Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stanford University

Really needed?

I have worked on some of these (I am an alumnus), but a project with one member? Seems like overkill to create a project. W Nowicki (talk) 02:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well it has just started and hasn't been advertised too widely. We shall see.--Erp (talk) 06:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Erp, do you have any recommendations on how to advertise the WikiProject more widely? I'm going to go through Wikipedians by Alma Mater and see who has "Stanford" on their userpage, but what else? Is the other way to go and see who edits Stanford pages frequently? ralphamale (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

These projects tend to have a variety of involvement levels; I find it a useful organizational tool when there are only a few editors policing and improving what can be 100+ articles in a subject area. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'm the one who started the WikiProject. I currently attend the school and realize that for such a great university, there's not really the breadth of articles I would like for it. That's why I created it. I'm having trouble figuring out how to make this a great WP and could really use any help you all could give me. Thanks! ralphamale (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Definitions of importance levels?

How should we define the importance levels of Top, High, Mid, Low? I noticed a few things that seem out of place --Erp (talk) 06:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I was more or less guessing with many of those, given that I've never attended Stanford- if you feel that they're out of place, feel free to change them. I tend to prioritize physical aspects of the campus (buildings, subcampuses) and historical figures. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It will balance out over time. People will tend to assess the top end of articles first as those have the most interest but will balance out over time. Don't be shy about applying the tag! --Esprqii (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Any thoughts of figuring the importance level of people? I imagine every president and provost would be Top-importance. Football coaches would probably vary (I imagine Pop Warner and Bill Walsh at High-importance, Jack Curtice and Walt Harris at Low-importance). What do we do about alumni? Would Herbert Hoover, William Rehnquist, Stephen Breyer, Jerry Yang, Sergey Brin, and others at the top of their field be High, Mid, or Low? Would it depend on their level of fame? OCNative (talk) 03:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm more restrictive with importance levels - the only articles that are top-importance should be Stanford University, Stanford Cardinals, and Stanford Cardinals football. And remember, there are far more alumni than you can hope to ever include in the project- it's best to focus on articles more directly related to Stanford. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I took a first stab at some guidelines for assessment based on general Wikipedia standards and put that here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stanford University/Assessment. Only a first cut, so please refine as needed. --Esprqii (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks great. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Herbert Hoover should be high because he was on the Board of Trustees for decades and lived on campus for many years (he gave his house to be the house of the University president after his wife died); he also established the Hoover Institute. I'll do a check through on some alumni prominent in Stanford. --Erp (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

SRI International

Also strictly speaking SRI is completely separate from Stanford and has been since the 1970s so I'm not sure it should fall under this project (anymore than say Xerox PARC should). --Erp (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I assumed that they were more related than they are now. As you know, I've been modeling this project off of WikiProject Georgia Tech; Georgia Tech and its corresponding research institute are rather closely tied, so the task force made more sense there. I'd suggest splitting SRI into its own WikiProject, but there are only 15 or so articles related to it, so it's not a huge priority. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sports task force?

I've been thinking a Stanford project is a great idea for a while. How about a sports task force? -- Esprqii (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've found that sports articles tend to receive a great deal of pageviews, so that may be a good idea. I'll see about adding that to the infobox tonight. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Here you go: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stanford University/Stanford Athletics task force. Add sport=yes to the project template to mark it for that task force. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, I've got lots of articles to start tagging. --Esprqii (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Once the WP 1.0 bot runs through the task force category, the assessment stats template on that page won't be a redlink any more, so don't worry about that :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I see it has the quality stats, but importance is not in there; does that come automatically as well, or do you have to flip another switch? --Esprqii (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I figured out how to do that. There are a couple options there- you can have an importance setting independent of the main project importance. Downside: you'd have to add that parameter to all of the sports articles. Right now I'm just using the regular "importance" rating to test it. The bot page is resisting at the moment, so we'll see if that worked within a day, I think. Another option I thought of is doing something like the following: {{{sport-importance|{{{importance|}}}}}} which uses sport-importance if it's present, and importance otherwise. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think using the regular project importance is fine. The importance should be in terms of the overall project, not just the task force. That's a bit too granular, IMHO. --Esprqii (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. So, judging on the SRI International task force, the change worked. I'm going to take what I learned and apply it to the Georgia Tech project when I get a chance, thanks for poking me to do this :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

How to recruit more people to join?

