Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Citizendium Porting/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium Porting. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Sources

"Note the source of your additions in your edit summaries." Does this mean something like Smokey Stover, My Life as a Fireman, (Dutton, 1937), page 36, as quoted in "Comic-Strip Characters," Citizendium. Or just what does it mean? GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Citizendium as a source

What does this imply?:

3. Apply {{Citizendium}} to the article's References section

Has Citizendium been declared a V & RS here? -- Brangifer (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of that template is to acknowledge that text from Citizendium has been incorporated into the article. It does not mean we're citing Citizendium as a source. It's like {{FOLDOC}} and similar. We don't want to plagarize, even if it is legal. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Citizendium's attention

http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2747.0.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.250.22 (talk) 03:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Quality of CZ articles

There seems to be an assumption by some that CZ articles are automatically better than Wikipedia ones. That would be great, but they have some serious problems. For one are NPOV policy has distinct advantages. Just take a look at their homeopathy article, written by Dana Ullman, who was banned here for his over-promotion of homeopathy and failure to edit in an NPOV manner. They seem to believe that the article should be written from the POV of homeopaths, which makes it a terrible article. Some of their other articles suffer from the same problem. It's a systemic problem. I'll take our NPOV version any day. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

We've marked the articles likely to be problematic. See the Articles list. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

problem indications

Besides the obvious problem mentioned above, (please note that there is a separate Healing Arts workgroup--by which they mean Alternative Medicine)-- there will be others, not necessarily so obvious, and we really need another column on the table, to indicate problems. For example, sometimes the Cz article and the Wp article will have different scopes-- as with Biology. Sometimes the Cz article is itself almost exactly a modified copy of the Wp article. Sometimes the same person wrote most of both articles. Sometimes the Cz article is fairly frequently considered not as good as it ought to be.

Additionally, because of the extraordinarily complicated process of approval, and the very small number of active editors with the rights of approval in some gfields, there are many quite good articles that have not been "approved". I would regard many of them suitable for import here, either partially--or--when we do not have an article, completely. And I think there will be some WP articles where our article is actually bad enough to be replaced completely. DGG (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a complicated issue. Some of their unapproved articles are very good. Others look fine on the surface but are riddled with errors. Just in my field, Climate and Milankovitch cycles probably seem OK to the average reader but are painful for someone who knows the science. For this reason I'd recommend that material from CZ be used only by WP editors who have expertise in the topic at hand. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

agreed, it should not be assumed that the screening for contributors and editors in Citizendium necessarily succeeded in producing better informed editing that at Wikipedia; as there are many more people here, WP may in any given case have more experts. The virtue of the CZ project is that it's an alternative text, not a necessarily superior one, and can often be used to improve articles. To be sure, some WP articles are so bad that almost anything is better--and this probably includes some of the most general articles on broad subjects, where a few individuals can often produce a more coherent text than a large group. DGG (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, I've also noticed several spelling errors when importing Fertility. Seems spellcheck isn't one of the steps in Approval. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

CZ people

BTW, I am one of the so-called expert "editors" at CZ, for the Biology and the Information Science workgroups. DavidGoodman. I additionally am a member of their Editorial Council, though my term will soon be ending. I joined WP and CZ almost simultaneously -- at that point WP was very well established, but CZ was just starting. I have been relatively inactive there, waiting for the time when the licenses would be compatible. It might be useful if the others here who also have been working at CZ said so--though of course it means self-disclosure, since they do not have anonymous writing. DGG (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a poorly-kept non-secret that I used to be User:Raymond arritt, who is an Earth Sciences editor at CZ. After I decided it was no longer fun being a WP admin and threw in my badge, I changed my username to avoid confusion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Your secret wasn't that poorly kept – I had no idea. I might do some porting at some stage, and my user name is the same in both projects. Hans Adler 07:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to block you all for self-abuse. ;) Verbal chat 08:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, well, I have been doing some copy editing for CZ. I've run into some terrible examples of WP:Cabals in certain areas of Wikipedia, which is disheartening, but CZ does not seem large enough to have them yet. Writers and editors in both wikis just don't seem to understand really good writing, but at least Larry Sanger gives lip service to it: I am not sure the CZ editors are up to his good-writing strictures though. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, except for it handing over control of their Homeopathy article to Dana Ullman, who's banned from Wikipedia for POV-pushing. Actually, all their Alternative medicine, not to mention Intelligent design (The opening sections treat disproven Intelligent design arguments - or even outright lies about biology - as if they were unrefuted. That gives them the most weight, as people very likely won't read the whole article); etc. It wouldn't be so bad if Larry Sanger wasn't constantly pointing to Homeopathy as an example of Citizendium's best work. [commentary on this deleted: too many four-letter words - Shoe.] Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The fate of a ported article

