encyclopedia. We could have a dozen separate groups that choose to work on the same articles; we could have no groups that choose to work on some articles. If no group of people happens to want to work on articles about liberalism, or about fruit, or about any given subject, then that's okay. If we end up with a series of "WikiProject Conservatisms" differentiated only by number, then that's okay, too. We don't try to "balance" the groups by insisting that people create a WikiProject Maria Callas to "balance" WP:WikiProject Mariah Carey. It's okay, really: people can work together on whatever articles happen to interest them, without worrying about whether there's a matching group working on related articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no such "misunderstanding" on Jweiss's part at all; he has been actively involved in a WikiProject for some time so saying he's misunderstood its purpose is ridiculous. In point of fact, his statement about task forces is important and should be answered. Multiple editors are worried about the scope of this project and why it hasn't been refined to reflect the scope of every other active poltics-related project. Multiple editors are also concerned that many of the articles tagged by this project don't fit the scope of "conservatism". These concerns have not been addressed. Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProjects can accept any article they want, even those outside the scope. Toa Nidhiki05 04:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

IMO a person who understands WikiProjects would never say that it "strikes [him] as problematic that we have a WikiProject Conservatism, but don't have a WikiProject Liberalism." Merely participating in a project does not mean that you understand what they really are (i.e., social groups, not content areas).

Toa, technically, if a group accepts an article, it is within their scope, by definition. Scope == articles the group supports. What you probably meant to say is that groups are permitted to accept articles that aren't obviously within their scope. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant. :) Toa Nidhiki05 04:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Good discussions don't speculate as to what an editor understands or not, and focus solely on addressing the points. You've changed the discussion by focusing on what you think Jweiss believes or doesn't believe, and that isn't helpful. The overall point of Jweiss's comment was that a larger parent project, such as WikiProject Politics, might do a better job managing disparate ideologies, such as conservatism and liberalism, in the form of a task force. I admit that is unlikely to happen, but it was a point you chose to ignore. However, I would ask that you refrain from speculating on what editors understand or don't understand in the future. If you have questions about what somebody understands, ask them, but please don't set yourself up as an authority on what somebody understands, because you're not. Everyone has their own interpretation, and I disagree with yours. Viriditas (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I just came across this discussion, and it looks like it's getting a little heated. I think it would save a lot of time and argument if it got some input from uninvolved editors - how about listing this at WP:WQA? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

IMO this whole discussion is a waste of time for 2 reasons. First there is no point in arguing that a WikiProject has the right to create its own scope or tag articles in it. That was proven wrong in ANI with regards to a dsicussion between me and Markvs88 last week when the community decided otherwise. So if the community decides that the scope of the project needs to be adjusted then they are allowed to do so even over the concerns or disagreements of the project and its members. Second, the point that only certain editors where invited is not favoratism, its common sense. If I edited articles relating to Arizona I wouldn't automatically invite someone from Nebraska to join the project. Its the same thing here. Certainly, if someone wanted to join the project and had differing views then they should be allowed to but there is nothing requiring them to be "invited". --Kumioko (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, it was at this discussion at the Village pump not ANI where the community decided that WikiProjects can no longer set their own scope without first getting a consensus from outside editors. I recommend someone review these new policy changes that were agreed too by the community and the appropriate changes be made to the applicable guidelines. --Kumioko (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You are clearly misstating what came out of that discussion. Nowhere did anyone say you first had to get consensus from outside editors. Not a single person. What it said was that anyone can be part of a discussion to change a projects scope. The guideline already states anyone that edits articles that are part of wikiproject are by default a member of the wikiproject so in your particular case you were saying no one but "official" members of the wikiproject had a say in the scope of the project. But the the guideline clearly states the opposite, that anyone that has edited an article in the scope of a project is by default a member of the project. And also WP:LOCALCONSENSUS clearly states that the a Wikiproject has to defer to the wider community if the wider community disagrees with its practices. But in no place did anyone say you had to get the wider communities permission prior to setting your scope. I would also note, there was no change to existing guidelines/policies. They all already say this. -DJSasso (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe so, if a project sets their scope and then the community later comes back and tells the project no, then they should justify that no with a solid reason. Otherwise we are seriously undermining one of the primary purposes of a WikiProject. A group of editors working together on a subject of common interest to the members. If they are not members of the project, for whatever reason and still edit articles thats great, but they should not get say in the scope of the project that they don't want to be a part of. Period.