So glad that you guys joined the WikiProject. What would be the best way to get more people to join in? Would it be proper etiquette for me to find those who are already active on Stanford's pages and inform them about this fledgling WikiProject? ralphamale (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest making a little invitation and putting it on people's talk pages. Something like this: Template:WikiProject Oregon invite is short and sweet. There are many more ways to do it, some more elaborate than others (see Category:WikiProject_invitation_templates.) It's pretty commonly done and I don't think most people consider it rude. --Esprqii (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples. Do you think that would be the best thing to do at this point? I want there to be a framework, such that anyone who comes into the Wikiproject, would know what to do. But I'm not sure if that comes before or after we get more people to join in? ralphamale (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You might seek out people who are likely to be interested first; chances are, people who watch pages that fall into this category have already seen it and will join up. It could only help to get motivated people in here to start putting things together and building infrastructure. You don't have to have it totally done before you invite people. --Esprqii (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Two questions then 1. I'm trying to add a list of Sample Articles to Work On for more modestly motivated to work on if they were to just go on the page.... Should that just be based on my judgment of what is important and what the assessment tool rates? 2. I tried to tweak the WikiProject page a bit because even right now, it seems very cluttered compared to like Georgia Tech's and Cornell's WikiProject table layout. I'm having a lot of trouble though with the code. Is there a guide somewhere or could I get someone to help with that? ralphamale (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at [[1]] for some suggestions and resources. And, yes, definitely use your judgment. It's best to take the lead and get things moving in some direction. I'd focus on articles that are top/high priority that are rated stub/start class, but some people find it intimidating to jump in to such important articles and would rather fill in some stubs. So if you can identify some missing people/places/things that should be covered but aren't yet, those are good places to work on as well. (I added a couple of these in the Athletics task force.) --Esprqii (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

New member here. (I guess we're all new since the WikiProject only started last month, but I only joined a few minutes ago.) There's a natural base of potential members at Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Stanford University. The category has 71 pages, of which 1 is the user template, and 2 are already members (erp and me), so there's 69 potential new members. OCNative (talk) 03:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip OCNative. I will contact them soon as well as doing a scan of people who have edited Wikipedia articles re: Stanford. OCNative, do you know anything about beautifying the actual Wikiproject page? I am not very good at design, but I think the Wikiproject page would benefit from being organized like Cornell's WikiProject. Thoughts? ralphamale (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Quick question... When I'm subst'ing the invitation onto potential members' profiles, should I do it on their user page or their talk pages? Thanks! ralphamale (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk page is better. Some people get mad if you mess up their user page. --Esprqii (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Biography task force?

Might we want to start a biography task force? The list of Stanford University people has over 900 people, and that's not all the Stanford people with articles. I imagine there will be more articles about staff and alumni than any other type of article, and it'd be a good way to get attention for the project. OCNative (talk) 03:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested in working on the "people" articles. --MelanieN (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that a Biography task force would be a great idea. And you're right, it would create awareness for the WikiProject. Could you start it please? ralphamale (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've created the task force. Just add biography=yes to add an article to the task force. MelanieN, I hope you don't mind my adding you to the list, based on your comment above. OCNative (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, OCN. Where do you want to start? I was thinking of beginning with the articles about the presidents. Some of them are pretty bare-bones - or need to be wikified. --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I've started working on the Donald Tresidder article. It needed a lot of work - better now but could still use improvement. --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Presidents sound good. I've added an infobox for Lyman. His wife, Jing, may well deserve her own article. --Erp (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I just started an article about Robert E. Swain. He seems pretty important... I added him to {{Stanford Presidents}} as well. Disavian (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

New Recruiting Templates

Hi all, I've added a template for inviting people to the Stanford WikiProject and also for welcoming them as well. You can see them on our front page. ralphamale (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Whoops! I just got smacked by a bot for having a "non-free file", namely the Stanford seal in your invitation, on my user talk page. The bot said that "non-free" files are not allowed on user pages or user talk pages - only in articles. Apparently the Stanford seal is a non-free file, allowed in articles under the fair-use doctrine, but not allowed anywhere else. Looks like you're going to have to remove the seal from your invitation template, or else have everybody get annoyed by the bot. Nice try, though, it was a nice looking invitation! --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Are there any alternatives to that? I guess I'll stick to a text-only template for now :) ralphamale (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind that I added the red S to the greeting to replace the seal. OCNative (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Loved it. Thanks! ralphamale (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"Participants" page not updating on main page?