Volcanically active worlds was ported and promptly prodded. The article copied over is not as good as Volcanoes#Volcanoes on other planetary bodies, so I've left the prod. Just an example of what happens with an incautious article port. Fences&Windows 00:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And another one prepares to bite the dust: Fertility (demography). Citizendium articles are too likely to be redundant, full of original research and lacking in references to just dump them straight into Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 23:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Working on a proper merge now. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, good. Note to self: don't sit back and watch salvageable content get deleted. Fences&Windows 02:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not actually referenced content. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

True, but much of it is referencable, particularly the other statistical measures. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to start with importing them to a project subpage and bringing them up to Wikipedia standards there before launching them. An alternative would be to download Wikimedia software and start a new domain - http://www.wikizendium.org Brangifer (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Create new articles

If there is a Citizendium article that did not have a corresponding Wikipedia article, is it OK if I just copy the approved citizendium article, and paste it into the empty Wikipedia article with the same name? Or is this discouraged? Xenus (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Citizendium has rather different rules governing content: At least some revision would help the article integrate into wikipedia better. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You can copy-paste if there's no equivalent article, but remember that this should just be the first step and the article will need revision. Be sure to give Citizendium credit as laid out in the Process section of our WikiProject page. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thank you both. I've followed the instructions at the page. Xenus (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstood project?

I'm wondering what's going on here. This makes me wonder, and so does the template:

• Goal: To ensure that Wikipedia articles are at least as good as their Citizendium counterparts by keeping them synchronized.

"At least as good" implies that Citizendium articles are automatically better than Wikipedia articles. I hope that's not the belief of this project's members. While the potential is there, and I believe that both projects can help each other, the fact that many Citizendium articles are basically authored by one person and aren't NPOV is a disadvantage. Please explain. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not meant to draw that implication. The basic intent is that if Citizendium has any good materials, we want to incorporate them into Wikipedia. The formula is Wikipedia-original content + Citizendium-original content = a Wikipedia better than Citizendium. If you have a better phrasing ("no worse than" doesn't seem much better), please present it. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• "To improve Wikipedia articles by keeping them synchronized with their Citizendium counterparts.". This is still problematic. We don't necessarily want to keep Wikipedia articles synchronized with Citizendium articles. We want to steal borrow the good bits where our articles are weak, and leave the rest alone. Citizendium has massive POV problems and its rules on sourcing are lax; this surely needs to be highlighted by this project. At the moment Citizendium seems to be being treated without sufficient skepticism. Fences&Windows 17:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've reworded this more to make it clear that we only want to copy useful content, and we don't want to "synchronise" if that means degrading the Wiki article. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines are now looking good, this Wikiproject may work. I think it shouldn't restrict itself to approved articles; it should try to use info in any article, so long as it is sound. Fences&Windows 00:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Since I commented in the MfD about this, let me just say that I think the current wording is much improved; you can consider my previous concerns as having been completely satisfied. As to Fences and windows's point, I personally hope our editors will initially be conservative about what CC-only material they import. Articles with such imported text can no longer be distributed under a dual license with the GFDL, and it's not worth removing that licensing option to add low-quality text. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. We can look at any and all Citizendium articles for good content that is properly sourced, then use the sources and word our entries here in a proper manner so they fit into the current article. There is really no need to copy actual content. We should just use it as a source for ideas and references. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "CZ has massive POV problems", anyway? Are you referring to stuff such as that "Homeopathy" article? mike4ty4 (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be a very good example. Verbal chat 09:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Suffice it to say the alternative medicine articles and the conventional medicine articles are under the purview of two different expert groups. --Cybercobra

Citizendium

I think this is a good idea, but it'd probably be a good idea to tweak the language to encourage revision, reworking, and integration. For instance, "Imported" strongly suggests copy-paste; perhaps a more descriptive phrase like "Checked for useful content" or "Useful material integrated" would be better. Likewise, "Synchronised" either implies material is going the other way too, or that this project is replacing Wikipedia articles with Citizendium ones. I presume the first is intended, but the second is the more obvious reading when the project only talks about a one-way transfer. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we don't use the word "synchronized" at all anymore for that exact reason you mention. It was rephrased for clarity a while ago. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right, that's on the talk page, up above here. Though "sync" is still used several times on the main page. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

By the by, if you want a suggestion for importing: The Citizendium and Wikipedia articles on Wheat cover similar material, but each have different strengths. Careful work to combine the two could make both articles much stronger. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