However, I admit that its unlikely that anyone will agree with my perceived jaded view of things. Since you clarified what you think the guidelines say and using WikiProject United States as an example let me ask a couple clarifying questions. If its not due to article ownership, what benefit does it have to have have zero or only one banner on an article, WPUS and say Oregon? Would you say that 3 banners is overtagging (WPUS, WPOregon and WPBIO for example)? Or that Oregon is not part of the United States? Or that the Oregon project, or any other project, should be able to tell another project they cannot tag articles in that projects scope? BTW, just for clarification, I have never had issue with Oregon and thats why I used them. To eliminate the argument from some that I am singling them out. --Kumioko (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Who said they don't want to be a part of the project? Signing their name to a list does not change their desire to edit said articles. WikiProjects are just places were people who edit a similar scope of articles can discuss said articles and work together towards them. Signing a page does not in fact change the fact that they are working as part of a WikiProject when they edit its articles. For example I consider myself a member of a number of WikiProjects but I don't actually sign my name because those lists are often ridiculously out of date making them effectively useless. I am not going to get back into the overtagging debate with you again. You already know my views that it would be preferable if people would work together to combine the tags of WPUS and any other state project but in the absence of that I would go with just the state one if you guys weren't able to bring yourselves to work together since the guideline does make it clear you should avoid overlapping scopes. And WPBIO is from a completely different project tree so it being there is irrelevant. -DJSasso (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I do see your point there and perhaps our understanding of the purpose of a project differ somewhat. When I talk about a project I am speaking of a collaborative community of editors who work together towards a common task. This could include a newsletter, a project talk page, working on a collaboration, etc. Of course not all members participate actively, nor do they participate in everything, nor should they be required too. However, if I am a member of a project, I should have more say in how the project runs and functions than someone who edits articles related to the project. Its kinda like being a member of AAA, if you call them you can still get them to send you the tow truck for an extra fee, but as a member the towing is free. The project shouldn't have total control over the articles in its scope, the things it does or the members that belong to it. But the members should have control of the project. Using WPUS as an example again, the project is made up of about 70 smaller groups. IMO, any member of any one of these smaller pieces has say in their individual project and the overarching one but not the tangential projects (Arizona can't tell texas what to do for example). I also don't want to get into the overtagging debate because frankly, to me, most of it was just petty article ownership arguments and didn't really amount to much. I also don't agree that all the projects should have to become part of the bigger one and this is why it really makes me mad when people blame me for forcing other projects to join. If they want to fine, if they don't want to thats ok too. I even found a way to use the WPUS banner but display the individual ones rather than embed them in the template so instead of seeing WPUS with several projects in it, the individual projects would appear (but thats a non issue now). I also personally don't think overlapping scopes is a bad thing. From my experience the more eyes on topic the better. Many editors don't join projects because of interactions with other members of the project. So if another project with different people has the same scope, that person might join that project instead. I also don't think that WPBIo is a separate issue. Many of the arguments against WPUS were that its scope was too wide, was too massive and its size makes it unmanageable. If thats true, which I don't agree with, then without a doubt Biography also has that problem since it covers all biographies (or groups and lsits) and has over 800, 000 articles (almost 4 times the size of WPUS). --Kumioko (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course this leads to the absurdity that if Alice and Bob edit articles on Fooian Bars, and the WikiProject Bar scope includes Fooin Bars, then Alice and Bob are members of WikiProject Bar and are entitled to input that might cause the scope to exclude Foooina Bars (Dave is in favor of inclusion and Charlie will support the majority). At that point Alice and Bob are no longer a members of WikiProject Bar, Charlie and Dave now have a consensus to include Fooian Bars. (One might posit examples where this could be abused in far more serious ways that internal Wikipedia arguments.) Rich Farmbrough, 20:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC).

