Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Creationism

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Intelligent design articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:YEC

WikiProject Young Earth Creationism is on the verge of going live, if you are interested in joining please follow the link above. We will be cooperating extensively with this WikiProject..--Novus Orator 06:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This purported 'Wikiproject' has not been proposed (let alone accepted) via the proper forum, WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals -- it therefore has no legitimate existence. It has only a single member/creator (who 'retired' one account (User:Gniniv) and created another part way through creating this purported 'Wikiproject'). It has therefore been userfied, per consultation with another experienced editor (Hans Adler) on its talkpage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikiproject has been proposed here, and it is in the process of getting members...--Novus Orator 06:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only after it was userfied. And I would note that you have failed to create a normal proposal (example: WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Cambridgeshire) for it. I would also suggest editors read this comment and view Terra Novus/Gniniv's past activities before joining. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just took a look at their contributions and what I saw supported my initial hunch: there is a pattern of supporting pseudosciences of all stripes. For example, there's Interpretive science, which is some sort of postmodern joke. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to hold that opinion. Wikipedia welcomes editors of all backgrounds. Feel free to consider joining this project once it gets going so we have a critical perspective..--Novus Orator 07:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The normal proposal has been created here. Please move all discussion there..--Novus Orator 07:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formal proposal to expand this Wikiproject to the wider topic of creationism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to expand the project to cover to the wider topic of creationism HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am therefore raising it a third time, so "speak now or forever hold your peace" -- WP:SILENCE will apply.

My rationales for this are:

  1. Taking WP:MERGE as vaguely-relevant, rationales #2 'Overlap' -- ID is explicitly a 'big tent' creationist movement, and has many YECs & OECs in its fold; #4 'Context' -- ID can best be described as one of the more recent evolutions of Creationism, not as a movement that sprang forth without any precursors.
  2. The fact that the IDM movement generally doesn't even explicitly mention ID any more -- using code-phrases like 'strengths and weaknesses' and 'academic freedom' instead.
  3. The fact that most ID articles are fairly stable, and in a number of cases becoming somewhat stale, due to lack of ongoing coverage -- resulting in their being merged into more general articles.
  4. The fact that many editors active on ID are already active on Creationism generally.

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting

Opposing

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion

Image discussion

An Image discussion is ongoing at Template talk:Intelligent Design#Image in template regarding the watch image used. If changed, IMO the change should also be rolled out to the following:

KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 01:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles page

Wikipedia:WikiProject Creationism/Articles hasn't been updated in three years. And to be honest, I don't really think keeping it up to date is worth the trouble -- that's what categories are for. I'm therefore WP:BOLDly tagging it as 'historical' & removing tasks related to it from the project page. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've found out that you can insert an automatic 'category tree' of articles into a page, so I've replaced the manual list with it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Sternberg.Wolfview (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I recently removed a month-old drive-by/undiscussed merger proposal from Talk.origins & TalkOrigins Archive‎. The editor in question seems intent of reinstating it, in spite of being still disinterested in actually discussing the thing. This editor is the same one that I locked horns with on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True.Origin Archive (2nd nomination) fiasco, so cooler heads would probably be a good idea. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed that "Category:FA-Class Creationism articles" has 2 featured articles, but they don't show up on the WikiProject's assessment page. I have no idea why that is, but I thought I'd let you guys know just in case it's a problem. —tktktk 00:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input in discussion forum

Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk)

Automated message by Project Messenger Bot from John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011

Another Article?

Shouldn't Relationship between religion and science be on the list, too? Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 11:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the tiny fraction of said relationship that is 'Creationism', I would personally say no. But probably it is more a case of nobody within the Wikiproject considering that article sufficiently relevant, and sufficiently in need of patrolling (it's already, independently, on my, and I would suspect numerous other Wikiproject members', watchlists) to warrant inclusion. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., Thank you. It was just a thought. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 14:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently we've been caught in a timewarp

