Wikipedia talk:WikiProject X/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Way to ping WikiProjects?

Ok, I have an idea, and maybe someone's already thought of this. You know how you can ping editors via the "Ping" template? What if, in any talk page discussion, editors could ping a WikiProject, along the lines of "{{Ping|WikiProject Military history}}", to notify select project members of the ongoing discussion and invite them to participate. Does this exist? Could this be helpful? I am trying to think of ways to increase engagement since WikiProject talk page discussions often seem inactive or stalled. Maybe there could be a type of 'article alerts' as a ruling tally of WikiProject pings, or perhaps project members can opt into receiving 'notifications' when WikiProjects of their interest are pinged? Just thinking out loud here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Another Believer, it exists on Wikidata through a template-based hack of the notification system. [1]. We originally considered implementing something like this but we found it to be kind of hacky. A way to actually ping WikiProjects as a whole would be quite useful. It is worth noting that WikiProjects can sign up for new discussion feeds, see e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine#Discussions. Harej (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Putting the technical hurdles aside, it would also be something the whole community should weigh in on. Some WikiProjects have been hotbeds of contentions editing, leading to some ArbCom cases and discretionary sanctions oversight. If the mechanism wasn't transparent, you'd allow certain particularly disruptive editors to surreptitiously call in reserves on a whim. You could see them send out the ping, easily enough, sure. But then you'd have to try to deduce the membership of that list on any given day to see who they might have been trying to reach; and even if they weren't trying to coordinate resistance to something, they still might be acting tendentiously, trying to get another bite at the apple after having just lost a consensus discussion, for example; even an overt mechanism preserved in the history would not discourage some. Some would view it as free license to do an end-run on WP:CANVAS. Then there's potential for spamming/trolling/abuse/harassment. I've though about the possible utility of this tool myself in the past (and I think I remember the discussions Harej is talking about, taking place soon after they opened this project and sent out open invitations for comment). But my belief is that a system (bot tethered to a UI, I would think) which delivers messages to talk pages, is a better option. The user gets pinged just as reliably for that anyway, but any communication is transparent, which is really critical on this project. And you could put a link to the discussion you wanted insight on in the message easily enough, replicating that function of a ping as well. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, both, for commenting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Snow Rise, what about something like Special:MassMessage but for WikiProjects? People would opt-in to be part of a project-wide message, someone who wanted to solicit input on a matter would fill out the form, and a message would be sent individually to talk pages, preserving transparency. It wouldn't be difficult to implement either, since it already exists. Harej (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's arguably the ideal solution. Of course, you'd have to figure out whether the system would completely open to anyone wishing to mass-message (and whether such messages were meant just for administrative functions of the given WikiProject, or for any discussion, including calls for input on content) or just reserved for a handful who get permissions through their work on a project. But yeah, basically, I think that's more or less the best system. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Great idea, I support it and would suggest allowing this type of pinging only to members of the respective Wikiproject. Furthermore WikiProjects could get allowed to set additional requirements such as x days since the user joined the WikiProject and/or edit-counts. --Fixuture (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Harej: P.S. Template:Mass notification exists. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I just had exactly this thought (enable pinging via WikiProject membership), and came here to suggest it only to find that it was already proposed. Plantdrew (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Like Good to see editors identifying a need and finding their way here to discuss possible solutions. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject recommendations

Imagine you're a newcomer and you join Wikipedia and make a couple edits on Waffle and 2015 World Pastry Cup. It mostly goes OK. A few minutes later you get a message thanking you for your contributions and inviting you to check out some work lists from User:WikiPancake -- a member of the local "Welcome squad" at WikiProject Food and Drink. I'm trying to figure out how to recommend newcomers to WikiProject organizers or maybe even to recommend WikiProjects to newcomers. What do you think? Check out my project proposal at this meta-page. Bobo.03 (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• Like I think this is a great proposal. Thanks Bobo.03. Hmlarson (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest, Hmlarson! We have been carried out this project for a while. Some Wikipedians are participating our study. If you are interested, please feel free to sign up on my user talk page and help our study! Bobo.03 (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Great! Thanks Bobo.03. Can you tell me if converting an existing WikiProject to the new format is available yet? Hmlarson (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean that inviting new editors to existing projects? If so, yes, we mainly provide recommendations to existing Projects. I noticed that you have signed up on my page for WikiProject Women's Sports. Appreciate that! At the same time, I have noticed that there are many new articles under that topic have been created recently. Is there any specific event going on? I am also collaborating with WikiProject Women in Red and generating customized recommendations for them. You might be interested. Here is our conversation. Bobo.03 (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Bobo.03 I meant more implementing the format used in the pilot projects like WikiProject Women in technology. I can't tell what the status of the Pilots requests are.