And neither article mentions some basic information, e.g., that wheat is a C3 plant. But Wikipedia notes that "Wheat is used as a food plant by the larvae of some Lepidoptera (butterfly and moth) species including The Flame, Rustic Shoulder-knot, Setaceous Hebrew Character and Turnip Moth." Rustic Shoulder Knot would be a pretty cool band name, though Setaceous Hebrew Character could raise a few eyebrows. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

On the CZ side

Would any editors who are also Citizens be able to update http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Reusing_Citizendium_Content ? It's out of date and assumes WP is still under GFDL-only. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently now done. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem

We can't copy any of this stuff. Problem is that wikipedia demands that those adding to it accept attribution by URL. Citizendium does not so copyright wise the two are not compatible. Unless Citizendium changes it's TOS (which probably isn't legal) we can't use their stuff.©Geni 00:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Our Terms of Use says "If you import text under a compatible license which requires attribution, you must, in a reasonable fashion, credit the author(s). Where such credit is commonly given through page histories (such as Wikimedia-internal copying), it is sufficient to give attribution in the edit summary, which is recorded in the page history, when importing the text." Citizendium handles attribution the same way we do in practice. Our TOS also says "Regardless of the license, the text you import may be rejected if the required attribution is deemed too intrusive", but I haven't seen any indication that Citizendium has such an intrusive attribution requirement. What Citizendium does say (at CZ:License) is: "As to articles that originated with the Citizendium, you are free both to reproduce and to further develop them as long as you link from your copy back to the original Citizendium article, and do so reasonably prominently (no hidden or tiny print)." That requirement is fulfilled by the template for the bottom of articles, which parallels the "from Wikipedia" notice Citizendium uses.--ragesoss (talk) 00:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't CZ also benefit from the link? I'm not up on the technicalities of how WP handles different links, but my understanding is that nofollow is disabled for these links. High-profile inbound links (like WP) would increase CZ's ranking in search engines. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, IANAL, but the actual text of the CC license doesn't actually require us to attribute the author in whatever way they specify. The author just has to be attributed in a reasonable way. Given that we're a wiki, the edit summary seems perfectly reasonable for these purposes. But at any rate, we go beyond the minimum by crediting them using the template. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the's right: Wikipedia is dual licensed: CC-by-SA and GDFL. Allowing this would create a class of articles that have to be treated as single-licensed, Non-GDFL-licensed articles permanently. We can't set up a special class of differently-licenced article, surely. I've nominated the new articles for deletion, and reverted the rest. Let's not change back until we're sure that it can be done. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It certainly can be done, it was one of the points of switching, per Meta. --Falcorian ^(talk) 04:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

But does't the Citizenfdium licencing requirements in addition to the CC as regards attribution a major problem? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Their "requirements" aren't binding; to my understanding, legally speaking, they're just a request, and one that is easily fulfiled by the acknowledgement template. See my earlier comment. Will double-check license text shortly. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

See also my comments at the AfD debate --Cybercobra (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Their requirements are not bidding at all, all that matter is the license text which states that "reasonable" attribution is enough. Indeed, for wikis, the we can argue that edit summary notes are enough. 189.105.2.110 (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the relevant section:

If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or any Adaptations or Collections, You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; (ii) the title of the Work if supplied; (iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and (iv) , consistent with Ssection 3(b), in the case of an Adaptation, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Adaptation (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors. For the avoidance of doubt, You may only use the credit required by this Section for the purpose of attribution in the manner set out above and, by exercising Your rights under this License, You may not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties, as appropriate, of You or Your use of the Work, without the separate, express prior written permission of the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties.

Well, in any case, I'd suggest that we don't port in small sections: If only a tiny bit of the article is going to be from Citizendium, we'd be better off treating Citizendium like any other source and just rewrite it. Attribution notices are, effectively, forever; a few sentences, or, especially, poor and/or unsourced material, don't justify such a step. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This all seems to be a lot more trouble than it's worth. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

CZ GFDL articles now CC-BY-SA

According to the Citizendium mailing list Sanger has announced that all the formerly imported Wikipedia articles on Citizendium are now re-licensed as CC-BY-SA. So I'm going to remove the N/A for these articles, but leave the notes about how they are formerly Wiki articles. --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

To my understanding, the N/A was not for license incompatibility but rather that they'd been checked but there was nothing to import since they were copies of WP articles. I've changed their status to "yes" as they're in sync, just not by our doing. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that N/A is not the proper way to handle that case as it seems to indicate that it shouldn't be done EVER. Although "Yes" and the date you determined there was nothing useful seems like an OK solution, it seems like we need a way to indicate that no usable content was found on X date, and no merge has therefore taken place... --Falcorian ^(talk) 22:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