Did you know that WikiProject Creationism was trapped in the 20th century? I didn't. Speaking for myself, I'm not in favour of a heavily subpage-based project page (it means more pages to keep track of on my watchlist). And it'd be nice if Arlen22 did us the courtesy of discussing a proposed major restructure here before starting work on it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well then let's discuss it. If you don't like it, I don't have to. I could probably use my skills just as good to help maintain the current page. You're right, it is more pages to keep track of. Hey, whatever, it's up to you. Arlen22 (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this project is generally fairly quiet (most of the real excitement occurs on article talk, not here), I'm in favour of applying the KISS principle as much as is possible. I went through and updated most of the project page at the start of the year when the scope was expanded. I'm also really not a fan of lime-green. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the lime-green can be changed. As for KISS, sounds great. We can always tweak this to make it look better if need be. I agree that at this rate there isn't a whole lot of benefit anyway. Arlen22 (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parody

Advocacy of Intelligent Design is indistinguishable from parody of advocacy of Intelligent Design

I'm not sure where this came from, but it doesn't seem to be working. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 08:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legal

National Center for Science Education Evolution Education and the Law

Nor is this one (err. 404). Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 08:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Wekn reven i susej eht:

  1. You really need to state what the URL is of the link that is broken & where you found it -- just giving its title doesn't help much.
  2. You should first check to see if the link has simply been moved, If not, if it's just an External link, not a reference-in-an-article, you should simply delete it (if it is a reference, you should either try http://www.archive.org/web/web.php, to see if it can be {{wayback}}ed, or tag it with a {{broken citation}}).

I've removed the first link & updated the second to a similar page that does still exist. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 13:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard R. Brand

The conflict level on Leonard R. Brand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has gotten to a sufficient level that I've decided that the best thing for me to do is to take a self-imposed (and thus purely voluntary) topic-ban on the article. I am therefore requesting that any Creationism regulars who have the time (and particularly any who have better grace under fire than I do) to take an interest. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard R. Brand is a young earth creationist, zoologist and paleobiologist. The page had been nominated for deletion but the closing admin announced that there was no consensus. He invited those concerned about the article to try again in a month or two. Any editors interested in helping develop the page, we could use your help. Thanks. (Hrafn provided much needed editor judgment. He will be missed.) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DonaldRichardSands: you really have no judgement or self-filtering mechanism whatsoever do you? I self-topic-banned myself in large part to avoid further losing my temper at your endless incompetence -- so what do you do? You follow me to a Wikiproject you are not even a member of to intrude yourself further. Your endless trivia, endless WP:DEADHORSEing, and endless wilful ignorance of policy will not be missed by me. Any regulars on here who wish to understand my anger should take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard R. Brand -- an AfD that DRS scuttled with his endless endlesssness. I value competence, clarity and conciseness -- concepts that appear to be entirely foreign to DRS -- which is perhaps why the guy acts like kryptonite on me. I know you mean well -- but please keep away from me. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. For the record, I did not follow you here. The Brand article is/should be part of this project's interest. Without checking the bottom of the page, I started a new section, posted it, found that there was already a section started by you. I put my message below yours. You have made it very clear that you need a break. I respect that. I have no wish to upset you. Sorry. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then might I suggest that you get yourself into the habit of reading a talkpage before you post, particularly if you are doing so for the first time. It reduces your chances of putting your foot in it -- something we all do from time to time. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Separate existence of the article The dangers of creationism in education

User:Hrafn has without discussion turned that article on the PACE resolution with the respective title into a redirect page to Creation and evolution in public education and was not convinced to change the position during our discussion on the relevant talk page. According to Hrafn's suggestion, I've currently incorporated the information in (the relevant section) of Creation and evolution in public education. However, I still propose to maintain The dangers of creationism in education as a separate article for the following reasons:


