Under members Opal Koboi and cudegeon are listed though they were not members, they just helped the B'wa Kell. Scalene etc should be there. ISomeone should change it.
Caontact me a derryquinn@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
First of all, always sign your posts, regardless of whether or not you have an account. No one is going to email you. Sign your posts with 4 ~ marks.
Second of all, why don't you do it? You're the first person apart from me to post on this page for over a month. That means I'm kinda busy. I might get round to this, but if you spot an error, fix it yourself. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters09:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! My name is Dreamafter! I, not to brag, know almost everything about Artemis Fowl. So I propose that with only 23 Wikipedians in this project that, we need to have a system of order. We need a leader, to overrule unjust decisions, a 2IC(second in-command) to have that power, for quick easy decisions (but with that power the leader could overrule them), and so forth. I would gladly like to nominate myself and 007bond for the two higher positions as we both want to see this Wikiproject grow to be the biggest in all of Wikipedia! Dreamy20:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! Okay, so it is as follows, those people that are lead coordinators, i.e. you and me, have full power in this project. And those people that are only coordinators, have a lot of power, but can be overruled by you or me. This is so that if we come to a dispute, we can get over it much more quickly than having to vote on it. Dreamy02:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.:We need a vote, among the coordinators and lead coordinators for the head of the lead coordinators, so that if we disagree, one of us has the power to overrule the other, and if it turns out that the head was wrong, it is reverted and the 2IC(second in command) changes it to what there idea was. Dreamy02:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That page doesn't exist. Considering that we only appear to have 3-4 active members, why don't we just hold it here? I'd vote for you, seeing as you were hear first. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters06:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, I noticed that there are a bunch of people in the coordinators box, and was wondering if any them were actually voted into there (other than codingmasters and dreamafter)? Many of the people listed as "participants" have done nothing on this project for months. We need to get rid of all those people on the list who have simply started ignoring this project. Perhaps post a new section on this talk page named "participants" and with text, "if you truthfully want to be an active member of this WikiProject, sign your name below", wait a week, then see who responds. What do you think? Laptopdude22:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to do that a couple of weeks ago now, and was shot down by several people on the list who claimed that it wasn't my right to simply remove people from a WikiProject, even if they had done jack all for months. So yeah, I agree with you laptopdude. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters06:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hhmmmm..... I see their point. Ok, how about we make a list called "Active users", following the same talk page response process? Move users who have edited Artemis Fowl articles in the past two weeks to the active list from the standard list. Laptopdude20:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I preferred the one month idea before you changed it. I was thinking though, in stead of having an active list, let's have an inactive list in stead. This will make it clear that these users aren't doing anything, in stead of the users in the active list appear to be doing something, reguarly or not. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, 1 month and "Inactive" it is. However, is there any way to make it so that only certain people (i.e. you, dreamafter, etc.) can edit that list? Having other people take themselves off it would defeat the purpose. Laptopdude21:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I found some spare time and did this. I used the Special Contributions page to skim through each user's list of recent edits, and if they hadn't made an AF related edit in 30 days, they were placed into the inactive list.
I think that it's kind of odd that all active participants except one (me) are in the coordinators box. Maybe we should have a lead coordinator and a coordinator and that's it? Laptopdude03:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know when to remove the stub tags from articles? I recently redid Time-Stop (Artemis Fowl), and that is where this question arose from.
Also, I think there should be some system so that members can alert other members when they would like an article checked, or help on that article, without posting on this general discussion page. I think that adding some text after the article names on List of Articles would be perfect. Everyone could check there periodically and see if any users need any help and discuss it on that article's discussion page rather than this main one. Laptopdude21:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is what this talk page is designed for. The participants of the WikiProject to talk about the pages in the project. If you would like a page reviewed by another user in the project, by all means post here about it and we'll go and take a look! -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters22:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went and looked at the Time Stop article. Nice work there. I removed the stub tag because it was definitely big enough to warrant it being removed. That doesn't mean there isn't always an ongoing need for improvement though! -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters22:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lieutenant Nyle is the goblin in the second book that takes out his fellow goblin to become a promoted goblin. he is very minor. Eric Lee is not the one that we want. Dreamy16:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. On the wikiproject page, in the templates section, somebody added a bit of "advice", telling people to use the substitute thing in stead of putting the template into their user page. Do you think we should remove this or not? -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters06:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, that's a brilliant re-work. I never thought anyone could write that much about it lol! Make sure you check that it's no longer on the todo template that's on the main page of the wikiproject. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters06:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are we going to do with this article? I think it needs to have all unsourced facts removed. That basically means just getting rid of the list of "supposed" actors. It's getting annoying for me to constantly have to revert edits by people who just put their favourite actor in, and if we just remove the list of actors, people are hopefully gonna stop doing it. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 21:48, 29 June 2007