Exactly my point. Let me present another possibility. WikiProject X is larger and more active than WikiProject 123. WikiProject X decides that WikiProject 123 should be a task force of it. The members of WikiProject X outnumber those in WikiProject 123 so therefore by "Consensus" WikiProject 123 is absorbed as a task force by WikiProject X because the members created a "consensus" that over ruled the WikiProject 123 members vote. This to me is a perfect reason why WikiProject scope and functions should be maintained by its members, and not by a simple majority consensus vote. --Kumioko (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

And? Remember anyone can join any wikiproject. So if people join your project and then happen to outnumber the original members...so what? You can't exclude people from joining your wikiproject. It is not an exclusive club. Unfortunately when you do things by vote/consensus yes sometimes the minority does get crushed. However in my experience on Wikipedia its usually the minority that gets its way if they are vocal enough. Frankly this whole ownership of projects that you (and others) exhibit baffles me....who cares if you are considered a task force or an individual project. You can still get the same work done and still do the same things. All that is different is the title of the page you talk on. It is ridiculous. -DJSasso (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thats true to a point but if someone joins the project today to vote that it should be merged its rather like vote stacking and I would argue that the members of the project could "choose" not to accept that vote. It would be rather obvious why the member is "Joining" the project. As far as project ownership thats where you confuse me. I have never told another project anything other than they cannot tell a project they can't put their banner on a page. Over the years I haev run into a lot of editors who get very defensive if another project (WPUS or otherwise) try and put their banner on an article in that projects scope. That conduct is completely unnacceptable and yet I am the A-hole because I tell them they can't do it. I am the one that gets blocked because I revert a bad faith edit. Its completely ridiculous why this sort of activity is allowed and condoned. --Kumioko (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

No you haven't said anything about banners but you frequently treated people who haven't signed your members page as if they are second class and can't have a say in project matters. You do it right in the post you just made. The fact that someone joins a project to have a say on something shouldn't matter, you can't tell them that they can't be interested in the workings of a WikiProject. In fact you should welcome people to join your project to have a say on such things. That is what a well run WikiProject would do. Yes some of the people you encountered were more harsh than they should have been....but you have in the ensuing discussions shown just as many ownership issues as the people you refer to. And I do believe a few uninvolved people told you that in the discussions over the last little while. And you got blocked because you were warned to stop edit warring and then you declared you would continue and did continue. That is no ones fault but your own. You lost the right to call your edit good faith once you were told to stop edit warring and said you intended to keep going. So you really need to drop the act of being a victim. What you did was wrong and you knew it was wrong and you knew you would be blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I have done which could be considered ownership is attempting to drive home to those that seemingly don't care or don't understand that they don't own the articles and any project can tag them. A notion that I still believe but that the community has shown they don't agree with. As for my block. I was blocked, because I reverted the inapropriate edit of a user showing ownership issues over articles. A user who has done so over and over and over, with not so much as a warning from any other editor. The blocking admin and the supporter cabalists didn't bother to review the results or the history or the case presented. Just the last edit and the offhand comment I made. I had no intention of reverting again after that. But oddly, another user, blindly reverted my reversion, also undoing other edits that had to be put back by another user. So, I still contend that the block was a poor decision by a lazy admin who didn't bother to take the time to review the 'facts but took action on the last edit. But that has nothing to do with this discussion. As for the inviting of editors to join. Its funny you say that because I had a BRFA that I was going to file with about 7400 US based editors that I was going to do a one time invite to join (About half hadn't edited in the last year but I was hoping some might still be watching their pages). Funnily enough, you are on it, as well as Markvs88, SarekofVulcan and a number of others that would have undoubtedly told me to piss off. It was worded in such a way as to favor joining the individual projects rather than the larger WPUS. Because I believe WPUS should be the trunk of the tree, the other projects and the editors the branches and the leaves are the articles, etc.--Kumioko (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

