# Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Archive 15

Active discussions

## COI double-checking

Hi, I have a COI in a certain situation so I would like to ask for 2nd and 3rd opinions on this. In normal times, I "oversee", for a lack of better words, the Article Alerts, and it's news section. However, one of the two guys I get advice from User:Legoktm is busy IRL, and User:B. Wolterding has been inactive for the last few months. Thus I'm not able to get a 2nd opinion on this.

I recently added a news item which qualifies under our usual policy for news item on the alerts:

• Must of interest to more than two or three projects. If you can message all relevant projects and taskforces in 10 minutes or so, then do it by hand.
• Must not exceed 25-30 or so words. For measure, the above bullet point is 29 words long, while this one is 25 words long.

This, in my opinion, is definitely of interest to more than two or three projects, and messaging them individually would take a long while (and probably annoying). I honestly believe that I would run this news item usually, and that it would be non-controversial in normal conditions. However, I am involved with PediaPress (we are a partner of the Wikimedia Foundation, responsible for Wikipedia books and the PDF rendering tool), and so I have a COI here. But I loathe abuse of power, so I come here for transparency's sake and ask "Does this news item qualify under the usual WP:AALERTS/News criteria?" 16:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

## How to join?

I'm interested in helping out as the antivandal work is losing excitment. Thanks, Tommy2010 22:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no formal membership here; please feel free to simply participate in discussions whenever you're interested. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Okie doke. Will do. Tommy2010 00:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

## New Project

I think we should do a WikiProject Español!

NEON discuss gives sign 01:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I'm partially fluent in Spanish :) NEON discuss gives sign 01:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
There are already about a dozen related projects. Are you primarily interested in the language itself, rather than Spanish-speaking countries? If so, then I suggest that you join Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages. The bigger projects are usually more fun, so I think you'll be happier there, instead of starting a new project. Alternatively, if your language skills are strong, you might try the Spanish Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

## Adding dates to templates

This seemed an appropriately general place to raise this point, but let me know if you think it should go to one of the village pumps: I've been taking part in an assessment drive, and coming across a number of articles which range from stub in one project's assessment to C-class in another's. The most likely reason for this is that the article has been expanded considerably since assessed as a stub.

This gave rise to the idea of adding an assessment date parameter to each Wikiproject template, and having the assessment date displayed with the quality class. (It is currently possible for a user to discover the assessment date, but only by trawling back through the history of the talk page). In future, the date parameter could also be used by bots to compile lists of pages last assessed, say, 3 years ago, which could be a basis for reassessing. dramatic (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Since no one has commented here, I'll take it to Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals). dramatic (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. Run with it. Rd232 talk 21:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

## Inactive WikiProjects

Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(development)#Inactive_WikiProjects, which includes now discussion of a Council role for reviewing inactive wikiprojects.

Several ideas of particular interest, maybe:

1. A bot go around and annotate participant lists, splitting off inactive users in a subheading, according to some reasonable definition (eg indefinitely blocked for more than 1 month, or no edits to any page for more than 1 year). In theory this could also be used to automatically mark projects inactive (if no active participants exist), but that probably wouldn't happen too often anyway.
2. A self-maintaining WikiProject directory, which could actually be relatively easy if it's set up so the templates which make up the project entries are kept instead on the relevant project page (and maybe merged with the {{inactive}} template). Then all you need is a bot that checks the templates and copies to the directory page. The tricky part would be maintaining the categorisation of WikiProjects, eg "History and society", but I think the template/bot can handle that too.
3. Making it stupidly easy for WikiProjects to remind their participants of their existence. What I imagine here is a newsletter bot which on perhaps a quarterly or even monthly basis simply reminds active editors listed as participants "you are listed as a member of Projects X,Y,Z", along with some current tasks (if the project has them) or else the standard {{Help Out}} (with a don't-remind-me optout possible, of course). Apart from reminding the editor, it would also advertise the projects to talk page visitors, who might well have similar interests.

Rd232 talk 11:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

## Project status propagation to talk page tags

(I posed this question at the Help Desk and got no response; would anyone here have an answer?)
Does the current status of a WikiProject automatically propagate to the tags on the talk pages of its articles? I ask because although Wikipedia:WikiProject Country Music is currently deemed to be semi-active, the project tags on the talk pages of its articles continue to show the project as inactive. Thanks, RadioBroadcast (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't automatically change. If you would like to "revive" your WikiProject banner (Template:WikiProject Country Music) you can remove the "/inactive" part from the template code. There is some more information at Template:Inactive WikiProject banner. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! RadioBroadcast (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

## Proposals

So, I've tried to add a couple of proposals, but I can't create the page.

Instead, they're sitting there until they get moved to the proper location:

76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Done They've been renamed. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

## Subpage search

So I was looking around. I'm sure most of the editors here know about the main pages for the council, e.g.:

But did you know about these?

Are these getting used? Should we tag them as historical, or send them to MfD? Link them on the project page so they don't get lost? What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's see:
Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
If there are no objections to any of the above suggestions, I'll go ahead and carry them out in the next day or so. Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
All of these are now done. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hm, with regards to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Banner standardisation, I think this still provides good advice in general (which doesn't really become 'historical'; note I did tweak the page last month to convert it to simple advice), perhaps moving it to an essay would be a good idea? –xenotalk 01:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
That might be a good idea. The proposal itself is "historical" (or, more precisely, inactive) in the sense that it didn't really move forward, but there's a lot of useful material there that could easily be put into a different form. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "historical" is the right tag: That proposal was made, clearly failed to gain consensus, and was never implemented, so the proposal's proper status is "failed".
I personally oppose the basic claims that this page is making:
• that putting the actual page at Template:WikiProject Medicine, and a redirect at Template:WPMED, is magically more effective for new page patrollers than putting the actual page at Template:WPMED and a redirect at Template:WikiProject Medicine,
• that editors will be psychologically unable to create navigation templates for the main namespace if a name like Template:Chemistry is currently used for a project space template (whereas a redirect to a project space template supposedly won't have any such impact), and
• that sloppy bot programmers will get better results if they can guess the name of the page rather than having to look it up -- especially since uses of some 'non-standard' names like WPMED outnumber the long name by more than ten to one, which means that overreliance on the naming convention means that 90% of a project's articles will be missed.
Consequently, I think that this page might be better off in userspace, so that Xeno can present it as his personal opinion, rather than something that was rejected by the community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a difference between a proposal failing to achieve consensus and being rejected. You should feel free to write a counter-essay if you feel this one is detrimental. The essay represents far more than my "personal opinion", the desire for standardization for wikiproject templates is shared by many. –xenotalk 16:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and essayfy'd it. Cheers, –xenotalk 01:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

## RfC on WP:Consensus

Given WP:CONLIMITED, to what extent and under what circumstances can individual WikiProjects and users customize article appearance with individual styles that deviate from site-wide style guidelines? (Relevance here: the question arises particularly in context of the use of color in tables.) Interested contributors are invited to participate there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

## Starting a roundtable discussion on collaboration with GLAM

One topic that was mentioned during last weekend's discussions with the Smithsonian Institution was the potential of having WikiProjects somehow participate in GLAM activities related either to individual articles within those projects' scope, or to entire institutions whose focus was similar to that of the project.