  • Given that Fuseau's attempted addition to that article (i) relies in the main on WP:PRIMARY and unreliable sources, and (ii) only lists (rather than makes any use of) WP:SECONDARY coverage, it makes for a very poor argument for an independent article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cannot call helpful your removal of content to be discussed (after you've recognized the sources justify a more detailed desciption in that article and suggested to me to put there the information). Primary sources were used where they are the best - for referring to full official texts of PACE documents, to specific vote results etc. Creationist (unreliable for scientific claims) sources were used to illustrate creationist reaction to the resolution, not to make some scientific point. Secondary sources were not only listed, but also used - mentioning in the main text, for example, the Russian Orthodox Church criticism and the 2009 conference in Germany. Some of them were really listed only - but that was made in response to User:Hrafn's call to show secondary-source coverage deemed necessary to create an article. We could retell the resolution using those news articles - but I doubt whether it's reasonable when we already have some quotes.Fuseau (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • And "I cannot call helpful" your insistence on simply listing secondary sources -- NO content based upon them, so NO IT IS NOT WHAT WE DISCUSSED! Whole sections devoted to endless, incautious primary-sourced bureaucratic TRIVIA! Self-published sources used in blatant violation of WP:ABOUTSELF. "SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE" means you actually have to USE the sources to demonstrate that they have something of substance to say about the topic -- simply listing sources is not sufficient. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I dont' consider the persistent use of capital letters to be helpful, either...1. Most sources given already were not only listed, but also - but please, I'm still co-operative and I've added even more information, for example, on what Lengagne says in 20 minutes (France) and what exactly is covered by Deutsche Welle. 2. Self-published sources were used without violating WP:ABOUTSELF - they were used only to confirm the fact that certain statements were made by their authors. 3. primary-sourced bureaucratic TRIVIA!: in those specific cases primary sources were the best (for example, newspapers and other secondary sources don't tend to give information of voting on amendments and on voting by delegates' surnames - in the best case they give the final text adopted and the number of votes cast in favour or against). Besides, it's not trivia, it's description of the history and political struggle on the content of the resolution. The fact that a report is sent back to the committee is not typical and also deserves mentioning. Fuseau (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)P.S. By the way, an illustrative experiment: I've created an article on the resolution in ru.wiki ru:Опасность_креационизма_в_образовании with the very same sources yesterday - and there is not a single objection against its existence. I don't claim that the community of the Russian-language WP (which is, however, well-established and has created over 800 000 articles) is always right, but the fact is telling.Fuseau (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transitional fossil article improvement

I've been putting some work into the Transitional fossil. Should I add this to the WIkiproject Creationism? I'm not sure. If so what level of importance would it have?

I have recently removed the section detailing "Creationist arguments" from the article. I argued that there are other articles that discuss the controversy, and that this article should focus only on transitional fossils. I am working on expanding the examples in the article and improving it so it eventually gets GA or FA status. Right now its going through copy-editing. After that will be peer review. See these recent discussions for more information:

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transitional Fossil peer-review

It is a very important subject, and I wish to take it to GA/FA status in the future. Input from members of this wikiproject would be highly valued. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new Creationist sub-cats

I am proposing two new subcategories of Category:Chrsitian creationists:

Discussion of this proposal can be found at Category talk:Creationists#Proposed subcats. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed MOS for Religion

There is now a proposed general Manual of Style for Religion and other articles relating to ethoses or belief systems at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. Any input would be welcome. I personally believe at least one of the reasons why many articles in this field have been as contentious as they have been is because of lack of such guidelines, and would very much welcome any input from others to help come up with some generally acceptable solutions to some of these problems. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review of Flying Spaghetti Monster

Hi! I have listed Flying Spaghetti Monster for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Flying Spaghetti Monster/archive1. any input on how to improve the article would be very much appreciated. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New category for Old Earth Christian creationists

I hadn't seen the discussion notice a few sections up, but I recently created Category:Christian Old Earth creationists and would appreciate help populating it. Many articles in Category:Christian creationists don't say one way or another if the subject is Old Earth or New Earth, though. --BDD (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC of interest

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in commenting at Talk:Creation Museum#RfC: "Biblical" or "Mythical" and "museum" or "facility"?. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I have proposed to merge this wikiproject and 12 others to a new wikiproject. Please see the proposal. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Hovind peer review

I have submitted the article Kent Hovind for peer review. He is an American evangelist and creationist. If you have time please give your thoughts on the article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC re Creation Museum

A discussion about Creation Museum is underway at Talk:Creation_Museum#accreditation. – S. Rich (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Greetings WikiProject Creationism Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Creationism/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Creationism.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Creationism, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

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

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   07:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

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

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Teleological argument

Teleological argument has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]