I really don't know. If we remove the actors bit, then the article is less than half of what it was, and if we don't, than more reverting. What do you think Coordinators? Dreamy22:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be handy to have a shortcut to this talk page like we have 3 for the main page. Unfortunately, I've got no idea how to make them. Can someone else do it? -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters23:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that we need an article on mind wiping, and had a question about the articles name. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a dominant grammatically correct spelling. Colfer uses "mindwipe", "mind wipe", and "mind-wipe" throughout the books. Any suggestions? Laptopdude23:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just went over everyone's contribs again, and made a table. I discovered that Tetty2 (talk·contribs) hasn't done anything on the WikiProject in almost 2 months. I'm going to move him to the inactive list. However, and I'd like everyone's opinions on this, I think there are more helpful things I could be doing for the Wikiproject than looking at user's contribs, so I'm only gonna do this once a month. Laptopdude02:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, every active person is dubbed at least a coordinator. I really think that this whole command thing is unnecessary. It really hasn't done anything or helped in any way. The point of WikiProjects is for teamwork to help improve Wikipedia. I really don't see a need for ranks. Besides, one single person (or two) should not be able to overrule everyone else. In order for something to be done, there needs to be mutual consent. I think we should get rid of the ranks. Laptopdude21:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And risk everything going down into mould? I agree however, that there should be no such ranks, but I'm quite sure 4 of us who actually look after and try to improve the Artemis Fowl articles are actually people who do not give POV or opinions. By the way, there is only 4 of us in this Active part of the Project.--Hanaichi06:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to agree with both of you. However, we need some form of order, and though all of the active people are coords, we just need more active people. If we could get more people than the system would work. If after one month, not many people are moved to the active list, than the system will be highly down-graded. Dreamy\*/!$!21:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if there were more active users the whole ranking thing would be more appropriate and helpful. That brings us to another topic. Getting more participants. Do you think it would be a good idea to post a message on the talk pages on all the inactive users' talk pages, asking them to become active again? Laptopdude00:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looking back, I agree with Laptopdude, we only really need a coordinator and a lead-coordinator. And as such, I would like to step down, quickly before anyone sees!, and put 007bond, to the lead-coordinator spot, and put Laptopdude, in the coordinator spot. Dreamy\*/!$!00:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I most definitely agree (since you stepped down) that 007bond should be the lead. I am happy to accept coordinator, of course. And I hope this doesn't change how anyone contributes, because we still need all the help we can get. Laptopdude16:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think there are too many articles. Non notable articles should be merged into a single article. Such as a List of Artemis Fowl characters or something. Read WP:FICT for more information.--Hanaichi04:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This section is for inactive editors to post to if they wish to return to the WikiProject. Please do not post here unless you are an inactive editor who wishes to return to the WikiProject. Laptopdude16:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, this should have started out as a work group first. Maybe we could try inviting people to join us, let say for example, people who likes magic themed + action adventure books.--Hanaichi00:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you guys might of noticed over the past 5 weeks, I have been extremely inactive on here in editing Artemis Fowl articles. This is because once term started again (I'm an Australian, our terms are very different to those in the northern hemisphere) I just became too busy with everything happening, from music lessons to scouts to homework. So, I've decided to leave this WikiProject and put myself on the inactive users list. I probably will return around Christmas, but at the moment, I'm just far too busy to be a worthwhile leader.
All right, I have changed the coordinator table, so that now Laptopdude is the Lead Coordinator (Stand in). I hope that that is alright... Dreamy\*/!$!12:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although, I have just started school as well, and may be less and less available. I will still try to edit whenever I can, but don't be surprised if I go for like a week without edits. Laptopdude04:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Over time I've noticed many inconsistancies in the spelling of this word among fans, and I'm fairly certain there are inconsistancies in the books. (and no, I can't check this myself, because I don't own the books, and I'm not near a library. I do have extensive familiarity of them, however)
Also, in the FF, does it ever state that mesmerizing another fairy is forbidden in The Booke? And if so, it doesn't result in a loss of powers, as entering a human dwelling does, does it? Or is that a plot hole?
I apologize for bothering you all about this... I wish I could remember them better. Unfortunately, I can't, so I'll have to rely on other people to check the books. justice02:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a new version of the Main Page for us, this. If I get no comments/criticsm in five days after 22:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC), I will move it onto our front page. Dreamy§22:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I think that looks great and that it'd be a good idea to use it as the new Main Page.
But I have to say that the colour scheme gives me a headache... Red and green? Ouch. Could we maybe change that, perhaps to variations of a single shade - e.g. greys (least likely to offend), golden-browns (like the first book), blues (like the republished first book) or reds (like the graphic novel, which you've put in this design)?