I'd like to start up some form of roundtable discussion among the active WikiProjects to consider whether we can participate in this arena, and, if so, how we can best go about collaborating with GLAM institutions. Thus, two questions come to mind:

1. Do people think having a discussion of this sort would be worthwhile?
2. If so, what's the best way of setting it up, and how can we get broad participation from active projects?

Any thoughts would be very appreciated! Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

## raising visibility of assessment

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal:_Article_rating_systems_as_an_informative_tool_about_vetting Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

## Archiving proposals

There is a backlog of proposals at WP:WPPRO that dates back to last year. How do they usually get archived? To monthly subpages? What happens when there is 5+ supports? Who is supposed to start the project if it hasn't already? 21:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a set of continuous archive pages (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Archive 5) that should probably be continued; these aren't monthly, but seem to be broken down simply by length instead.
As far as creating the project is concerned, my opinion is that if nobody has bothered to actually create the project, then there's really not enough interest to sustain it, even if five people put their names down in support; keep in mind that it's not uncommon for editors to sign up in support of a proposal and subsequently disappear. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

## Image class, should be File

Recently (well, today), quality/importance assessment has been set up for Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing. On the template banner page, Template:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing, a box immediately appeared with a stack of redlink categories which needed to be created - fair enough.

We set about creating these, and I used the "create" button next to each, to pull in the preload template to make it easier. This is one of the URLs that was behind a "create" button. I didn't notice at the time, but this particular one created Category:Image-Class Thoroughbred racing articles, which was automatically placed in Category:Image-Class articles. Xeno (talk · contribs) has altered it to sit in Category:File-Class articles which I suppose it should have been in the first place. How do we amend the preload stuff to use File instead of Image? I suspect that Template:WPBannerMeta/templatepage/deduceclass is one of those to be amended, but I don't know the whole story, so shall make no changes myself. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, give us a chance and we'll catch up. We're working through this right now on WP:RIF. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

## Lists of popular pages by WikiProject

This is to publicize Category:Lists of popular pages by WikiProject and Wikipedia:Lists of popular pages by WikiProject.
Wavelength (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

## Wikipedia books

Many or most editors will already know about the extant "book" class articles, like Book:Christianity, for example. It seems to me, personally, that these longer, more detailed pieces of content might be the best way to provide some sort of content similar to the articles in the Macropedia part of Encyclopedia Britannica. If nothing else, maybe we could try to encourage the various relevant projects to create books which more or less duplicate the extant articles in the Macropedia. Would this make sense to the rest of you? John Carter (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting idea - thanks! There is this useful list available. The question I would ask is, "Is this the best way to subdivide the material for a printed collection?" It may be - but it would be good to reflect on that; after all, the market for printed encyclopedias today is very different from when the Macropedia was conceived, and also the resources we have available on WP are different from those used by Britannica. Is there enough of a market for a general print encyclopedia to justify the effort? I'm not sure - but I think you'd want to identify who the buyers would be, and tailor it to their needs. If you can get some interest and support for this in the community, you may be able to get a publisher interested too. Also, we could discuss it as a 1.0 project if you would like. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I personally think that at least some of the extant Macropedia articles are probably a bit too long and unfocused. The current Macropedia article on "Christianity" is over a hundred pages long in Britannica, and I have to think that at least some of that might be made shorter and more consistent with our other content. The Ansel Adams article is I think five pages long. The matter of length and scope of the books is probably the biggest consideration at this point, along with whether the books should really be basically a collection of articles, or a separate entity unto themselves, possibly/probably with some material given more weight than others as required by the topic. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I would welcome any comments from any interested parties regarding the proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Books#Quality guidelines. I think the idea might take off a bit quicker if there were firmer guidelines for what should and maybe shouldn't be included in such books. John Carter (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

## Distribution of lists of popular pages by WikiProject

At this time, http://toolserver.org/%7Ealexz/pop/list.php lists 336 lists of popular pages by WikiProject, including 48 lists (exactly 1 in 7) for military history, and 22 lists (about 1 in 15) for philosophy. The distribution of lists appears to be related to Wikipedia:Systemic bias.
Wavelength (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the distribution is probably more related to WikiProject organization than to systemic bias. The military history lists, for example, were automatically requested and generated for each task force under the main Military history WikiProject; the individual groups for which these lists were generated did not independently request them. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply.—Wavelength (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

## Taskforce proposition for WikiProject Georgia

Hi, I'm an avid editor for articles in the state of Georgia under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) page.

1. It has came up from a small discussion, here, that this page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Albany/Savannah/Valdosta (South Georgia), has been inactive and should be added as a task force of the WikiProject Georgia page. It would be helpful and more organized if this action is approved that there be code added to the WikiProject Georgia banner template.
2. There is also a page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Atlanta. This WikiProject is inactive as well and covers an area of Georgia similar to the South Georgia WikiProject. If the first action is passed it would also be helpful to add the Atlanta WikiProject page as a task force of the WikiProject Georgia page.
3. A third action to be added as a task force for the WikiProject Georgia page would be to create an education task force to the WikiProject Georgia banner template. I have already prepared the code to be added to the template banner, here. There is a red lock on the WikiProject Georgia banner template page, so only administrators can edit this and approve any changes. I have contacted three admins about the education task force proposition and have received only one response.

So, I am here requesting advice and assistance on this matter to improve coverage over the state of Georgia on Wikipedia. Thanks for your help! Tamer_of_Hope talk 22:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the Guide and what it says about WikiProjects and Task forces? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I have. Someone suggested it and no one took action to get the proposed action towards people that could make it happen. It was pushed from person to person until someone, me, decided to get something done. Advice on what should be done, please. Thanks Tamer_of_Hope talk 17:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Mergers of inactive WikiProjects into an active one is something that any editor can do: You just WP:MOVE the pages and create redirects. You might like to see whether the checklist at the end of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces is a helpful model.
To update fully protected templates, you'll have to use {{Editprotected}} to request the changes. If you don't know exactly what changes need to be made, then you might ask for help at Template talk:WPBannerMeta. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I was the founder for WP:GASV (the 1st WP listed), and I would like to ask if someone would be interested in running it either as a project or (preferably) a taskforce of WikiProject Georgia. - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 20:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

## Questions and request for help with a new WikiProject, WP:Dams

Hello, I have some questions and a request for advice/help in setting up a new WikiProject. If this is not the right place, my apologies (and what would be?). Here's my question/request. Recently a few editors decided to start Wikipedia:WikiProject Dams. There's only five active participants so far. None of us are admins and we're not experienced with setting up WikiProjects (as far as I know--at least User:Shannon1 and myself are not). But we figured we could manage it and learn in the experience. Shannon made the project's main page and {{WikiProject Dams}} project banner template. We still need to do many things--even the "to do" list is still empty! It will just take time to write up stuff and flesh things out (and we will, sooner or later). In the meanwhile, a few of us began adding the template, with basic quality/importance assessments, to pages about dams. But we've hit an impasse for technical reasons. I've been reading the various pages about setting up WikiProjects and related tools, but cannot figure out how to deal with these technical problems. In fact, I think my attempts have only made things more broken. So, after trying to figure things out and failing, I'm posting here to ask if anyone more experienced could take a look and maybe help us get a couple things working better.

