Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

Great idea

I think this is a great idea! Might even add something about coordinating with their Portals as well to take the load off there too. There's also issues that we all need accomplished to make our jobs easier and we can work out our game plan together and so be a more effective lobby. Right now I was unsuccessful in trying to convince the GA people to set up the categories as separate pages so we could transclude them. There might be other issues I'm not aware of that make this not a feasible idea.... Anyway, all of this is to say, I don't think is is a wacky idea at all. There's so many things that we (you!) could share to help WP be more effective, etc. I guess we'd need to define how it's different from Wikipedia:WikiProject? plange 16:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words!

Wikipedia:WikiProject is just an instructional page, so isn't really set up to provide a discussion/collaboration environment. (I suppose this idea would sort of be like a WikiProject "WikiProjects"; but the recursive name is rather unpleasant.) Having said that, I imagine—if this were to actually take off—we could eventually absorb the other WikiProject pages (particularly the list of WikiProjects and the new WikiProject proposals) under the umbrella of this setup. Kirill Lokshin 16:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an excellent idea. The PR process is dying IMHO from lack of input as a lot of people seem to use FAC for a PR now. I also see the need for V1.0 interproject issues being handled in a more orderly fashion.Rlevse 18:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comments

This is a great idea Kirill! (Another one, yes. But then again, a guy called Lokshin can only have great ideas hehehe... :P) Where do I sign up??? :)

On the subject of PR - yes, the PR is kinda dead and must be reanimated. However, some (=not me) might object that the article might not get a better coverage on project-specific PR. We get 3 (4 if one gets lucky) reviewers per PR at MILHIST, that is not that much. That's why I sworn to PR each and every new article on MILHIST PR... :) Then again, a centralized will may change that.

The directory is long needed, we tried to compile one for WP:FAR and it was a real pain...

Do we need a formal representation? Good question. Yes I think, as making people work together in situations that can sometimes be delicate requires entrusting these people with WP trust beforehand. And yes, these users should be at least experienced editors with a lot of contribs under the belt (and not admins, as adminship is IMHO not a sine qua non for that kind of things). And sure thing, people from great quality project (*whistles* MILHIST...) are needed. Then again, I tend to make complicated institutionnal organizations - must be the accountant speaking inside me... :) And yay for Committee!

Overall, this is a great idea and must see the light! What, unfortunately, it won't improve is keeping good contributors on Wikipedia, but that's another ~~rant~~story... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good

When do you start? Tito xd^(?!?) 01:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soon—but we need to decide on a name! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 01:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like "League" :-) plange 01:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's going to be like ArbCom and MedCom, then perhaps Committee, for continuity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titoxd (talk • contribs)

I don't imagine this will resemble ArbCom in any real way; I doubt Jimbo will delegate any real authority to this group, for one thing. And "Committee" might raise more anti-bureaucracy hackles than some other name would. But, quite honestly, I don't know; maybe if we can get a third person to comment, we'll have enough for consensus? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 01:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "council" sounds good too. Tito xd^(?!?) 02:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Council" it is, then, at least for the time being. If anyone has better ideas, I'm sure they'll let us know. Kirill Lokshin 02:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Membership

Initial thoughts:

Do we need a formal membership? Something like the Mediation Committee (that is, people with some experience in these issues who are willing to be "on call" to assist individual projects) might be useful; as might be a group of people to coordinate larger discussions and be responsible for ensuring that information is dispersed to the relevant projects. On the more fanciful side of things, we could have representatives from participating WikiProjects that would serve as points-of-contact to them. Kirill Lokshin 02:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, both are a good idea. A formal membership, with the same procedure for entering as in MedCom, and a list of contacts, in case there's a need to spread important news, or make suggestions. Also, contacts with WP:WVWP should exist, and perhaps come under the project's purvew, as well as the list of WikiProjects. Tito xd^(?!?) 02:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good ideas on the membership.