I can't seem to figure out why it's not updating. Does anyone know why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.67.131.17 (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Stanford university categories

I've taken a quick look at the Category:Stanford University and I think it needs some work. I've gone over Category:Stanford University people and I think for the most part it and its subcategories are in reasonably good shape. However what over second level categories should we have and what should be in them? We have Category:Stanford University places with a subcategory of buildings and structures and we could move things like the Research Park and the the Shopping Center there. Much of the remainder is a real mish mash. --Erp (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

How to boost Wikiproject participation? / How to track which Wikiproject members are doing what?

I just had one two questions for you all: 1) How do you guys think we can boost participation to our Wikiproject? Do you think that adding a monthly article to collaborate on would help? 2) Do you think it's necessary to keep track of what Wikiproject members are doing? How do we know when we're closer to meeting our goals? ralphamale (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Try the WikiProject Watchlist for WikiProject Stanford University. Of course, that depends on whether the articles people are working on are actually in the project; I've worked on a lot of SRI-related biographies but many of them aren't totally Stanford-related, so I've been hesitant to put the project tag onto them. Disavian (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You'll notice that the WikiProject Watchlist also lets you get a list of most-edited articles in the last day/week/month, which is nice. Disavian (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Categories for faculty

Please see the discussion at Category talk:Stanford University faculty. I've asked the editor to slow down and discuss a bit before doing more. Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Category for Company spin-offs

I was surprised to find out that Wikipedia did not provide categories for Company spin-offs. I started one, but can't see an easy way to find the companies spun-off from Stanford. Any help populating Category:Company spin-offs would be appreciated. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

External watchlist added to this wikiproject

Check it out at the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stanford_University. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Categorization task for faculty

In bits and spurts a couple of people have been trying to categorize the Stanford faculty listed at Category:Stanford University faculty into the appropriate department or school subcategories. Unfortunately there are 200+ entries. It would help if a few more people could volunteer to work through one or two letters (first letter of last name) and modify the Stanford Faculty category of each to the appropriate subcategory (e.g., Stanford University Department of English faculty or Stanford Graduate School of Business faculty). In a few cases the person in question has a joint appointment so should have multiple categories (I've tended to ignore at this time courtesy appointments). In a fair number of cases where the person should go is unclear (or possibly they were never faculty), so I've left them for later. On the talk page for the overarching category, I've put some links to the history of Stanford department names which might prove useful. I've done A-C and will continue with D-F. Anyone willing to volunteer for other letters? (as an incentive, some UC wiki editors are trying to organize their faculty category, let's see if we can beat them :-) --Erp (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on consolidating inactive and semi-active university WikiProjects

This project may be affected by a proposed consolidation of inactive and semi-active WikiProjects covering universities. The proposed consolidation is being discussed on the talk page of WikiProject Universities. We are seeking feedback from the projects that may be impacted before we decide on a course of action. Please drop by to participate in the discussion. Thanks! –Mabeenot (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

College basketball team navigation templates

Please join the discussion at the College Basketball Wikiproject for forming a consensus on the creation of a basic navigation template for college basketball teams. CrazyPaco (talk) 09:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Main Quad

I note that according to a recent addition to the Talk:Stanford University that the picture of the Main Quad will be a picture of the day on August. I note also that no separate article on the Main Quad exists (there is one on the church). Does it deserve its own article (I think so) and can we get a good one together before August 8? To begin with what should it be called (Stanford Main Quad, Stanford Main Quadrangle, "Main Quad, Stanford University", other)? Ideally we should have pictures, a line map annotated (the four corners: history, geology, mathematics, engineering; the church; memorial court) and description, history (cornerstone laid, architects, 1906 and 1989 quake effects), current use. I've set up a sandbox at User:Erp/Sandbox Stanford Main Quad and feel free to contribute --Erp (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems that "Main Quadrangle" is the official term, so I'd say Main Quadrangle (Stanford University) is probably the best choice, since there are other schools with Main Quadrangles (a quick search finds Campus of the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign and Trinity College (Connecticut)#Main_Quadrangle for starters). We should also add a DAB page with links to the other Main Quadrangles. I do note that the University tends to lump Main Quadrangle and Memorial Court together, but as separate entities so we need to note that in the article. Separate articles are probably not needed at this point. You have a good start! I'll try to contribute as time allows. FYI, for reference on content, you probably already saw other similar articles such as Quadrangle (Harvard), Memorial Quadrangle (Yale), University of Alabama Quad.--Esprqii (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Stanford University student housing