The first issue relates to the project's banner template. We had been adding it to dam pages in a spree until User:Rehman pointed out, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dams#With WP:Energy, that it would be nice if a "hydroelectric=yes" parameter could be added to the template, which would link to WP:Energy. This makes sense, and we stopped the tagging-spree, but I don't know how to add this parameter. In the same discussion I also proposal other parameters, like "needs-infobox=yes" (the {{Rivers}} template has that, and it has been useful). But again, I don't know how to do it, being quite inexperienced with template coding.

The second issue relates to page assessments and summary statistics--as explained on the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment page, among others. I've found the assessment summary statistics useful in other WikiProjects and tried to get it set up for WP:Dams, but it isn't working right. Not being an admin I create the necessary categories by hand (Category:Start-Class Dam articles, etc), and made the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dams/Assessment page. I'm inexperienced with making categories and I think I made them as subcategories in the wrong way, then tried to fix it by making "new subcategories" in the "right place", then copying the templates from the old to the new categories, then blanking the old ones. In hindsight I realize I did not understand how categories and subcategories work. I think by doing these things I only made things more confused. I did add the WikiProject to the directory of assessment projects and ran the assessment bot a few times. But things are still messed up.

Those are the main points I'm asking for advice or help with. Any other general advice about this new WikiProject's pages so far would be appreciated too. Thanks! Pfly (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

## Proposal to rename the "Wikipedia:WikiProject" pseudo-namespace

A proposal has been made to rename the "Wikipedia:WikiProject" pseudo-namespace to an actual namespace (e.g. "WikiProject:"); feedback on the idea would be appreciated. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this idea is friggin brilliant (It's annoying to type "Wikipedia:" each time I go to a WikiProject)! CanonLawJunkie (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
So don't type "Wikipedia:". Type "WP:" instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Many WikiProjects have shortcuts. For example, WP:ENGLAND leads to Wikipedia:WikiProject England. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
And the entire Wikipedia: namespace uses WP: as its shortcut. So you can type WP:WikiProject England rather than Wikipedia:WikiProject England, even if you don't know what the full shortcut is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

## WP:LAUNDRY

I noticed that the Laundromat WikiProject is currently inactive. I really think that this WikiProject should be revived but I have never revived a inactive WikiProject before, so I am unsure how I should try to help it become active again. Could someone help me out here? Usb10 Let's talk 'bout it! 15:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty much like any other social endeavor: beg your friends to watchlist the page (hit the Village Pump to find some people currently fired up about this issue, and maybe post a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists), post messages on the project's talk page about any relevant work you're doing -- and hope that others will respond in kind. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

## A New Wikiproject Tool

I made a new tool aimed to help wikiprojects keep an eye on their articles. The tool lists edits, similarly to the wikipedia watchlist, when given a wikiproject banner template. Just for an example, here is the watch-list for WP:WikiProject Florida. I am in dire need of feedback, so any and all is welcome at my talk page. Tim1357 talk 03:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a nice idea but I think it has a bit too much detail to it, some projects have 100,000 pages so their not going to really need it because thier would be too much changes, but projects like WP:DARTS would find it useful because thier aren't many articles so their won't be tons of changes every second and it would be easy to see whats going on. Actually, i'm interested in it for WP:DARTS, could you supply me with instructions on how to get it going. Mr.Kennedy1 talk 12:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Kennedy, the watch list for WP:DARTS would be here. You don't need to get it going, just type in the title of the Wikiproject Banner in the text box and hit 'Recent Changes.' Tim1357 talk 19:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
[Tim1357, I am indenting your 19:39 message by one more increment for clarity, according to Help:Using talk pages#Indentation and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments, point 8 (Fixing format errors) (permanent link here, Others' comments). -- Wavelength (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)]
Tim1357, thank you for making the new tool and providing the watchlists. I have started two new pages of watchlists.
Wavelength (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I am correcting the indentation of my comment.—Wavelength (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

## WP:COI: volunteers needed

There’s a good number of people, e.g. Kww (talk), Tim Vickers (talk), Coren (talk), among many others, who have expressed desire to have me permanently banned from Wikipedia for writing on the subject of the “human molecule”, efforts of which resulted in a one year ban on me, back in 2007. To exemplify one objection, as expressed by Coren earlier this year: “You seem to ignore, Mr Thims, that Wikipedia is not the proper venue to document your novel theories.” The central problem here is that this is not “my novel theory”; but rather the theory dates back over two hundred years, with over ninety different people publishing content on this subject:

There have been at least six books written on the subject, one painting, four aluminum Molecule Man statues (one 100-foot tall), movie mentions, articles, over a dozen videos, many debates, posters, as well as college courses (dating back to 1894) taught utilizing the human molecule perspective as a basis. What seems to be the case is that either: (a) I have been mis-labeled as an editor with aims of self-promotion over that of an editor with a genuine interest in a subject (that very few people write on or know about); or (b) the subject is an anathema to many editors (and as such are using the various bylaws of Wikipedia in their favor to block the subject from Wikipedia)? To give a bit of history of my failed efforts to write neutral overview article on the subject:

Article EoHT article Deletion #1 Deletion #2 Desired neutral article
Human molecule (human molecule) AFD (I requested deletion) redirect to nanoputian (10 Oct 2007) Delete per WP:CSD#G4 (11 Jun 2010)

What I am looking for, at this point, being that there obviously exists some form admitable of conflict of interest (being that I wrote a history book on the subject of the human molecule in 2008 and that I seem to be one of only three people, including Robert Sterner and James Elser (2000), who have every made an attempt at the calculation of the molecular formula for one person), is for a minimum of about two or three neutral volunteer editors to write up a one page article (or even stub paragraph) on the subject of the “human molecule” (encompassing its derivative terms human atom, social atom, human chemical, human element, etc.), and I will confide my contributions or guidance of the article to the talk page. The topic, to note, is very controversial being that it is at odds with many cherished theories, particularly those of religion as well as many secular theories, such as life, free will, choice, purpose, etc.