List of errors in approved articles

Recalling this discussion, some might be interested in an incomplete list of errors in Citizendium's approved articles (additions are welcome, the scope is unambiguous mistakes such as factual inaccuracies and spelling mistakes, excluding issues of bias, style etc.) I started to compile it in preparation for a talk about Citizendium at this year's Wikimania, where I also described some other problems that CZ is facing. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium Porting/Archive 1/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you. Okip 02:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect statement about the CZ ported article Bar (unit)

In the list of articles ported from CZ, this statement is included for the Bar (unit) article:

"Much of the Citizendium article is copied or paraphrased (without acknowledgment) from the Wikipedia article."

I don't know if that incorrect statement was intentional or not, but it is not true. At the bottom of the main page of Citizendium's Bar (unit) article, it clearly states that some of the content may have come from Wikipedia. The Talk page of the Citizendium article has a posting by the article's author which also acknowledges that some content came from Wikipedia. mbeychok (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me assure you that it was not intentional. I think there was a period when the Wikipedia attribution tag was not appearing properly on CZ articles; perhaps the entry was made during this period. Thank you for the correction. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Question

So User:Rjensen edits citizendium as Richard Jensen ( user page at citizendium). He wrote the citizendium article on demographic transition in 2007, history, and then ported that content to the Wikipedia article Demographic transition a few months ago. Does the Wikipedia article need a note attributing the content to citizendium? --Banana (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Not if the article is his copyright - as it will be if written entirely by him. Rich Farmbrough, 00:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC).

yes that's meRjensen (talk) 03:02, 10 November 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 and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Editing the Rural poverty page

I will be making rather large contributions to the Rural poverty page, as it currently does not meet Wikipedia's quality standards nor does it have sufficient citations verifying its contents. I plan to thoroughly define and discuss the concept of rural poverty, as well as provide a more global perspective on this issue than is provided in the current article. Rural poverty constitutes a disproportionate amount of global poverty in general and there is a large body of literature discussing this topic, thus meriting its recognition and discussion on Wikipedia. Because this is such a broad topic, however, I would appreciate any feedback on my contributions. I will have a draft of my potential contributions in my sandbox in the coming weeks. colleenfugate (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.234.24 (talk)

Citizendium articles about environmental books

Links to these three articles were added to "List of environmental books" at 18:33, 29 September 2010, and removed at 23:25, 12 February 2011.

• Aqueous Wastes from Petroleum and Petrochemical Plants - encyclopedia article - Citizendium
• Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion - encyclopedia article - Citizendium
• Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates - encyclopedia article - Citizendium

I wish to request that editors involved in this WikiProject use the Citizendium articles to make corresponding Wikipedia articles according to the applicable policies and guidelines.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Information needs to be updated

The section "articles" should be updated, as members of this WikiProject checked lists of approved articles in Citizendium on Apr 15, 2012. However it's been more than one year, and there're some new approved articles there, e.g. chemistry. Also approved articles mentioned on the section might get better and the comparisons of the Citizendium and English Wikipedia articles might be outdated. I want to update the information but I lack expertise at some fields, e.g. chemistry and have no time. Hope members of the WikiProject can help me.-RekishiEJ (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Citizendium Porting at Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Another Copyright Question

Schröder–Bernstein property was imported from Citizendium on 8 December 2010‎ by User:Rich Farmbrough. There, it is published under Creative Commons-Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. Thus, the import is permitted, but the attribution to CZ is required, isn't it? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done I added the template. mabdul 17:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this view has changed in recent years, but I believe an edit summary attribution is not only permitted, but also encouraged. I don't see any harm in templating it, as well, though. —PC-XT+ 04:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Per instructions...

I am thinking of joining, and would like to know the best way to get my feet wet. I have little working knowledge of CZ. I can write scripts, if that would be of some help. (I can format code better than that in my userspace, if desired.) I'll look over the articles, and may try porting one and posting it here for review before doing another, to make sure I understand procedure correctly. Thanks. —PC-XT+ 04:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

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

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

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

One of your project's articles has been featured

Hello, Please note that Symphony, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

can IP user join?

--42.113.159.208 (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Activate

It is requested that this WikiProject will activate because DNA (a Featured Article) needs to be rated by it. 86.22.8.235 (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Name change discussion at Talk:Liancourt Rocks

Please come participate in the name change discussion regarding the future naming of the Liancourt Rocks article. Thank you for participating! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

FAR for Joan of Arc

I have nominated Joan of Arc for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

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

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

and turns it into something like

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

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

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

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

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)