Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Overseas France

Latest comment: 2 years ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic User script to detect unreliable sources
WikiProject iconOverseas France Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Overseas France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Overseas France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Misc

edit

New Caledonia is NOT a department. In addition, why on earth are you using this pro-independence new caledonian flag to illustate your project ? --Pitthée (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's a territory. This project covers all territories that belong to France. JAGUAR  21:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Right. But since New Caledonia in not an overseas department, it should not be put in that subsection. And again, I am much surprised that you decided to you use this flag in particular. It is widely used, but not really offfical.--Pitthée (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I've corrected New Caledonia. Regarding the flag, I wasn't sure. France's territories don't use Ensigns like British ones so I picked a the Pro-Independence Flag of New Caledonia for no reason other than it catching my eye. Please feel free to suggest another alternative if you think one is more appropriate. JAGUAR  21:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Guianese Socialist Party

edit

FYI, the article Guianese Socialist Party has recently been considerably expanded. While making research to expand it, I realized that most articles related to French Guiana are outdated. --Minorities observer (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Auto-assessment of article classes

edit

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ RobTalk 22:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

edit

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

edit

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 18 January 2019

edit
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure)  samee  converse  09:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply



– per Overseas France, renamed to current title at Talk:Overseas France#Requested_move_30_January_2017. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)Reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nomination of Portal:New Caledonia for deletion

edit
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:New Caledonia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:New Caledonia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 06:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

edit

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) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

New Caledonian flag

edit

Hello. Why is the New Caledonian flag used as a representative image for this project at Template:WikiProject Overseas France? France has many other overseas territories. Super Ψ Dro 19:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

User script to detect unreliable sources

edit

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

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)Reply