My interest in having a Wikipedia article on this subject is so that children, age 15 or younger, will know that there is an alternative viewpoint out there on what it means to be a “human” (in contrast to the dogma of outdated subjects such as religion or other secular philosophies), and that this subject has been tossed around for at least 200-years now. At a minimum I would like to see:

(a) the mention that French philosopher Jean Sales (friend of Voltaire) coined the term in 1789 as follows: "we conclude that there exists a principle of the human body which comes from the great process in which so many millions of atoms of the earth become many millions of human molecules."
(b) the Sterner-Elser 2002 published calculation for the empirical molecular formula for one “human molecule”, as found in their Ecological Stoichiometry textbook, where they define a human (a publication which has been cited over 750-times): [1]
${\displaystyle H_{375,000,000}O_{132,000,000}C_{85,700,000}N_{6,430,000}Ca_{1,500,000}P_{1,020,000}S_{206,000}Na_{183,000}\,}$
${\displaystyle K_{177,000}C_{l127,000}Mg_{40,000}Si_{38,600}Fe_{2,680}Zn_{2,110}Cu_{76}I_{14}Mn_{13}F_{13}Cr_{7}Se_{4}Mo_{3}Co_{1}\,}$

It is my view that the ban of this topic from Wikipedia is equivalent to the hysteria that results in acts of book burning of olden days or the inquisitions of Galileo for believing in the work of Copernicus. As Physchim62 (talk) put in on 11 Jun 2010 "It seems like the witch hunt is still on, more than eighteen months after the original events". I would like to think that there are more than myself and Physchim62 amenable to having a short stub article on the subject of the human defined atomically. I will post this help-message on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry talk pages. Comments welcome. --Libb Thims (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

## Possible votes for selection of Wikipedia books to be made

Miserable subject line, I know, but it gets the point across. In a recent discussion here, it has been suggested that maybe the members of the various projects vote or discuss what books they think their individual projects should make. I don't think that there is a Lady Gaga WikiProject yet, so there might be some trouble in determining which Projects would be the ones to "vote" on Wikipedia books of that type, and some of the inactive projects might not even have anyone notice discussions there.

Do the rest of you think that it might be a good idea to make some sort of concerted effort to discuss creation of Wikipedia Books, maybe with some sort of broad announcement on the Community Portal or something, and, if yes, any ideas how to go about conducting the discussion? John Carter (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what standing projects would have to determine something like this, since I was under the impression that anyone at all could create books. Is that no longer the case? Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

## Deletion of a WikiProject

A WikiProject has been nominated for deletion(here), while that nomination is somewhat silly on account of it still being active it does raise a wider question of what is the process of inactive Wikiprojects; I was under the impression they get marked as inactive and added to Category:Inactive WikiProjects. Is there a guideline or previous discussion regarding inactive Wikiprojects? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I find that the templates of all wikiprojects (even inactive ones) can be useful - useful to help map out and rate articles within a given subject, and also monitor recent changes etc. if one so desires. I think most wikiprojects are probably inactive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I did raise the issue of redefining what it means for a project to be "inactive" here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)/Archive_1#Inactive_WikiProjects. They provide a useful organisational function even when there isn't much obvious editing activity. Rd232 talk 14:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Generally speaking, I've found that the organization benefit mostly exists when there aren't any active projects working in the area. If there are, it's usually more productive to merge the inactive project into an active one as a task force and let the active project take over maintenance of the organizational and infrastructure elements; if nothing else, that ensures that someone is looking after the organizational stuff and keeping it up to date. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

## I need help!

I'm not exactly sure if I'm able to make wiki projects, but i was thinking about starting a wiki project. Does anyone know how to start one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AutoMe (talkcontribs) 02:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There is information at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals (the page to propose a new WikiProject) and in various parts of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide.
The purpose of a WikiProject is to help multiple editors coordinate their work. If you don't already know several people who are working on the articles that interest you, then a new WikiProject is probably not going to be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. I would also suggest getting help from other projects working in related areas and seeing if you can set up a task force or something of that sort. If you're not really sure about how WikiProjects are started, you probably going to be a little overwhelmed with all the work involved in running one. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

## Help needed - dispute concerning lead paragraph of the article Morality

Faust and I disagree about the relevancy and appropriateness of inserting a reference to Kant in the lead paragraph of the article about Morality. We both put forward our arguments on the talk page (here), but fail to convince each other. Any input would be welcome. Zaspino (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You might want to follow the dispute resolution process; there's rather little useful input that the Council can provide into specific topic disputes. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

## Help needed - dispute in paragraphs and wording, NPOV Jehovah's Witnesses pages

I've already attempted to resolve the issues on the talk page of Jehovah's Witnesses, and then the NPOV page. It is an ongoing (over one year) issue with the Jehovah's Witnesses pages. There are two editors who have a strong POV of anti-Jehovah's Witness sentiment. The one editor is openly opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses and has a certain agenda that he is promoting on the Jehovah's Witnesses pages. The second editor is more fair, but also presents what I feel is a POV against Jehovah's Witnesses. The result is the main Jehovah's Witnesses page has some things in it that need to be addressed, but also the Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses page has a very strong anti-Jehovah's Witness POV. It clearly violates the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. I couldn't seem to get any response on that on the NPOV page, the only ones commenting, basically, were the two editors who are controlling most of the Jehovah's Witnesses pages in the first place. So, I am going here as a next step, will still trying to resolve the issues on the talk page of Jehovah's Witnesses. I feel also that there is Original Research on the Wikipedia Jehovah's Witness page and Synthesis in one section. The other two editors want that information there as it is, which the one very oppossed editor synthesized. So, please direct me know on how to handle this, and I can post specifics on this page if you wish. It concerns the section Failed Predictions. The Wikipedia article highlights throughout "failed predictions" of JW, but the editors will not allow any positive "predictions" on the page that have come true. They say it is irrelevant. The Failed Predictions section is a synthesis and contains original research from editor BlackCab, formerly LTSally, who also largely crafted the Criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses page. Natural (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Natural

User:Naturalpsychology complains about POV issues raised by editors opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses, but fails to state that he is a member of that religion who has doggedly pursued a campaign to delete all sourced material critical of his religion. He has raised a host of issues on a range of forums and continues to complain of a conspiracy when he discovers no one agrees with him. I have endeavoured to work with him in the past, only to be told I'm an apostate with an anti-JW agenda. He now imagines I am responsible for articles such as Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses which, under a couple of names, has existed here long before I began editing. The articles of which he complains are comprehensively sourced, balanced and accurate. It appears nothing short of a one-sided promotion of his religion would please him. BlackCab (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
You might want to follow the dispute resolution process; there's rather little useful input that the Council can provide into specific topic disputes. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

## WP:CRYZOO Needs your help!

To be honest, I'm not sure that posting invitations to specific projects on this page is likely to produce much of a result (as compared to, say, posting to article talk pages); the discussion here tends to focus more on infrastructure and meta-project matters, not on specific topics, which somewhat limits the regular audience. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

## The United WikiProjects

I assume this is the headquarters for the United WikiProjects. Am I correct? Arlen22 (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question - would you please clarify? - jc37 18:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
If you mean that this is a central area where people from different WikiProjects gather to discuss things of common interest, then yes (or at least that's the intent—we haven't seen all that much activity recently). Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I mean. I got the name from The United States. Arlen22 (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

## Article alerts status

21:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

## Activity levels

Looking at recent activity levels, it doesn't seem like we're doing much here; with the exception of the proposals page (and even there, the proposals themselves tend to see little activity) and the occasional (and frequently misplaced) posting on this page, there's very little going on within the Council. Thus, two questions:

1. Should we be actively doing something useful, or should this just be a forum for occasional questions?
2. If we should be doing something, what should we be doing?