And yes, the list of WikiProjects will (hopefully) be replaced by the new directory idea; the current list is so badly organized as to be nearly useless for actually finding a working project. As far as WVWP is concerned, I suspect a lot of the work—encouraging projects to start assessments and such—will happen here; whether there's anything else that happens on that side that wouldn't fit here, I'm not sure. Kirill Lokshin 02:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formal membership? er.. well I dunno. I wanted to be a member and help out and stuff, but am not sure I would want to be a formal member! (cue "I won't belong to any club that would have me as a member") Is formal membership necessary? Is this council going to have any authority? I'd be surprised if it did. ++Lar: t/c 19:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be surprised if it had any formal authority (which is not to say that it won't have some informal weight merely due to acting as a central forum for discussion; but this wouldn't be enforced by anything other than the wishes of the WikiProjects themselves). Hence, a general membership—a simple signup list of participants, in other words—would probably be as complicated an arrangement as could be useful for the time being. Having said that, the idea of some sort of more limited inter-WikiProject Mediation- or Coordination-like group might be something to give further thought to at some point in the future, particularly if we get a lot of WikiProjects coming here with their issues and proposals (which is something that I'm personally hoping will happen). Kirill Lokshin 19:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Well then I'm happy to help with stuff as I have time, and would add my name to the list of participants, just like any other project... and if we get to the point where coordination/mediation is needed, I'd certainly consider helping with that as well, if there was interest in my doing so. I just wouldn't want to have to campaign/stand for it to get it... I've seen too many things collapse under too much initial structure too soon. ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, yes; I've seen that too. I'll go ahead and set up a simple signup list for now, and we can continue discussing these things at our leisure. Kirill Lokshin 20:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(double edit conflict) Mostly, I suggested formal membership for the same reasons Kirill did: in case this becomes a WikiProject mediation venue. But yeah, too much initial structure will stagnate efforts. Perhaps we should add that to the guide? Tito xd^(?!?) 20:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't even started on the sections about complicated structures yet ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to best practices

I've started work on a skeleton of a guide here; I'll certainly be adding lots of material, once I've had time to put it in writing, but any additions or suggestions would be very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 03:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An area of interest for me is project banners for talk pages (that have the classification stuff built in). As you know I helped with teh WPBeatles one, and helped the FireFly one, and I know other projects cribbed. But some sort of reusable skeleton for creating these (which hides a lot of the gnarly logic of whether assessments are present, whether comments are present, etc) might be good. ++Lar: t/c 16:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's certainly on the to-do list (see that "Advanced project banners" section?), but it'll probably be a few days before I get that far.

Aside from that, getting more people participating here would be a good thing in terms of getting up to speed more rapidly, but I actually have no idea how to best go about that, as there aren't any articles involved where we could advertise. Kirill Lokshin 16:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my hand at the nav templates section, not sure if that was the level of detail you were looking for or if actual templates should be transcluded to give examples or what... consider it a warmup for the Advanced Templates section ({{WPBeatles}} is in the running for MOST COMPLEX template!)... comments?? or just fix it up! ++Lar: t/c 20:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can probably add some more technical details later, but it'll do for now. As far as {{WPBeatles}}, it definitely deserves mention, but it might be a little too complex to use for a how-to of coding the things; the code is such that I don't know if it'll be particularly feasible to turn it into a boilerplate for new projects to use. Kirill Lokshin 20:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added to it with a suggestion to keep nav boxes smaller and avoid "kitchen sink"ing them with links to absolutely everything. There are several other templates that I'd like to reduce in a similar fashion within WP Trains, I just haven't had a chance to propose updated versions yet. Slambo (Speak) 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comments are certainly valuable ones; but they're not really related to WikiProject management so much as general template-building, and I think we should avoid trying to rewrite all of Wikipedia's style and usage advice on one page. Hence, I've taken the liberty of moving them to Wikipedia:Navigational templates, where I think they'll be more appropriate; I hope you don't mind too much. Kirill Lokshin 21:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like some of the text I added (removed here: [1]) did not get moved when you moved Slambo's unless I missed something. I guess I don't necessarily agree that some words about article templates are not needed here. I see them as a potential bone of contention in a project. ++Lar: t/c 02:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you're right; I missed that text. My apologies.

It might be worthwhile to compose a more comprehensive guide for article-related issues like reader-facing template design or layout, and so forth; but I think it might be better off as a separate page from the internal organizational guide, perhaps? Kirill Lokshin 02:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. I liked your skeleton for project facing, why don't you try your hand at a skeleton for article facing too? in addition to what sorts of templates to use, there's the questions around how much unification is appropriate, what things should go on talk pages, perhaps discussion ettiquete? (I'm just free associating to give you some ideas)... ++Lar: t/c 03:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't want to be presumptuous and put this in there as a good idea, in case you guys don't think it is, but I created a template people can subst: for use in expanding task force sections. {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Work groups/Division banner}} These are for divisions within each task force, but could work just as well for the top of the task force....

any feedback on this? plange 03:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, if you're looking for a personal opinion: I think it's far too dense (the small font doesn't help!), and that overusing boilerplate (particularly repeating the same boilerplate many times on a single page) is a bad idea. Kirill Lokshin 03:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you've twisted my arm...