DJ, you're right that anybody could join, but so far we haven't seen any of that kind of WP:Gaming the system in these disputes, probably because the editors realize that a single voice can't !outvote the established membership. It's always some editor purely involved in a local article who wants to tell the much bigger group which articles the group is permitted to express interest in. For example, there's an unregistered user who spent most of last year demanding that WikiProject LGBT not be allowed to tag Johnny Weir. Then there are the people who think that WPUS shouldn't be permitted to tag articles that are tagged by any other geography-based project.

It's important to remember that tagging has some practical effects. For example, this list of clean up problems is based entirely on tagging articles with the WPMED template. Removing the project template means that WPMED folks won't see the problems in these articles. It's not just "Oh, I don't think this is really medicine-related"; de-tagging those articles would ensure that WPMED's folks remain unaware of the problems in those articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Well to be fair I am not talking about single articles as you are right that is usually a lone couple of editors. I mean entire groups of articles such as a state to use the US example. Anyone that is truly looking to work on articles with those problems will be able without much problem look at the tag for the state problems as well. And in most cases a simple coding fix can have the lists of both projects show up etc. Like I said above personally I think the best method is a merged template but in the absence of that tagging both the US and State is just causing animosity between large groups of people when it doesn't take much more effort if you are truly concerned to have such maintenance lists or article alerts show up to your project as well even though they are tagged with another tag. But we got way off on a tangent on this thread so that's probably all I have to say. -DJSasso (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? "Anyone that is truly looking to work on articles with those problems will be able without much problem" to look at fifty-one different pages? Are you sure about that? Don't you think that looking at one page is easier than looking at fifty-one different pages—times half a dozen bot-based reporting systems, by the way? IMO needing to look at several hundred pages to find out what's going on, rather than looking at six, constitutes a "problem". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes sub dividing out the articles is a help for the same reason that we sub-divide categories and don't just throw them all into one giant super category. It makes things easier to be grouped into smaller groups. And for a group like the US project if they can't agree to consolidate tags which again I think is the best option for everyone then it isn't that difficult a task to get a bot to scan all the related state tags and dump them into the same list as the US articles for their consumption. -DJSasso (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I have to be honest here. There are reasons why its good to separate things into different categories, but making it easier to manage for a WikiProject is not one of them and frankly its an unbelievable argument to use with someone who is familiar with how they work. For example, as a project WikiProject United States needs only to look at WikiProject United States articles to see a list of the aritcles in its scope. If need be that can be broken down by one of the 20 classes, one of the importances or if need be the class by importance categories. To state though that using the 45, 800+ categories that currently fall into the scope of WPUS to "manage" the articles in its scope is ludicrous. Additionally, due to the way that the category system works you would end up with too many non us articles. There are literally dozens of intersections where a non us topic threads into a US related topic for a variety of reasons. So you can't just simply use the category structure as a management tool anymore than you can go straight off categories when you tag articles. Thats a big reason why we have the rule don't duplicate the category structure. It doesn't have so much to do with the articles being duplicated its because unless you are familiar with the categories you are tagging you could very easily and most likely will end up tagging articles that shouldn't be in the scope of the project. You also mention breaking it into smaller pieces. Well, thats not a valid concern either, at least for WPUS. WPUS does have a category that tracks all the articles from that level but there are also about 70 projects it supports. Most articles would have at least one and frequently more than one of these additional projects associated too it. As for the bot task, as someone who has already walked that path and gotten jumped by muggers on it, it is incredibly hard to tag for one of these 70 projects but not if its already tagged with one of these 50. Add to that the impropriaty of the notion. For example, WikiProjects US Governors and US Counties are supported by WPUS. So why should Virginia say that WPUS can't tag its governors and Connecticut say it can't tag its counties (these are only examples) because they feel that these are out of the scope of WikiProject US. Should WPUS be forced to break all these projects back apart in order for them to be allowed to tag an article? I would argue no. In the end this whole discussion seems pointless because no matter what we are saying you are just not seeing the bigger picture and it seems like you are arguing just for the sake of argument. A project should not be telling another project it can't tag an article in its scope. Period. If that means you have some overlapping scopes or a couple articles with extra tags then fine, it really should not be as big of a deal as its being made into. The arguments against allowing a project to define its own scope and what articles it tags only advocate article ownership. Thats the bottom line. If we want to promote article ownership then we are enabling that with the discussion that a project cannot define its own scope. --Kumioko (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Nota bene: all eight Connecticut counties and all non-Colonial Connecticut Governors actually *are* tagged by WPUS, along with many others. In fact, there are ~500 co-tagged articles between the Connecticut and US projects (though I'd say 200-300 are due to the WPUS assimilation of the WPMass and WPRI projects). The only time WPUS tags are ever removed from a Connecticut tagged article is when the topic is obviously not an issue of national interest. It's not an issue of ownership, as WPCT doesn't own squat. It's only an issue of inaccurate tagging. Else I could (as I've said ad-nauseum) just start tagging all the WPUS articles as WPEarth. Or, for that matter, start WPAmerica and just co-tag all WPUS articles. A pointless duplication of work? Yes, both of those would be. Which is what WPUS tagging non-national interest Connecticut articles is. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that we might be getting too caught up in the purely theoretical side of the debate here. The question of whether a WikiProject can define a completely arbitrary scope is an interesting thought exercise—personally, I would say that individual WikiProjects are autonomous only insofar as their actions are broadly reasonable ones in the context of building the encyclopedia, and that therefore a project's authority over scope is not an absolute one—but, as far as I know, no actual WikiProject has shown any desire to define an unreasonable scope.