Thoughts? Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree.
I think that the "council" could probably be renamed. It implies leadership (overlords) rather than a centrallised location for general discussions regarding Wikiprojects - such as consistency and proposed new projects. On the otherhand, it's a cool sounding name : )
And I agree that the proposed projects page should be easier to find. And every request has its own page now? why? This should work like the WP:VP. Split off only lengthy when necessary (Though archiving should happen at least bi monthly.)
Just a start, but maybe we can build from there... - jc37 01:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
That's a good point; with the low levels of activity that most of the proposals are seeing, having a continuous page shouldn't really hurt, and will make it easier to follow everything. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I like the sound of "council". Arlen22 (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
This is the headquarters for the United Wikiprojects (or it is now). Arlen22 (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy with the 'council' being a forum for occasional questions.
My current 'what to do' idea is to (thoughtfully) discourage the creation of (most) new WikiProjects. I think that most of the proposers believe that "If I build it, they will come", which simply isn't true. For the most part, if "they" haven't already shown up, then there's no point in creating a WikiProject page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
In my experience, encouraging people that want to create WikiProjects to go and create task forces instead is more productive than trying to get them to give up the idea altogether; if nothing else, the resulting pages wind up being taken care of by an active project.
More to the point, though, do you think that folding the proposals back onto a single page, as jc37 suggests above, would help us keep track of them (and dissuade people from moving forward where necessary)? Or would that not buy us anything? Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The Council does work well as mostly a forum. Although, I think there are times when it needs to serve in a sort "governing" function, such as applying major and necessary changes across the board. There's many examples of this in the past. However, as there is nothing on the horizon, I guess there's nothing at all to worry about there.
Perhaps we need to rethink the concept of WikiProjects. Obviously, there a sizable number of projects which work extremely well in their present form. However, as much as I strongly support pushing people to make taskforces, I feel we need to be a little bit tighter on what taskforces would be viable. WP:VG, for example has a large number of taskforces now. I feel it's getting to a point where there are too many unnecessary task forces. A number of them have become inactive very quickly. I suppose it's not a huge problem though, as many of them are "automated" (perhaps that is the wrong word to use). Which leads me to my next point.
The problem is that people float in and out of projects. Most projects have an unnecessary level of bureaucracy tied to them. It can be very difficult to revive a project simply because a level of bureaucracy was previously established, and apart from being hard to maintain, it is very hard to restore. I think that in the long run, we would benefit by encouraging all new projects (and perhaps a number of existing ones) to adopt a simpler and more "automated" approach. Structured in such a way they can be abandoned and subsequently revived easily, and with minimal fuss and disruption to those who still wish to continue a project's work. So long as it can still function as a source of relevent information to assist editors, which is one of the main benefits of projects.
Perhaps this is not the best example, but at WP:VG, we revived the collaboration page. Before, it required a ridiculous amount of work to manage. More so, in fact, than the act of getting on with the article at hand and improving it. We reduced the excessive system of nominations and voting (which strongly put people off) down to a random bot selection. People come and go. It doesn't matter if no one is interested for awhile, because it's automated. In both the sense that a bot does the legwork, and that necessary information is just there. It doesn't need to be altered, and it doesn't need to be constantly managed. If someone comes along and decides they want to do it, they can jump into it straight away. Like I said, it's not the best example at all, but it gives you an idea of what I am babbling on about.
So yeah, what I'm saying is that I think new projects need to be more like the council itself. Act as a landing page, a forum and a source of consolidated relevent information. Do away with assessment departments for projects too small to properly handle them. Do away with blanket participant lists. etc. etc. Obviously, some of the larger projects need a vast amount of bureaucracy, and they work very well with it. However, I think that most projects and taskforces need to change the way they function, in order to be more effective and so we end up with less dead projects. Because even if they are inactive, they should still be able to function and serve some use to someone in some capacity.
I apologise for the length of my post. --Dorsal Axe 07:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
In WP:CMC, the work groups are more like "extra" places for collaboration and planning. For anyone who wants to organise there.
After all, it's just a matter of placing the work group talk page on your watchlist to know if something is going on, if you want to help out.
Though granted, ours are rather like broad areas within the wikiproject's coverage.
Most of the "collaboration of the week/month" sub-collaborations have died off, and so rather than that, anyone interested in helping with something just helps out with whatever is posted on the WikiProject talk page and/or the noticeboard. And if something (like [[[Joker (comics]], currently) looks like it could use some extra attention, someone notes it, and people pitch in as they can.
Maybe it helps that we tend to have a fairly motivated membership, I dunno.
So with all of that said, I'd like to avoid getting too prescriptive in rules regarding WikiProjects and task forces.
I do think that there should be a show of interest here before the (minor, generally at first) bureaucracy of creating a WikiProject is set up.
But this set of pages should act as a guide to help editors focus their energies, not kill their interest.
Also, as noted above, people come and go, so if there isn't interest after (let's say) a month or two, the requests should be closed as "historical", and allowed to be reopened (starting over with who may be interested) should anyone want to try again.
(And nothing stopping the person from contacting anyone who might have been interested in the past.
And in a way, the request page acts as a hub of interest in collaboration as well. - jc37 02:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Seeing the council as potentially a forum to propose or otherwise discuss collaboration between WikiProjects might be useful if we could get such started. This also might include, for instance, collaborating on articles, concurrent assessment or tagging drives, joint review by distinct projects, and the like. And perhaps it might function as a place to discuss, when necessary, "disposal" of inactive or poorly conceived WikiProjects or task forces. John Carter (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

## WikiProject Franco-Americans

I hereby announce the start of a WikiProject Franco-Americans. Join in great numbers!

Ok, that's done. Now, I have a technical issue with the assessment thing... I was expecting to see a table appear when adding the following code:

But it does not. Yet, this other table proves that I have done at least part of it right. Why is the nice-looking assessment table now showing up with the code above? -- Mathieugp (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The bot that generates the table runs periodically, so the table may not be present even though articles are recognized in the system. You can use the manual update tool (http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/update.fcgi) to force the bot to update a project's assessment pages if you need them immediately. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the link! The one on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot was broken. Should we replace it with the one you just gave me? -- Mathieugp (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

## banners for category talk pages?

I know that there are banners specifically designed for category talk pages, but right now I can't think of any right off. Can anyone point one out to me to use as a basis for the Asia Project category banner I have been asked to create? John Carter (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

## Userbox

Is there a userbox that states that you actively participate in WikiProject proposals? -Vaarsivius 09:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Not one specifically for that, no, although there is a general WikiProject Council userbox. I'm not sure that participating in the proposal process is something that really needs a userbox, but you're certainly free to create one if you'd like. Kirill [talk] [prof] 23:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

## Proposed WikiProject: Memphis

Is there anyone who is interested in starting a Memphis WikiProject?