Sure, count me in too. I've tried moving WikiProject Trains in a similar direction this month with a unified {{TrainsWikiProject}} banner to cover it and the current subprojects and new task forces (and assessment ratings and comments; I haven't added importance rating yet). So far, I haven't heard any real complaints, so I'm assuming a tacit approval of this coordination (as I stated on the Trains talk page). In reading through the description and comments here so far, I don't see anything that I object to, and I can't think of much that's missing right now. So, yeah, <talk style="FAC">Support</talk>. B-) Slambo (Speak) 18:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

I am a bit concerned by the capitalisation on the c in "Council". In fact, I am a bit concerned by the use of that word at all. Its use, and especially its capitalisation, strongly suggests, to quote Eric Cartman, "You Will Respect My authority!" Is that the intention?

Also, if we are "The Council", then we are a self-appointed legislature. Those are rarely serendipitous experiments. --Mais oui! 07:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The naming issue was actually discussed up-page; if you have a better idea, we'd love to hear it. :-)

I think that discussions of "legislature" and "authority" are a bit inapplicable here, though. While we obviously do think that the ideas we're putting forward are good ones—presumably we wouldn't bother setting this up if we believed otherwise—and would like people to adopt them, we don't have any executive authority, and can't actually enforce anything. Perhaps the choice of name was somewhat unrealistically optimistic (the idea being that all of the various WikiProjects would come on board with this, creating a good place to have centralized discussions), but I don't really think it's fair to fault us for that.

(Maybe I'm just being utterly dense, though, but what does the capitalization of the word have to do with it? If it's a bad name, then wouldn't it still be bad even in lowercase?) Kirill Lokshin 12:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Societies

Is there a Wikiproject focusing on Secret Societies? Geo. 19:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't possibly tell you. It's a secret. --kingboyk 19:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly more seriously: no, I'm pretty sure there isn't one. Kirill Lokshin 19:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone have a problem with me creating one? Geo. 20:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It tends to be a highly contentious topic area, but I suppose that comes with the turf. I can't think of any other project that would be working in this area, though, so feel free to create one. Kirill Lokshin 20:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my little joke, I was fully intending to come back with an answer after a suitable period. As for creating such a project, you're free to do so of course - but maybe first see how much interest there is by asking on relevant talk pages? --kingboyk 20:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Joke, i will create it Geo. 20:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I encourage you to read the project organization guide, then; the sections on starting a new project are actually somewhat usable now ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really great idea

Just want to drop a comment, that this is a great idea. There are zillions of projects but there is no "council" to, like, umm, manage and navigate these projects. By the way, I'm from the WikiProject Indonesia. Cheers everyone -- Imoeng 08:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A different name?

This is a nice idea, although the name may not be the greatest. Perhaps something along the lines of WikiProject WikiProjects, WikiProject InterWikiProject Relations. Those are a little cheesy, but the word council may have improper connotations of athority or the like. Best to get the ball rolling on the proper name early. Kevin_b_er 02:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced it's an issue of any concern, but perhaps "Association" might be more usable. Another option to consider is to switch the word order—to Wikipedia:Council of WikiProjects or Wikipedia:Association of WikiProjects—to make it clear that this is not actually a recursive WikiProject (for any useful definition of WikiProject, anyways). Kirill Lokshin 02:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a much simpler idea - you've misspelled it! WikiProject Counsel is probably closer to what you're actually trying to convey (advice, consultation), rather than the meaning behind council (body of elected reps who serve to formally advise on policy). Girolamo Savonarola 22:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Directory ideas

Some initial thoughts about the directory of WikiProjects:

The current list isn't all that useful, primarily because it (a) mixes active projects with a substantial portion of dead ones; (b) focuses on historical trivia, such as project founding dates, instead of information about a project's current activity; and (c) is quite difficult to find a particular project in, due to an often unintuitive listing order.