re: your question about specific event, there are a lot of ongoing seasons and related biographies are always being created - otherwise, not sure without seeing the list you are looking at. I'd be interested in learning more about the customized recommendations if you can provide a link or other information. Thanks! Hmlarson (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, @Hmlarson:, here is the list I created for WiR for July. Since the focus of WiR is to create new articles, they requested to identify a special set of editors who create WiR related articles to recruit, compared to more common editors who edit articles in Wikipedia. So the customized recommendation for WiR is to identify editors who created articles on WiR Metrics (See July's for example) Bobo.03 (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bobo.03: This is great. What type of criteria would you need to set something similar up for another project and can it be created for taskforces (subprojects)? Do you need categories? Keywords? Something else? Is this something I could potentially set up myself seeing the way another project's was configured or does it require a specific user role? Hmlarson (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Sculpture

Just an FYI, a handful of editors have watchlisted the WikiProject Sculpture page, and I changed the project's status from inactive to semi-active. I invite editors to help make improvements to this revived WikiProject. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Including Wikipedia:Help_Project in WP:WPDIR/All

Please see discussion at WT:COUNCIL. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Documentation?

Hi, I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Parenting today. I'd like the join config to be created but I can't do it myself because I don't have interface rights. See MediaWiki talk:Gadget-formWizard/WikiProject Parenting/Join

Also, is there any documentation anywhere? I think that would be helpful to link from the main page if so. I have discovered it requires interface rights so not every user can create one, but that would still be helpful for people to know.

Thanks! Mvolz (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

There's documentation at Wikipedia:WikiProject X/WPX UI. – Craig Davison (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

New project grant proposal to fund continued work

I've submitted a followup Project Grant proposal to pick up where the IEG basically left off, and finish deployment and work on CollaborationKit. Please check it out, and if you have feedback, questions, or other comments, I'd love to see your thoughts. -— Isarra ༆ 21:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Great work and best of luck with your proposal. – Craig Davison (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent updates

What are the recent updates happening with WikiProject X? I really believe in the project initiative (Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Workspace) and love the design and was wondering how the collaboration kit feature is doing. I've tried using it on test wiki but got an error where I couldn't create a page with this title. For now, I'd like to work on moving WikiProjects to the new UI - if that's a way to move things forward. It seems like more and more WikiProjects are becoming inactive so I'd like to do something. – Craig Davison (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Basically I'd like to know if it's worth me converting WikiProjects to the new UI...and details on how the Reports Bot works (I presume it has to be done manually). Paging @Harej: and @Isarra: – Craig Davison (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Davisonio: Regarding the new UI, I recommend holding off on doing anything with that onwiki for the time being, as the template prototype proved a bit untenable and the extension is still a few months out, at best. As for how the reports bot stuff works, that I really don't know - harej or maybe earwig would be the ones who would, most likely. -— Isarra ༆ 04:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Isarra: Thanks for the reply - I'll keep that in mind. – Craig Davison (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Distinction between newsletter recipients and project members

Does anyone know what the distinction is between newsletter recipients and project members, here? Why are we maintaining two separate lists? What would happen if these lists were somehow merged?

Maybe I should actually ask something about this in the next newsletter... -— Isarra ༆ 22:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Rounded wikiproject member avatars

I've made a version of this template that forces all the avatars to be round. I think this should be implemented because I think it looks better it is more visually consistent with the already round placeholder image. 🌸 WeegaweeK ^ 🌸 18:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, not a bad point. Also potentially useful for making random rectangles at least appear consistent... -— Isarra ༆ 23:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Average Wikipedian feedback

I subscribed to the WikiProject X newsletter because I believe the project's goals, if achieved, will help develop more effective WikiProjects. I read the June 2019 Newsletter (#14) today. I also read or scanned m:Grants:Project/WikiProject X/CollaborationKit MVP/Midpoint, m:Grants:Project/WikiProject X/CollaborationKit MVP, m:Grants:IEG/WikiProject X, mw:Extension:CollaborationKit, and WikiProject X/Dashboard.

I have a bit of feedback and a suggestion.

Feedback: This is likely not news to you all, but just to make sure I will post my experience here. I read the midpoint report and some of the info on the grant pages. I thought, "Maybe I should just look at the CollaborationKit to see how it works. I visited mw:Extension:CollaborationKit and soon discovered that it's over my head. Examples: I think I need to have MediaWiki installed on my own server or something like that, but I'm not sure. I don't know a JSON from a Jason. ;o).