It would cover the Memphis metropolitan area, with counties in Tennessee, Mississippi, and Arkansas. It can't be a task force of a state project because it covers territory in multiple states.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It can maybe be a taskforce of all three states? Rich Farmbrough, 19:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

## Moving a project title

Is there a way to hold a move discussion to move a project to a disambiguated title when the membership refuses to rename it themselves? I'd rather not mention the project uintil getting some responses first. - BilCat (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

In principle, I suppose anything is possible. In practice, however, trying to force a move on an existing project (presumably so that another project can take the name?) is almost certainly a bad idea, as it will lead to years of bad blood between the editors involved. The usual convention is that project names are taken "first come, first served", similar to how shortcuts are assigned.
Having said that, I'd be surprised if there wasn't some way we could resolve this amicably and leave everyone more or less satisfied; but you'd really have to describe the specific case in question before I could offer any concrete advice. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure. WP:Football is only about association football/soccer. Quite misleading. I'm just inquiring at the momnent, and I probably won't take iot any further. I wouldn't mind seeing a coordinating project for all the fooball codes as a geneal place for discussing related issues for the codes, but I've not raised that anywhere as yet. - BilCat (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Coordinating projects tend to do quite poorly, in my experience. They never reach the critical mass of membership and activity that a successful project needs, since most of the interest is concentrated in the child projects; and anything they do tends to breed resentment in their child projects, who believe (usually correctly) that they don't need the coordinating project's help.
Getting back to the more general point, I don't think that the potential existence of a new project would be sufficient reason to push an existing (and active) one out of the name it's used for more than five years. If there were a coordinating project, and if the coordinating project were active and productive, then an argument might be made to give it priority of naming; but, as things are, we'd be disrupting the work of the child project without any real evidence that the project we'd be giving the name to would actually go anywhere. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a hat-note, anyway, although it could be more comprehensive. Rich Farmbrough, 19:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

## Parent project hierarchy in page tagging

Is there a guideline regarding a child project's banner tag overriding the parent project's? Specifically, I'm looking at cases where an article is tagged by both WikiProject Ireland and WikiProject Irish music, where the music project is a child of the national project. Should I remove the national project's tag? Ask WikiProject Ireland to formulate a stance? Leave well enough alone? Dereksmootz (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No real guideline that I know of. I suppose which tag should be higher would depend somewhat on whether the article is more central or important to Irish music or to Ireland in the broader sense. One option might be, if one or more child projects is inactive, to adjust the main Ireland project banner to include assessment parameters etc. for the various inactive direct descendant projects, and then perhaps replace the inactive project's banner with the new multi-functional banner of the parent project. Alternately, one could, potentially, develop the new multi-functional banner and ask the descendant projects if they would find the use of one such multi-function banner as an acceptable way of reducing banner clutter by removing the then somewhat redundant different banners. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The two typical conventions, in my experience, are:
1. The parent project has a consolidated banner that includes the child projects' assessment; or
2. The child project has a banner that automatically generates the parent project's assessment.
In either case, the important thing is that both projects have their respective assessment categories generated, allowing them to correctly track articles within their scope. If the parent project's categories are simply removed, then the parent project's statistics/logs/etc. will be incomplete, since they will be missing the child project's articles. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok - since I'm not savvy regarding editing banners it seems like the short term solution is to live with the clutter in order to
preserve the statistics' integrity - works for me. Thanks for the feedback Dereksmootz (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Encapsulating the banners in the banner shell, with collapse turned on will reduce clutter. Rich Farmbrough, 20:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

## Bibliography pages

Just as a thought, regarding something that has come up elsewhere, I think that, in general, it might be a good idea to establish separate bibliography articles and/or project pages for many projects. Such pages would assist editors who might not have immediate access to a lot of the material, by perhaps pointing out which books or articles to request as loans, and/or help editors find out which topics within that field might be notable enough for a separate article. Also, they might be very useful if they included lists of books which have been found to be "standard sources" in that field and/or sources which have been found at RSN or elsewhere to be not particularly reliable or useful here. Like I said, just a thought. John Carter (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

## WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot. See the tool's wiki page and the tool itself. Svick (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. If each listing by categories had its own table of contents, that would be helpful.
Wavelength (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Done, listing by category now contains a TOC with a number of articles for each category. Svick (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for those additional features.
Wavelength (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

## Most watched/edited WikiProjects

We have two new reports on WikiProjects:

Thanks to Svick and Wavelength for making this happen.

From the first list, I wonder whether we should review the couple hundred at the end (with only one or two changes to any page during the last 30 days) and see about having them tagged as {{inactive}} or {{semiactive}}. Some of them are doubtless already tagged that way. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I favor not tagging them, because that might discourage (rather than encourage) edits to them, but editors can visit pages in those WikiProjects and look for things that need to be improved.
Wavelength (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Tagging the projects as inactive isn't particularly useful in terms of getting them to be more productive, in my opinion; I think we should really be looking at longer-term solutions (e.g. merging them to an active project, transforming them into a task force, etc.) for the terminally catatonic ones. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The list is also missing the totally inactive projects with 0 changes. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I support the Kirill's idea of merging, either into an active project or as a task force. --Kslotte (talk) 10:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
"last 30 days", could the report be made on a bit longer time period? maybe a year? would give better information about Wikiprojects that really are inactive. --Kslotte (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The usefulness of a project doesn't bear any great relation with edits or watchers. Tagging projects as inactive isn't tremendously helpful; it just puts off people who might get involved. Merge if necessary, but don't underestimate the organisational value derived from projects with no visible activity on the project pages. (For example, project assessments made on talk pages don't show up on the project page as an edit.) Rd232 talk 11:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The report has been updated to include changes in the past 365 days and projects with 0 edits too. Note that if the table contains a redlink or a redirect, it means there is some non-redirect sub- or talk-page under that name. Svick (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've tidied up some of those redlinked projects by moving some pages to the correct locations. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you think about talk pages such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Art or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Web Animation? They contain some discussion, but the corresponding non-talk pages are redirects to some actual WikiProject. I'm asking because they show up in the list as if they were a WikiProject with 0 edits. Svick (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Could the talk pages just be edited and changed into redirects as well? -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think redirecting (or archiving and redirecting, if there's significant material there) is probably the best approach for pages like that. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Would some updated SQL help? Adding another column to the report could show if the projects mainpage is a redirect. (Haven't actually tested the SQL below though) -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

```SELECT REPLACE(SUBSTRING_INDEX(page.page_title, '/', 1), '_', ' ') AS project,
SUM((
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM revision
WHERE page.page_id = rev_page
AND DATEDIFF(NOW(), rev_timestamp) <= 365
)) AS count,
page2.page_is_redirect AS project_is_a_redirect
FROM page
LEFT JOIN page AS page2
ON (REPLACE(SUBSTRING_INDEX(page.page_title, '/', 1), '_', ' ')=page2.page_title AND page2.page_namespace=4)
WHERE page_title LIKE 'WikiProject\_%'
AND page.page_namespace BETWEEN 4 AND 5
AND page.page_is_redirect = 0
GROUP BY project, project_is_a_redirect
ORDER BY count DESC, project
```