I would propose, rather than having a simple list, we create a three-part directory, as follows:

1. Alphabetical feature matrix

An alphabetical listing of active projects, giving links to various important features. This could be done in a table form (with exact columns to be determined, of course):

Project	Assessment	Peer review	Collaboration
Australia	yes	yes	yes
The Beatles	yes
Biography	yes	yes
India	yes	yes
Military history	yes	yes	yes
Tropical cyclones	yes		yes
Webcomics

A simpler listing would also be possible, but might be harder to read.

2. Hierarchical listing

More or less like the current list, ordering projects according to their topical hierarchy. Trim all the inactives and trivia, though.

3. Inactives

Keep all of these separate. Many of them should be merged/deleted/brought back to activity/whatever; but that's a longer-term concern, and for now they just clutter up the listing.

Comments? Would doing this be worthwhile, or is it too complicated? Kirill Lokshin 20:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are projects that are too difficult to classify, as they span several subject areas, but I agree with separating inactive projects. Also, a different table for Wikipedia-related maintainance projects, perhaps? Tito xd^(?!?) 20:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Maintenance projects generally have a very different setup from topical ones, so much of the listing wouldn't apply to them. Kirill Lokshin 20:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So we'll have a separate inactive projects list and an other with active projects that will split into to two kind of listing? NCurse

_work 20:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (and possibly a separate list of maintenance projects, as per Titoxd). Kirill Lokshin 20:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came across a one-member WikiProject which has had a couple of months to attract new members (Wikipedia:Wikiproject Drake & Josh). I posted an enquiry on the Project's talk page about whether it is active or not and after a week had no reply. I proceeded to tag it {{inactive}} and remove the Project's templates from talk pages, only to get an immediate response of "the project is active but has only one member" :) It has a very narrow scope too... Can/should we do anything about this? --kingboyk 12:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, it would probably be better off merged or task-force-ified somewhere (although I'm not sure what the logical higher-level project is here). In practice, I don't think that actively defended projects (even if they are very narrow) are something we should go after at the moment; once we clean up the truly catatonic ones, we'll be in a much better position, I think. Kirill Lokshin 12:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. Of course I appreciate I'm on very thin ice here, with WP:KLF, but at least that project has an FA to it's name, a current FAC, and a queue of articles waiting for FAC :) --kingboyk 13:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should be careful not to throw our "weight" (or lack of) around! Adding an inactive tag is fine, since anyone can do that. But we are not in a position to be able to dictate policy, or to tell a WikiProject to disband. Also, I think we should adapt our systems to the community as much as poss, rather than trying to tell the community how they should run things. OK, the scope of the KLF "microproject" is narrow, but sometimes this can be the best way to channel energy most effectively. If the project is active and successful, good luck to them - and I think subsuming (sp?) them into WP:Electronic music is not helpful.

Also, many small projects can grow - I was essentially the only active member of WP:Chem for many months, but within three months a bunch of chemists joined me and we had a successful FAC. OK, the scope of the KLF "microproject" is narrow, but sometimes this can be the best way to channel energy most effectively. If the project is active and successful, let it do its job. If it really is just one person's vain attempt at glory, then tag it as inactive. Walkerma 13:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's pretty much my thinking too (hence originally italicising should we interfere? :)). I tagged it {{inactive}}, he removed the tag, let's leave it. Thanks for the replies guys. --kingboyk 13:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, we're in no position to actually push projects around. Having said that, most small and/or inactive projects tend to react quite positively to suggestions about being absorbed in some form into a larger and more active one; the ones that don't (and they are fairly rare, in my experience) we can just leave to their own devices. Kirill Lokshin 14:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PJ and project proposals

Given that our guide is finally starting to look usable, I've merged the old "Best practices" page (or what parts of it were actually sensible, anyways) into it. I've also trimmed the main WikiProject page to a much leaner form, saving all of the incidental recommendations for the guide.

One point that hasn't been mentioned is the Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects page. It seems to be rather badly organized and under-maintained, but I think that some form of informal request-for-advice area for new projects would be worthwhile. Might it be a good idea to move that page here (trimming it of much of its accreted red tape in the process)? Kirill Lokshin 19:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Probably a few of the proposals could be archived too. --kingboyk 19:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Templates

I've been on a tear lately creating templates for other WikiProjects, and so I wondered, why shouldn't the project dedicated to helping other projects have some too? So, I created {{WikiProject Council}}, a project notice template, and {{User WikiProject Council}}, a userbox template ('cause the one thing WikiPedia needs right now is more userboxes! :). In the process, I had to pick a random image icon and that was the first "council" one to pop into my head (replace it if you've got a better suggestion). Actually, in general, go ahead and savagely edit away!