Suggestion: In the Newsletter, include a paragraph for the average Wikipedian, since a good number of your subscribers probably fit into this category. Explain the project's status in simple terms, and tell us when we can help as 'testers' or the like. Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 14:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Great suggestions, agreed! ー「宜しく 」 クロノ  カム  13:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Cross-posting here

I just submitted this request. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Streamlining WikiProject X components

The future of CollaborationKit seems uncertain (see report) but a few WikiProjects are already using the current WikiProject X components and many others have expressed their interest over time. There are currently some problems with them:

• Lack of documentation to set up a WikiProject X-style page.
• Lack of flexibility of some components, which led some projects to create their own templates.

In an attempt to solve these problems, I'm working on a few proposals. Here is the first round:

• User:MarioGom/sandbox/WPX icon link
• User:MarioGom/sandbox/WPX project header

The WPX icon link template would encapsulate the code to generate icon links for project headers. WikiProject Conservatism and Women in Red currently use their own. Template:WPRYT icon link and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/icon link respectively. The new template could be used to replace both and generalize better to other projects.

It seems that Template:Load WikiProject Modules is not flexible enough for every project, and some are choosing to replicate behavior of some sub-components. The WPX project header template would generate WikiProject X-style project header, based on WikiProject Convervatism and Women in Red ones. Here are drafts for both projects using the new template: User:MarioGom/sandbox/WPX project header/Conservatism and User:MarioGom/sandbox/WPX project header/Women in Red.

I would like to get feedback some feedback on these, as well as possible interest from each WikiProject in adopting consolidated templates. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

MarioGom, as long as the changes you describe continue to give Women in Red the flexibility it needs for add-ons, or etc., this is fine with me. The issue that Women in Red encountered with WikiProject X was that occasionally, its components lacked the flexibility we required. --Rosiestep (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Rosiestep: Thank you for your feedback. I would only apply changes to Women in Red if/when you agree with it, and only after this draft fully matches the style and requirements of WiR. It currently does not, but I think only a couple of minor adjustments are left. Also, these templates do not use Lua, so they are easier to maintain, since general template editing knowledge is more widespread than Lua modules. --MarioGom (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

MarioGom: I also share some of Rosiestep's concerns. While I certainly welcome your competence and your willingness to help Women in Red with the Project X problems we encounter from time to time, I'm rather worried that any extensions of WPX could potentially raise additional problems for us, especially if you — like other former members of the project — decide to move on. As it is, Isarra has tried to restore the "feel" of our main project page without necessarily using the original WPX functions. For a time the icons were removed but thanks to reactions from our members, they have now been restored. Unfortunately, however, some of the WPX features continue to cause problems. It therefore seems to me there is a case for moving away from WPX and using more conventional functions which everyone understands, particularly if the same kind of page display can continue to be ensured. Personally, I fail to see the usefulness of having transcluded subpages linked unconventionally from the main page, e.g. for Press and Research, Events, Metrics, etc. If you can provide convincing arguments for maintaining this approach rather than using conventional links as we do on all our other pages, there may possibly be a case for continuing work on WPX but I am rather sceptical. The only feature which has been widely welcomed by WiR participants is the ease of registration via "Join WikiProject" which seems to link to {{WPX member box}}. In this connection, there is however a problem which I encounter more and more frequently. Members who update their membership profiles are no longer listed according to the date when they originally joined but rather by the date of their most recent update. This makes it look as if some of those who joined years ago are among our most recent members! Is this the kind of problem you would be interested in working on or are you mainly interested in providing documentation and flexibility so that others could become involved in WPX developments? I would also be interested to know which other wikiprojects continue to make extensive use of WPX functions. If we can find out who they are, we could perhaps collaborate on defining an agenda for future work.--Ipigott (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Ipigott:

• I would be interested in helping to refactor and document components in a way that it is easier for more people to use and improve them. Template:Load WikiProject Modules is an all-or-nothing approach. I understand that is the reason why Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/WiR header and Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/header were setup. It is simple enough that after Isarra set it up for WiR, Lionelt could modify it for Conservatism. I think we should embrace a modular approach, so you have more flexibility assembling different components as you see fit. Pretty much like you are already doing at WiR, where you use the membership system or the page style, but not the section transclusion mode.
• I agree that the unconventional transclusion approach can be a problem. I see that WikiProject Medicine had to resort to some workarounds too. I do not see any reason to push for the adoption of this model. At least, it should not be a precondition to use other WPX components.
• I will look into the membership date problem. I'm still not sure if this can be reasonably fixed or if there is some hard MediaWiki limitation.
• I agree it would be interesting to contact other WikiProjects for wider feedback. At the moment I contacted WiR and Conservatism because these are the only ones who are using WPX components beyond the default Template:Load WikiProject Modules.

Best, --MarioGom (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)