The practical issue vis-à-vis WPUS—which, essentially, boils down to the fact that WPUS desires to collect statistics for all US articles, while some of the independent sub-projects in the area see WPUS tags as redundant—is one that can easily be resolved through technical means. All that's really necessary to give both sides what they want would be for the sub-projects to modify their own templates to generate WPUS assessment categories in addition to their own; WPUS would then gain all the assessment infrastructure they desire, without actually having to tag the individual articles in question. I expect that the sub-projects involved will have no objection to helping WPUS in principle; the debate seems entirely focused on the precise mechanism for doing so. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I wish that assumption were true work that the projects would be willing to together. Unfortunately history tells us otherwise and putting Marks outrageous example of WP earth aside for the moment, the problem still boils down to article ownership issues. Unfortunately for me I am not as crafty in my discussions as Mark, he has a very clever way of wording his posts to support his article ownership of Connecticut related articles. As he said, the only reason he doesn't revert the others is because they belong to another project, if they didn't, I can assure you, he would remove the WPUS banner with a quickness. With regard to WPUS, I don't think it matters anymore, I am no longer working as a coordinator for the project so its unlikely that there will be much activity anymore. Although there are a lot of members and they do a lot of article improvements the maintenance and project functions were primarily left for me. Without me there to act as the maintainer its likely that the project, Collab of the month, Newsletter, etc. will go back inactive again. I think it funny though that no one has a problem with WikiProject Biography and its 800, 000+ articles but the scope of WPUS and its 185, 000 articles is so ludicrous and unmanageable. --Kumioko (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Like Kirill, I've not seen any actually unreasonable scopes, but I have seen scopes that a couple of editors declare to be unreasonable because it didn't happen to match their first guess at what ought to be included, e.g., whether psychology is "really" related to medicine.