I'll let others decide what pages the project notice should be attached to. Seems like with previous discussions of us pitching in on the guide, best practices, etc, there are a few places that should probably get it soon.

Enjoy! --EvilSuggestions 07:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the userbox is a good idea (and have affixed it to my user page), but I can't see any need for the talk page template personally. --kingboyk 10:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's not really useful for anything, as we aren't going to be working with any articles directly. We can probably delete it or redirect it to the userbox. Kirill Lokshin 11:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, I was actually pretty surprised that it was the project notice and not the userbox that got zapped. To clarify, my intention for the project notice was not for articles in the main space, but for pages that we might work on probably under the Wikipedia or Template namespaces. Am I totally off base here? It seems like we should have some way of flagging things that this project is going to focus on, if for no other reason than to provide a crumbtrail for folks to follow back to this project, where they could get more info/help/possibly contribute. --EvilSuggestions 15:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is more of a general advisory group—we don't necessarily intend to go and "fix" outside projects ourselves—and that all of the project-space pages used are going to be subpages of the main one, I really don't see the need for a separate template. (We are, of course, putting links to this page in a number of visible places; but again, I doubt a template would be particularly useful here.) Kirill Lokshin 15:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean tinkering inside other WikiProjects. I meant some of the "meta" pages about WikiProjects, like {{WikiProject}}, Wikipedia:WikiProject, Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects, etc. I might be misunderstanding the intent of this project, but aren't we effectively a "WikiProject:WikiProjects"? That is, trying to improve WikiProject processes, documentation, etc. If so, I think a project notice on certain WikiProject help pages, templates, etc is certainly appropriate. Going into e.g. WP:Care Bears (I hope that doesn't exist :), and slapping our notice all over their pages would not be appropriate, and is not was intending it to be used for. I think this misunderstanding is why I'm a little disturbed by how quickly the project notice got deleted. Not even one day had passed (actually barely a few hours), so there was really no time for I, nor anyone else, to discuss what it might be used for or offer any examples. Is this how I should expect this project to operate? --EvilSuggestions 21:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I meant was that having a talk page template would be redundant because this project will be linked from the actual page. The entire idea of putting templates on talk pages came about because WikiProjects couldn't put links to themselves directly on articles; since we're working in the background namespaces, this doesn't really apply. Kirill Lokshin 21:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We can link back to the main page and put relevant pages into Category:WikiProject Council at will. That's why we don't need a talk page template. --kingboyk 21:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I'm continuing to debate this - it's not that important - but for the sake of future contributors to this project: is it standard operating procedure in this project to speedy delete innocent user contributions without allowing hardly any time to discuss? If so, I think I should take my name off of the project page. According to the history on this talk page, the sum amount of time from the "Any objections to me deleting...?" comment to "Duly deleted." was a whopping 19 minutes. Is that how you folks roll here? 19 minutes to comment?