## Lyrics

I suggest a WikiProject Lyrics.--155.54.178.240 (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well lyrics are not on Wikipedia, as that would be a copyright violation. Therefore, the project wouldn't work. Acather96 (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Not all lyrics are copyright limited, and fair use/fair dealing allow reasonable excerpts to be quoted from those that are. A WikiProject consisting of agents who understand the copyright law, and with enthusiasm for music could help ensure appropriate and consistent quoting. Rich Farmbrough, 19:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC).
You are right. For example, there are lyrics in the public domain. --155.54.178.240 (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

## Femto Bot

Is now taking orders for "recent changes" pages to maintain similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hawaii/Hawaii_recent_changes and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bacon/Recent_changes. Rich Farmbrough, 18:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

## Essay

Just what we need, another userspace essay of at best dubious quality, right? Anyway, User:John Carter/Wikipedia:The Next Generation is a rough, and I mean rough, idea of some things which it might be possible to do which might make some things a bit better around here. Maybe. The downside is that, right now, the essay really is, well, bad. Any input anyone might want to make in maybe making it more useful and suitable for wikipedia space is more than welcome to make any changes which might help it be more fitting there. John Carter (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

## WikiProject Northern Cyprus

Is Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Cyprus an official Wikiproject? I noticed it while looking for one on the location, but it doesn't look like a real wikiproject. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope, that's not really a WikiProject; it looks like someone tried to set one up but never followed through. Given that the creator is indefinitely blocked, I'd suggest we either redirect it to an existing project (if there is one covering the topic) or delete it; of course, if someone wants to take it under their wing and turn it into a real project, that would work too. Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Cyprus. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

-I think it would be better if it was redirected to Wikiproject:Cyprus since I don't see it going anywhere by itself. Wikiproject:Cyprus represents the country as a whole which is not that large of one so again, it would be better of if it was redirected to to Wikiproject: Cyprus. -- DubaiTerminator (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have turned the page in question into a redirect to WikiProject Cyprus. However, if the subject does ever become one in which multiple editors are interested in, it might make sense to create a subproject for Northern Cyprus. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

## Possible "annual meetings"

What would the rest of you think of the idea of maybe, perhaps starting in January?, having something like across-the-board "annual meetings" of editors to discuss how they would like to see the WikiProjects and related groups in their field go forward in the next year, perhaps discuss any new sources or developments in their fields which might not yet be completely reflected in the related content, discuss any problem areas of content, like areas of POV pushing or COI, which they might be able to address, and any other related issues? They might, potentially, be broken down into major topical headings, like maybe perhaps for the broad areas of Arts, Language and Literature, Philosphy & Religion, Economics and Business, Hobbies and recreation, Humanities, Science, Technology and Places, which are the current headings of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/List of WikiProjects, and, perhaps if there is sufficient interest and related discussion, separate more focused discussion for those topics? John Carter (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about some sort of on-wiki gathering, and not an actual face-to-face meeting? Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, probably something like special pages created explicitly for the purpose, maybe either subpages of the directly relevant WikiProjects if they exist or some sort of one-time group of wikipedia space pages specifically created. I would think that certain projects, maybe the more smoothly functioning ones, like Film and MILHIST, might not necessary need such pages, but a lot of the other projects, particularly those which are subtopics of the topics listed above, might benefit from getting a bit more focused attention on them, at least once a year. John Carter (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Can WPCanada just declare that related wikiproject banners (not WPCanada) should be removed without consulting with the subprojects? I noticed at WP:Montreal a change in our instructions that removed our banner from our own instructions and at template talk:WikiProject_Canada that the members of WPCanada want to eliminate our banner without consulting us about it. We have an open poll that shows disagreement on the issue, and were not even advised that our own instructions were being modified to eliminate our own banner from them. The change occurred during a raft of changes to update out of date info. 76.66.202.72 (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I would think they should at least have the courtesy to mention it on the project's talk page.. a link to a discussion.. something. Instead of just going ahead unilaterally. -- œ 07:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Could have just asked me directly what was going on! ...I was the one that did this..was not WPCanada as a whole. I see now i am mistaken in my actions to change the 3 templates. I was under the impression we were now using the WPCAnada banner as per what is here Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Assessment#Use of WikiProject Canada banner. There was no malice intent as indicated above. I came across this projects changed them thinking the projects were simply not updated . I have been making updates to all the Canada projects after making portals for the missing ones (So in the process i am adding the templates for the portals and well there adding {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}} {{WikiProject Footer}}). I am more then willing to revert my self on this 3 pages and apologizes that my bold edits were not constructive. You will see at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Toronto#Project banner that i have no intent of them being deleted or unused, just though they were all in the process of being converted. Puzzled at y noone asked me directly - GF. Moxy (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay no biggie! :) Just would've appreciated some kind of notification beforehand that's all. -- œ 05:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
All my fault - Again sorry i misunderstood what was going on..You will see that i have done what you did - in that i have added back the old ones as see here and here (may want to c\e those).Moxy (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Why is WPCanada saying what banners to use, as that WPCanada workpage clearly shows, without the consent of the Vancouver and Montreal wikiprojects, as clearly the poll at WPMontreal indicates? It looks like WPCanada is going through and eliminated banners without the consent of at least these two WikiProjects if not more. At WT:WikiProject United States WP Ontario Roads is indicated to also object to the replacement of their banner by WPCanada. 65.93.12.108 (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
In short, I believe that to reduce clutter, there is no particularly good reason that can be put forward not to remove duplicate banners, to reduce the clutter on the article's talk page, if the banner in used can provide the same assessment information that the individual banners can. If it cannot, then that is different. Also, certainly, it would also be possible to reverse the removal of those banners. I think the best course to take would be to have a discussion on the Canada project's talk page about what advantages if any there are to the presence of the multiple banners. Speaking personally, however, if the banner includes a link to the more focused project visible in the banner, and the assessment information for the subprojects is also included, removing the duplication probably can be seen to make sense. The one exception I can clearly see would be if it can be demonstrated that the more focused project is currently demonstrably more active than the parent project. However, I do think that it would make most sense to discuss this on the Canada Project's talk page. John Carter (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Originally the problem was that the Canada banner was forcing the city projects to use the national importance rankings, which admittedly was problematic. That problem has been corrected, but a couple of anonymous users still prefer the city banners to be separate, although I'm no longer sure why. The users are right that there should be agreement from the regulars at the local wikiproject before starting any mass-replacement, but past discussions on the local wikiproject pages yielded little or no replies from anyone other than dynamic IPs. —Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 05:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Though the instructions at WikiProject Canada do say anything about duplicate banners, rather that any instance of the city banner could be replaced by the Canada banner. So if there was no Canada banner, the city banner could still be replaced with the Canada banner (no duplication present). That had not been discussed with the city based wikiprojects. 65.94.47.218 (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:WikiProject English Hamlets