On the other point, there is enough bad blood between WPUS and a small number of state projects that it is unfortunately not reasonable to assume that there will be no objection to helping WPUS with anything. Additionally, I'm not certain that we want to set up a system in which any WikiProject's basic functioning is entirely dependent on the permission and cooperation of any other group, especially any group as small (and therefore likely to become inactive) as some of these. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Getting back on topic

We've gotten a little off-topic here and delved in fundamental issues about WikiProjects, their scope, and their overlap with other WikiProjects. While this is certainly a subject worthy of discussion, the purpose of this discussion was to specifically talk about WikiProject Conservatism. The question at hand is whether WikiProject Conservatism is functioning like a typical WikiProject (i.e. to coordinate editors in building neutral, encyclopedic content about a subject) or whether it is serving as a hub for a number of editors to unite forces in a POV-push effort. Even if the later is the case, it would almost certainly not be an indictment of each and every member of WikiProject Conservatism. In fact, if you look at the roster of participants and their statements of interest, it's clear that some editors of listed themselves in an interest to keep political subjects balanced. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that WP Conservatism, is not about POV-pushing, but rather one of goals that I see for the WikiProject (though not the only (or primary) goal) is to help Wikipedia live up to one of it's pillar's WP:NEU by creating a group of editors interested in Conservatism that watch for POV pushing in those articles that maybe related to Conservatism due to the admitted editor imbalance that exists. For since, editors of an article are self selected it can created an editorial balance that creates a consensus that they feel keeps with the core principles of the editing community, but may appear to someone outside the community as creating an editorial bias towards one POV which that editing group sees as being neutral when it may not be so.

For instance see the difference on how a reference is used between these two references. Only after one looks closely at the reference does see how the references is viewed or used differently in what may have created an unintentional POV-pushing statement.

Granted such an action itself maybe called POV pushing by those who oppose said POV, however even though it maybe controversial such check and balance is much needed IMHO. And the entire time we need to remember WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:CALM even when or lesser natures may lead us astray from the common goal that we all have in advancing the quality of Wikipedia.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Our goal should not be to balance the conservative POV with the liberal POV. Our goal should be to eliminate both. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

In an ideal world that maybe possible; that being said, each POV should be given it's due WP:WEIGHT keeping within NEU so that way both are balanced and presented neutrally. Unfortunately, there are cases where one POV due to the self selection that I spoke of above dominates an article even if those editors have the best of intentions.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

POV pushing doesn't seem to form any part of the original complaint. The OP complains repeatedly about the WikiProject tagging articles (mentioned five times) and their scope (mentioned three times), but doesn't mention POV pushing at all. So I think we're actually on topic, and I think the answer is clear: WikiProject Conservatism is permitted to tag any articles they want, full stop. Tagging an article is not the same as POV pushing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Viriditas will agree that the essence of the issue he has raised is the POV concern. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think there could easily be POV/WEIGHT concerns if the opinion of only one side in any discussion were added or developed at the cost of the other(s). While I can and do see that there is some reason to perhaps have, for instance, Conservative views on the abortion issue, and certainly for development of articles about notable conservative politicians and others, I myself think that, maybe, the project should perhaps focus most significantly on those rather limited matters, and maybe work a bit more actively with other groups and WikiProjects to ensure balance and NPOV. John Carter (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Same can be said of any group with like minded interests who may share common opinions regarding a possibly controversial subject. So what of other groups that even though they have the best of intentions maybe pushing a POV? Why only focus on conservatism wikiproject then? Shouldn't any wikiproject who's scope is over controversial subjects (especially political) also be under the same scrutiny?

We do try to assume good faith, we do try to remain civil, we do try to maintain neutrality and give due weight to all POVs; that being said IMHO there maybe a systematic bias against certain POVs due to the issues that I pointed out earlier. If there are concerns due to these possible biases, among the normal things that WP:Conservatism does as a wikiproject, is to watch articles of interests and raise these concerns in a civil matter.