Regarding the notice itself, I disagree on the point that the only reason for a project notice is because we can't link to a project from an article. Project notices are collaboration tools, just like this project is supposed to be. In addition to providing a link and perhaps adding the page to a category, they're also a visually distinctive and recognizable widget that informs users that there's a project that cares about the page, and is willing to provide help. How are we going to link back to this project from the pages we work on? With a "for more info see WikiProject Council" kind of link? That doesn't leverage an existing paradigm nearly as much as a style of widget that now appears all over the place. Besides, there are pages like {{WikiProject}} where I don't think it's appropriate for us to be putting that kind of link on the content page. --EvilSuggestions 03:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, can anyone find a more square image we might be able to use in the box? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 12:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a crop of Image:Swiss National Council Session Spectators.jpg or Image:Repin state council2.jpg might be usable? Kirill Lokshin 12:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a blue (UN-style) version of Image:Wikipedia_laurier_W.png or something in that tune? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea, but it will require greater skill with graphics than I posess ;-) Kirill Lokshin 12:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WikiProject council.png, which I just did. ;) (SVG version available). Tito xd^(?!?) 21:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, but I was actually thinking about a pure white and blue logo (the leaves from the UN logo and a W from any font you fancy) :P -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will that still be distinguishable at a small size? White backgrounds tend to drown out fine details. Kirill Lokshin 21:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... yes, let's leave this version... :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've changed over to Titoxd's new image; does that look any better than the old version? Kirill Lokshin 00:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! :D -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, is it just me, or should the userbox's category be "Participants in the WikiProject Council"? Kirill Lokshin 01:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or even "Members of the WikiProject Council"/"WikiProject Council members", as that's the wording used on both the userbox itself and on the project page. Kirill Lokshin 01:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections to me deleting {{WikiProject Council}}? --kingboyk 13:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since both that and {{User WikiProject Council}} both now redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Userbox, it seems that both cross-namespace redirects should be removed. Slambo (Speak) 14:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duly deleted.--cj | talk 14:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilsport! :P --kingboyk 14:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy written up somewhere as to moving WikiProject userboxes to Wikipedia:WikiProject NAME/Userbox style names? I have, in general, been creating them as Template:User WikiProject NAME for a number of other projects and that appeared to be the standard being followed most everywhere I looked. Not that I totally disagree with the idea, I just think it might be better for us to "eat our own dogfood" as it were, and do similarly to what we're proposing other WikiProjects should do. If everyone is supposed to be making a similar move, then I see the purpose. If other projects aren't, then I guess I don't get the point of us being different. --EvilSuggestions 15:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped following the situation involving userboxes a long way back, but I assume this particular box was moved under the Wikipedia:German userbox solution.--cj | talk 15:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is growing acceptance of Wikipedia:German userbox solution which suggests project userboxes be moved to a project subpage. I haven't started the move for {{User Trains WikiProject}} yet mostly because I've been working on other aspects of the project. Slambo (Speak) 15:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:GUS seems to be going forward, even if it has not yet been universally enforced in regard to WikiProject userboxes. Given that some have been moved—often less than politely—I think it's worthwhile to avoid doing things that are likely to entangle us in unnecessary conflict at this point. Kirill Lokshin 15:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following the userbox dustups for the past couple months, and I've never gotten the impression that WikiProject userboxes are considered to be problematic enough to necessitate a move to userspace (or out of Template space in general). As I understand it, the GUS is primarily a way to deal with POV userboxes, and maybe some of the frivolous, non-encyclopedic ones (out of the 22 userboxes templates I put on my user page, only 2 have been moved to User: space, and those were humorous in nature). Under English implementation features/Guiding_principles there's a quote that specifically refers to WikiProject user templates:

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Userboxes can be of a clear value to the encyclopedia-building project. Examples include those related to claiming professional or academic expertise, WikiProject affiliations, and claiming access to specialized resources and a willingness to conduct research using them upon request. Templates for these userboxes could stay in template space. Controversial and unencyclopedic userbox templates should be moved to user space.

See also the GUS straw poll, where the question about WikiProject userboxes has 14 votes for keeping them in Template:, 7 for moving to Wikipedia:, and only 2 votes for moving them to User:. So, it seems like a consensus hasn't developed yet, but the prevailing opinion is to leaving them Template: for now. As such, I think there's some value in having Council resemble what other WikiProjects do, unless we're leading the charge on a new policy and/or best practice. I don't think that policy/practice necessarily has legs yet (and might not ever), so I vote for sticking with Template:. --EvilSuggestions 21:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might also note that all new userboxes created over the past week or so—including WikiProject ones—have been moved (and usually not by the members of the project). I couldn't care less which namespace the userbox is in, quite frankly; I merely think that picking a fight—and it will be viewed as picking a fight—over the issue isn't worth it. Kirill Lokshin 21:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Where the template lives matters not a jot, so if it's going to irritate or aggravate certain editors if it's template namespace we put it in project namespace instead. Simple and not worth worrying about :) --kingboyk 21:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Participants in WikiProjects

Category:Participants in WikiProjects is a bit of a mess, and I think we ought to agree on a naming convention and then submit a bulk nomination to WP:CFD. Since shorter category names are generally better, I favour renaming the category to Category: WikiProjects participants and all subcats to Category:WikiProject Name participants. An acceptable alternative is to retain the name and move all subcats to Category:Participants in WikiProject Name. Thoughts? --kingboyk 10:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last time somebody tried this, it was a horrible mess due to the "participants" versus "members" distinction; I very much doubt that trying to force everybody to adopt one usage versus the other will go over well. We might be able to get away with a rename to WikiProject Name [members/participants] (as the project prefers), though. Kirill Lokshin 11:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]