I've been working on the Stanford University student housing article and would like some help on deciding which direction to take this article. Also how much can we take out of section on housing in the main Stanford University article and place in it so as to make the main article punchier. --Erp (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

National Historic Sites at Stanford

I note California historic landmarks at Stanford include

• NO. 834 EADWEARD MUYBRIDGE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF MOTION PICTURES
• NO. 913 LOU HENRY HOOVER HOUSE

The National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Santa_Clara_County,_California has four sites at Stanford but only two have articles

• Palo Alto Stock Farm Horse Barn - someone should probably do an article on the Barn and adjacent area.
• Lou Henry Hoover House (landmark and not just a historic place)
• MacFarland House (Stanford, California)
• Hanna–Honeycomb House (landmark and not just a historic place)

just for the record. --Erp (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

125th anniversary of Opening Day soon

October 1, 2016 is the 125th anniversary of the University's opening day. It might be good to have some more Stanford articles, ideally including the Stanford University article, up to featured article status by then to possibly get featured on the main page. Thoughts?--Erp (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

David Huestis

I just wrote David Huestis, then found him on your redlink list, so I added that information, pretty sure it's not right, please have a look.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Two different David Huestis almost certainly. David L. Huestis is the SRI one: "David L. Huestis received his Ph.D. in Chemistry from the California Institute of Technology in 1973. He is a Fellow of the American Physical Society. His research activities include a wide range of experimental and theoretical investigations of fundamental kinetic and optical processes involving atoms, small molecules, liquids, and solids. Two major application areas have been chemical kinetics and optical physics of high-power visible and ultraviolet gas lasers and the optical emissions of terrestrial and planetary atmospheres."[2] David B. Huestis is the Canadian Scout one.[3] I'm not sure the SRI one is significant enough for a Wikipedia article. --Erp (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

[Not the quite place to post it, but...] Looking for Mix Magazine feature on Al Jourgensen and Co.

Greetings. I'm unsure if it is fine place to ask, but I have to. I'm looking Al Jourgensen and Paul Barker's feature article from the October 1993 [vol. 17 no. 10] issue of Mix. This would be needed for articles Ministry (band), Revolting Cocks and related.

Thanks, Gleb95 (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC).

Christopher Kaelin up for deletion

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Christopher Kaelin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

IMO, well sourced article about a geneticist. But you can help improve it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion: Activity level, WikiProject policy, and WikiProject direction?

I'm new to the project and I wanted to check in about the activity level around here! My reason for concern is the main project page doesn't seem to have been touched (let alone updated) since... 2011?

• Active vs semi-active: It seems 6 of the main participants are no longer active, but another 16 of us are active! (editors, at least, if not in this WikiProject) I'm pinging everyone just this once because we're a very small project, but I hope coordination could breathe some life into this group! To everyone here: I would love your thoughts on the topics below!

Based on contrib pages, it looks like these participants are active: @Disavian:, @Erp:, @Esprqii:, @MelanieN:, @OCNative:, @Ctetc2007: (active once a year?), @Ijmusic:, @Richwales:, @Nimur:, @King of Hearts:, @GentlemanGhost:, @KSRolph:, @Woebegone:, @Eliyili00:, @L235:, and @Shrinkydinks: (me)

While it looks like the following are inactive: @Bpesin: last seen in 2011, @Ralphamale: last seen in 2012, @Slothario: last seen in 2012, @Abhijay: has never contributed to Wikipedia? Or they changed their username?, @Tariqwest: last seen in 2010, @Andrew.d.parker: last seen in 2014, but was active once a year from 2008, so maybe it's just a long break from editing?

I suppose the question is: Is this WikiProject "active", or "semi-active"? The main page seems woefully out of date (eg. Images and Image Requests seems to be, today, largely uncorrelated with whether or not the article actually still needs an image?) —Shrinkydinks (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• I've set the WikiProject's status to semi-active based on the low rate of replies here (although I'm very grateful for the editors who are here!). Open to changing it if more chime in over the next week! —Shrinkydinks (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• While I didn't click on every college in Category:WikiProject Universities, the WikiProjects I did click on all seem to be as sluggish as Stanford's. OCNative (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Also, it looks like Abhijay became Khvalamde, but even then, other than a 2016 request to delete their user page and blank their talk page, Khvalamde hasn't made any edits since 2012. OCNative (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Direction/Goals: Do we have a direction? What are our goals, and what are our levels of desire/interest for achieving them?
  • Our WikiProject lists the goal, "Bring every Stanford-related article up to FA or GA status." This seems optimistic to me given its scale and our limited numbers. Would we be more invested if we developed goals that are more achievable, or should we just aim high like this? —Shrinkydinks (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