Again, this is my personal opinion of one of the functions WP:Conservatism can do as a wikiproject and may not be shared by other project members.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Question : The only example I see for the alleged tagging is militant atheism (now a redirect, see the 24 September 2011 version of the talk page for "tag wars"), but I cannot find any version where it was actually tagged by WikiProject Conservatism. Can Viriditas or someone else please provide another example or three? IMO the first step should be to determine if there is indeed a pattern of tagging articles that aren't within the realm of political conservatism. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Mentor team, anywhere?

Hi guys; AN/I has found a user who has a few issues, but who (with the right mentor team) could possibly turn out to be a useful contributor. I've dropped a note over on this user's talk page. I think it's possible that what this guy/gal needs is a tolerant, patient, understanding small group of mentors with similar interests who can make him/her feel useful and welcome, and encourage him/her to get into some productive stuff. If, as a community, we can find a way to work with, and bring out the best in, this editor, we may find ourselves with a real asset to the 'pedia. Some consideration of this thread on Jimbo's page might be in order here, so if any of you sporting chaps and chapesses feel like taking this user under your collective wing and making them feel wanted and welcome, you may find yourselves, in the longer term, with a little gem in your hands. I think at present, we may have a rough diamond with emphasis on "rough", but with a little polishing and patience the emphasis may switch to "diamond". P.S. I'm not watchlisting this page, but will just leave this in your hands. Pesky (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Just at the moment, I think he has an overload of new friends, but it is sure to die down (at least a little?) eventually, (or not). Penyulap _talk 15:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mentorship and Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user and Wikipedia:Teahouse.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC) and 00:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Assessment Drive

An assessment drive has been suggested to clear a backlog of more than 18,000 unassessed articles on WP:India. Reviewers can volunteer here. Cheers, Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 10:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Countering Systemic Gender Bias in Science

For anyone concerned about gender bias in science articles, please consider joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic gender bias. All proposals for collaboration welcome! Feel free to ping me on my talk page as well. -Dekyi 03:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Underwear

i would like a wikiproject for People that likes to sleep Underwear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voggyer (talk • contribs) 20:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a charity project?

Does a WikiProject covering humanitarian or philanthropic organisations exist? Roger (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperatives and Wikipedia:WikiProject Human rights and Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations, which are listed at http://toolserver.org/~svick/projects.txt. You can search there for more. See also http://www.2012.coop/.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked at those and searched the toolserver list but found nothing specifically covering charitable/humanitarian/philanthropic organisations. I looked at a range of articles about such orgs: ICRC, MSF, DanChurchAid, Oxfam, etc. There isn't a single Project that they all belong to. Perhaps there is room for one? Roger (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals.—Wavelength (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

A WikiProject is a group of people, not a subject area. Personally, I think you'd be better off trying to WP:REVIVE WikiProject Organizations (and "just happening" to focus on charitable organizations rather than non-charitable organizations for a long time) rather than trying to start a new one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Retired users form unknown projects

Hi, let me preface my letter by saying that I knew in projects, but not in Wikipedia. I would like to know what we should do with those users who are retired, and therefore are not active in any projects?:

• User:The Arbiter
• User:Pilotguy
• User:Bushcarrot
• User:SkyWalker
• User:Chacor
• User:Lradrama
• User:Pilotguy
• User:Bushcarrot
• User:SkyWalker
• User:Chacor
• User:Lradrama
• User:Speed CG
• User:Gavyn Sykes
• User:X!
• User:RyanCross
• User:Coredesat
• User:Adam Cuerden
• User:Efansay
• User:Wildhartlivie
• User:LSmok3
• User:ResidentAnthropologist
• User:Kaori
• User talk:U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.
• User talk:Tanthalas39
• User:Possum
• User:Svr014
• User:Turlo Lomon
• User:SBC-YPR
• User talk:IrishLass0128
• User talk:Thirteen squared
• User:Nichalp
• User:Ed
• User:GiacomoReturned
• User:Triona
• User:Essjay
• User:Hiding
• User:Ceedjee
• User:Xoloz
• User:The Halo
• User:Tulkolahten
• User:Flatterworld
• User:GiacomoReturned
• User:Billwhittaker
• User:Tulkolahten
• User:Miller17CU94
• User:Yahel Guhan
• User:Ahmednh
• User:Delta1989
• User:The Thing That Should Not Be
• User:R
• User:GiacomoReturned
• User:Wiki alf
• User:Wikirocks
• User:JetLover
• User:K. Lastochka

