Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines/Archive2006

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines. 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.

How to do it

Well, that's the first question, isn't it. We've got to avoid the confrontation that normally occurs when policy pages are rewritten. Maybe we should have a bash at the smaller pages first and work our way up. Hiding Talk 14:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• If we start at the small pages, it'll take us forever get to the important ones... I have two suggestions. In general, most objections are because of misconceptions of how Wikipedia works (in particular, the one that changes to p/g pages have to be discussed first). So one solution would be to create a (lightweight) process for it to make it obvious that the changes aren't "out of process". Another would be the formation of a semi-open "p/g team" analogous to the MedCom, and either make clear that on p/g matters any of us can speak for the entire "team", or make clear that members of the "team" are experienced in these matters and you can trust them to know what they're doing. >Radiant< 14:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Not bad ideas. Keep going...:) Hiding Talk 15:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Okay. I think it's reasonable to expect participants in a WikiProject to have some experience or knowledge related to the issue at hand. For instance, someone in WProj History needn't have a degree or anything, but should have an interest in history. So it would be plausible to restrict membership to this project to people who have some experience in creating p/g, preferably on Wikipedia since the wiki is rather unique. Thanks to contrib logs, we have an accurate metric for this. Of course, the intent here is not to restrict editing to the "team", but simply to create a list of users known to be effective at p/g making, since our goal is effective p/g making.
• As to process, we can setup a simple process that goes like this: Rewrite and add a {{underdiscussion}} that has a history link to the previous version. Use the talk page for discussion and minor improvement. After a week, if there's substantial dissent, revert to the pre-rewrite version; if not, drop the template. Something like that, anyway; make it clear that the template is part of process, so you cannot revert it for the sole reason that it's out of process. >Radiant< 15:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Where would we do the rewrites? Sub-pages here? Do we invite people or advertise? Hiding Talk 16:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I think we must do the rewrites on the p/g pages themselves, otherwise we have to discuss everything all over again when the changes are implemented there. This WProj could definitely use some advertising; other than that, editing p/g pages tends to easily draw interest. >Radiant< 16:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I've got other projects I need to invest some time in at the minute, but don't take my silence as opposition. Do you want to advertise at the village pump or build a list of interested parties? Hiding Talk 15:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh?

I'm... not sure I understand the point.. I could understand a project that helps to cross link related guidelines, merge very small ones logically, navigation, etc. I think such a project would be more about maintenance rather than actually changing guidelines. I could see such an effort as this going both ways. -- Ned Scott 11:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Maintenance implies changing the text to clarify guidelines and make them less convoluted, e.g. the recent rewrite of WP:BLOCK. It is not meant to imply fundamental changes. (Radiant) 09:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)