That goal is basically just boilerplate. In theory, the goal for every WikiProject and, indeed, every article, should be to bring it up to Good Article status. So, focusing on something more concrete never hurts. I've seen article improvement drives with a limited target (one article or a small group) have some success in the past. Also, compared to many WikiProjects, there actually aren't that many articles within the scope of the project. This is the first one I've seen with a WikiWork omega factor of less than 5. So perhaps that goal isn't completely pie-in-the-sky. On the other hand, I suspect that most project members may be more focused on other areas of interest. Certainly, I have been. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 03:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Article assessment: I got the un-assessed backlog down to 0! Hoping to do more of it to develop my sense of what makes a good article, to eventually become a good article reviewer. One challenge I've run into is it's not clear when pages were last assessed, what they looked like back then, and why they were given the rating/importance they were given. To help this moving forward, I've begun leaving a section (titled "Assessed for WikiProject") on the talk page of each article I'm reviewing, dating the assessment and giving a high-level reasoning for the assessment results. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the work on that. --Erp (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Shrinkydinks:, for that! OCNative (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Articles not in the WikiProject (but which should be): Let this resolve in a decentralized way (eg. people just keep an eye out for this)? Not a dedicated priority? —Shrinkydinks (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This might include articles not yet in existence. I think one on Sam McDonald (of Sam McDonald County Park) might be useful. He was a major figure on the campus for 50 years https://gilroydispatch.com/2016/06/16/black-pioneer-remembered/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PncMJDVEeWY --Erp (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Articles in the WikiProject (but which should not be): In clearing out the un-assessed backlog, I found a couple people who were only tangentially related to the university, eg. as alumni who don't seem to have made a big impact on the university (based on the text of the article). As a newcomer, I assessed the articles for quality but left their importance ratings blank. Our Importance scale guideline for people suggests these people don't belong in the project. I suppose I'd love to hear comments on our project's importance scale/guideline? —Shrinkydinks (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• I wouldn't rely too much on those guidelines as those were an early draft, and the discussion on them didn't get really reach resolution. OCNative (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Recruiting new members to our cause: Can anyone share, if only a link to a resource, how we can work to engage editors with the Stanford WikiProject, or find people most likely to be interested?
  • My intuition says look at who have created pages in the purview of this WikiProject, identify all who are still active editors, and invite them? —Shrinkydinks (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

With any school-related article, the people most interested in it will usually be students or alumni. But that's not something you can identify easily. Nor should it be required to participate in the project. Contacting people who have shown sustained interest in editing related articles makes the most sense. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 03:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• We took a crack at it in 2011 and MelanieN even created a template. One thing that's changed significantly since then is that the 2010s saw Stanford become a football powerhouse (2019 notwithstanding), so browsing through the Stanford football-related pages may help find people who wouldn't otherwise be included. The task forces could be useful in giving people more manageable pieces; we currently have three: Athletics, biography, and SRI (though SRI has no members and hasn't been a part of Stanford in decades). OCNative (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I will be happy to participate or collaborate on certain articles that I am particularly interested or qualified to edit. I haven't actually visited Stanford in days, but I'm always happy to work with other students, alumni, affiliates, or other Wikipedia-editors-at-large who want to make our articles better! The best way to get my attention on Wikipedia is a direct user-message, and I will often respond interactively, though sometimes I may be away from the site for as long as a few weeks. Nimur (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Folding@home FAR

I have nominated Folding@home for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 17:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Google, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

CZ Biohub Infobox Updates

Hello! I'm here on behalf of Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, a nonprofit that partners with Stanford University to advance medical science, developing new diagnostic processes, therapies, and cures. If you would like to know more about my conflict of interest, you can read my full disclosure on my user page.

I have a small ask for any interested Stanford editors: would you mind reviewing an edit request I posted to CZ Biohub's Talk page? It's a pair of updates that add a logo and a purpose line to the page's infobox. Due to my COI, I can't edit the article directly and need independent editors to approve my suggestions. If anyone could help me out with this, I would really appreciate it. Thanks! Patricia at GMMB (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)