Should we delete them so it would look like this: User:Ecritures

Some of them are in projects like those and are listed as active: Wikipedia Project VideoGames:

• User:Audiosmurf
• User:Blackwatch21
• User:Adam Cuerden

Wiki project GameTheory:

• User:Pete.Hurd--Mishae (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Some projects will periodically update their members list, such as by asking members to update it on their talk pages. WikiProject VG does it occasionally.

If you happen to be in a project that has a members list, feel free to work on making it up-to-date. --Izno (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I have deleted some retired or users that have no contributions. I don't know, am I did the right thing Wiki Project Video Games and WikiProject Palestine--Mishae (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI

WikiProject Espionage and WikiProject Intelligence have been in effect in hiatus for over a year as far as I can ascertain and rather than wait for further hiatus and delay I am about to put in process the merge... SatuSuro 02:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

any help or suggestions as to the correct procedure for closing down intelligence and redirecting it to espionage would be appreciated SatuSuro 05:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You may find some of the information at the end of WP:MEDTF to be useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

thanks for that SatuSuro 21:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

List of Recent Edits for WikiProjects Quit Working

I have been using the following link to watch recent edits for specific WikiProjects. It broke in the past months and I was looking for an alternate solution. Hopefully there is another simple solution. Please suggest solutions! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

List Of Recent Edits

• Last 200 edits of all WikiProject Computing articles
• [http://toolserver.org/~tim1357/cgi-bin/wikiproject_watchlist.py?template=WikiProject+Electronics&limit=100 Last 100 edits of all WikiProject Electronics articles]

WE have "watch list(s)" for all projects and they are all not working - list of all can be seen at - Wikipedia:List of WikiProject watchlists (alphabetical) and Wikipedia:List of WikiProject watchlists (topical).......... hope this is solve soon.Moxy (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The toolserver on which User:Tim1357's Wikiproject Watchlist tool runs is partially offline for updates at the moment. Hopefully it'll be fully working again in the next few days. - TB (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep. That is the problem. But I've been working on fixing it so that it will work even when the database is in read only mode (And Iadded it to my to-do. Tim1357 ^talk 22:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Britney Spears

I think Britney Spears needs a task force and I also think "pop music" (even though it's ambiguous) is a genre and needs its own section. Where else would Britney spears, n'sync, the backstreet boys, and Christina aguilara go? There are many artist that go in this category. I do not know how to create a task force or add a genre to the list. Please help! Thanks! Thepoodlechef (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a WikiProject Britney Spears, although it doesn't seem to be very active. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to start a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music about transforming some of the many inactive child projects in that area into task forces? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 23:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I second Kirill's suggestion. -Mabeenot (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Silverware

Is there a WikiProject for topics related to Silverware - i.e. hallmarks, assay offices, caddy spoons, coffee pots, biographies of silversmiths, etc.? I can't find one, but I may not be looking in the right place. I did find Wikipedia:WikiProject Cutlery, but it seemed to be more knives as weapons than tableware. Thanks. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The usual way to find WikiProjects is to go to the "big" articles for the subject and check their talk pages.

The better WikiProjects normally have a fairly large scope, so that they attract people interested in all sorts of related subjects. WikiProject Cutlery might be interested in these articles, or you might consider joining WP:WikiProject Food and drink. If you're specifically interested in the "silver" side of silverware, then WP:WikiProject Metalworking might interest you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll check out the metalworking project. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)