This has recently appeared and would appear to have been created out of process and with no indication of support. Not being active in Wikiprojects I have no idea how these things are normally dealt with so I thought I'd post here to see if someone more knowledgeable can take a look. Dpmuk (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Lets assume good faith here and that is was done to help (not to many read the huge guide we have here first - before making projects). It looks like it was created by user with some experience. I personal think this should be more of a task forces then its own project. I would recommend that you mention this project at Wikipedia:WikiProject England and see if perhaps this could become a task force and or to ask the main project if its needed at all.Moxy (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate more help with the project please Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 14:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The usual way to start a Wikipedia project is to ask a few people first whom you know are working on the very same kind of stuff ans see if they share your idea. Then, if they think it's a good idea, you have to go through the launch procedure and see if you can get enough people together to sign the proposal. It's quite a complicated process because it's designed to prevent projects being created willy-nilly - too many projects stagnate very quickly.--Kudpung (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
It may be helpful to read the (long) WikiProject guide, which is linked in the template at the top of this page. And, to be honest, I'd probably merge it to WP:ENGLAND. One big project with a broad scope will be more successful than a proliferation of tiny projects that each take one piece of the puzzle. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

## Copy and past for watchlists of active WPs

I have made a list for people that wish to follow the active and semi active WPprojects...not sure if all there did my best..To add this to your watchlist just copy and past into your raw watchlist.Moxy (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Copy and past for watchlists of active WPs

Interesting. Out of curiosity, what did you use as the criteria for "active" and "semi-active"? Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
If you want to see similar, periodically updated list of all WikiProjects by their activity, have a look at Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by changes. Svick (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

## Maintaining inactive subpages of active WikiProjects

The page Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/Strategy is inactive and I'd like to direct editors to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing where their posts are more likely to be read.

I'd like to create a version of Template:Historical (or modify it) to specify alternate discussion text/link and the name of the WikiProject.

Any suggestions on how to handle it? --Pnm (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If you're looking specifically for a template-based approach, you could probably use {{WPMILHIST Archive}} as a model.
Having said that, unless there's some useful historical material to be retained, I'd suggest simply redirecting the page; that tends to cause less confusion than cross-links, and is a generally accepted practice within WikiProjects. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:WikiProject eclipses

Is Wikipedia:WikiProject eclipses / Category:WikiProject Solar Eclipses an official WikiProject? 65.95.15.116 (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

## The purpose of A-Class

I do not see the point on the A-class assessment. Most articles i have seen striving for higher have skipped this stage and either succeeded and reached FA\FL or stayed in their current position. Simply south (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:WikiProject Major League Soccer

Wikipedia:WikiProject Major League Soccer seems to be odd -- it's missing all its categories and I can't find a listing for it. It's template {{WikiProject Major League Soccer}} is up for deletion. 184.144.165.37 (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

## Newsletters and bots

Please see here for a WikiProject newletter and bot question I asked. -- 14:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

## Project Scope: Hallstatt culture

Hi, is the article Hallstatt culture in the scope of national wikiprojects? There has recently been a dispute whether it is correct to tag it with templates {{WikiProject Slovenia}}, {{WikiProject Austria}} and {{WikiProject United Kingdom}}. What's the best practice in such cases: to tag or not to tag? I've also asked the same question on the corresponding wikiproject talkpages. --Eleassar my talk 11:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

## The Salvation Army

Is there a way to make The Salvation Army which has alot of linking articles, a wiki-project, or sub-project or something? Because there is alot of stuff (books, doco's websites) on TSA and its people and that around, and I think it would be good to co-ordinate with others interested in writing about the TSA in

• 1) Getting current articles up to scratch
• 2) Creating new articles, because alot of notable TSA people and events aren't mentioned &
• 3) Doing the above 2 to improve the quality of the Christianity wiki-project as a whole.

Just askin :) TimGirling (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What you need for a WikiProject or a task force (which seems to be the better option here) is not a group of articles. What you need is a group of editors willing to do the work. I suggest you ask at the Christianity WikiProjetct and the article's talk page. And if you find a group of people, create a task force under WikiProject Christianity. To see how to do that see Wikipedia:Task force#Setting up a task force structure. Svick (talk) 10:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

## Templates for WikiProjects' advice pages

This is a general announcement of available templates:

If your WikiProject has any advice pages, please consider tagging them with appropriate templates:

The templates will categorize the pages, and will therefore make it easier for other people to find them.

These are not for use on guidelines that have been accepted as "official", community-wide guidelines through the WP:PROPOSAL process (e.g., WP:CORP, WP:BIO, WP:MEDMOS, etc.). Instead, these are for pages that are supported by the members of the WikiProject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

A new addition: {{WikiProject content advice}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology‎

Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology‎ is a quasi-project or work group. The creator does not want it to be moved under the auspices of Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology, leaving it as a standalone page. There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutrality in Scientology#Project Proposal.   Will Beback  talk  00:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

## New Hot Articles subscription service for WikiProjects

Any WikiProjects with 2000 or fewer articles are welcome to help beta test the new Hot Articles service. This service automatically updates a list of the most edited articles for that project from the last several days. An example can be seen at WikiProject Feminism. If anyone is interested, they can sign up on the subscriptions page. The initial trial is limited to 10 Projects and is for 7 days only, but then will likely be extended indefinitely if the trial is successful. Kaldari (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There is related information at Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by changes.
Wavelength (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

## Please Look Over

Wikipedia:WikiProject Water supply and sanitation by country is no longer active, so I am gathering consensus to deactivate the wikiproject.

This is of a higher than average importance because Wikipedia:WikiProject Water supply and sanitation by country: Manual of Style is a guideline, but because the Wikipoject is inactive, there is no indication that there is wide support for the guideline.

Please supply input.Bernolákovčina (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's inactive then just tag the project page with `{{inactive}}` and the guideline page with `{{historical}}`. Not much else need to be done besides that. But you really should be posting this on the project's talk page, not here. -- œ 02:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

## WikiProject Water?

I noticed that WP:WikiProject Water supply and sanitation was renamed to WP:WikiProject Water without discussion last November. As the project was inactive at the time (and still seems inactive now), this is rather odd. Nothing actually links to WP:Water, everything still seems to go to WP:WaterSuppySanitation.

The movement of the page is for expanding scope, but it doesn't seem to link to any discussion on rescoping, and still does not actually cover "water" (ie. it does not cover WP:Oceans, WP:Lakes, WP:Rivers, the inorganic chemistry of water, etc).

Was the move properly done?

65.93.14.196 (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you intend to be a participant in the project? Only participants really get any say in what the project's name and scope are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure that the above statement is correct. I could see how members might be given greater weight in building consensus, but like any other title, it is subject to discussion and consensus.Racepacket (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
1. ^ Sterner, Robert W. and Elser, James J. (2002). Ecological Stoichiometry: the Biology of Elements from Molecules to the Biosphere (human molecule, pgs. 3, 47, 135). Princeton University Press.