Oh, and also, I think the "WP:AF directs here..." and "This is a WikiProject..." bits look kind of squashed in there: maybe they'd look better in a separate box that spans the whole width, or outside the boxes at the top of the page?
Yeah, I think it works better with the top box like that. =) (Although, maybe the disambiguation links should be in that box too - if someone's come to the wrong place, that's the first thing they're going to want to know.)
I'm still not sure about the colours though - I think at the moment it's got way too many in it. We need to make sure we're not going to alienate prospective participants by having a layout that gives them brainache or is difficult to read. I've made a few variations of the layout with different colour schemes: grey, gold, blue, red. What do you all think? KittyRainbow12:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Errmm just to point out, we aren't allowed to have non free images (in this case, the graphic novel cover) on the project page..... --Hanaichi06:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That one isn't exactly free either. You kinda just cropped the image of the demon from a non free copyright image, and put free images around it...What is free is the image of the gold bars...--Hanaichi01:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to jump in here... You can't release the Capture Ess AF image into the public domain, because the picture of the demon isn't yours, whether you cropped it or not. (If that's the one you're talking about here. If you meant the other one, never mind.) And if that's not a free image, are we technically allowed to use it in our barnstar and invitation templates? Hmm. We might need a different one then...
If y'all want me to, I could probably knock something up for us quite quickly. I've done fanarty things before; it wouldn't take me that long to make some computer-drawn image that was vaguely related to the series. (And, I guess, not much more than vaguely, because again - copyright concerns.)
Artemis Fowl 6 should be Artemis Fowl: The Time Paradox. I'd do it myself, 'cept that I have no idea how to redirect stuff and I'm too lazy to learn how to do so. A lot of the technology, like the Retimager, could be merged into one article titled Fairy Technology or something like that. The Retimager article is ridiculously repetitive-I could probably rewrite it in one paragraph or so. BunnyFlying (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I mind as I am in the position of "Coordinator (Stand in)". I am the acting Coordinator, and since we do not have an active Lead Coordinator, I technically assume that position as soon as both are officially inactive. <DREAMAFTER> <TALK>21:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually that no-one was making any edits to these pages, so it seemed un-active, but I was trying. Read the two-above one, and tell me what you think. <DREAMAFTER> <TALK>21:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think it might be helpful to have a bit of space between the edges and the text, too.
-- KittyRainbow (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] PS: It currently says Aurum Potestast Est. :0
Er... it's probably too late to make any comment about this now... but I think that it's a little hard to read-the font's big, but the color's okay. Then again, I'm not really in a position to make anything better. BunnyFlying (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but it's be a bunch of bother... and I meant "blocky" instead of big, the size is fine-it's just that the letters are a bit wide and hard to read. That's all. Why do people keep trying to vandalize that Minor Characters page? Dreamafter, you've already reverted a bunch of edits, and there was this other guy who added something to the Briar Cudgeon section... it's horrible! Like I said more to the top, I think that the LEP technology should be condensed into one article, and maybe the Fairy scripts/languages. Maybe. BunnyFlying (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have done that now. I'm just a bit iffy. It doesn't seem that big. I'll see if I can find a good thick font that isn't as thick as impact. I'll just wait to hear what you guys think before I download anything and/or change the file.
Two, "Whether Artemis will explain to his parents about fairies and why he is still only fifteen years of age."(quote) is NOT CORRECT. At the end of Artemis Fowl: The Lost Colony, he is 18 yrs. old. It also mentions that Butler already told his parents about the faires, and "everything", so it would not be necessary for Artemis to tell his parents.
The tag on top of Artemis Fowl II is correct in stating that the article is written from an in-universe perspective. Someone (or multiple people working together) needs to re-write some bits of the article to conform to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Calvin 1998 (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it's ridiculously long. I'll go chop away at it for a bit. The basic point is: Fowl I kidnapped,x yrs later, Fowl II gets email, sets off to rescue but the fairies take him underground b/c they think he's involved with the goblins, the whole Luc Carrere thing, then they go to the Arctic, where they're ambushed by goblins and Holly loses her finger, which is reattached, then they find Diggums, then they go underground and stop Koboi.
On second thought, that's not really much better... Unidentified Flying Bunny in the SkyTalkContribs21:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a response to the "Roll Call for WikiProject Artemis Fowl" I got. I'm still on the Active list, so I'm answering the question by saying, "I'm still here!". Calvin 1998 (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I will have a different one sent out that says that we will remove names for inactive members as they have been inactive for months. Dreamy§17:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it's Laptopdude. I am still interested in the project, but, again, I am seriously overbooked with school and activities right now. Sorry. But I am going to put forth a serious effort to become active again. (I'll be back with vengeance in the summer.) Laptopdude (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Lead Coordinator will become me, as I am the only one left on the list for that. The Lead-Coordinator Stand-In and Coordinator Stand-In will be removed because they are pointless appointments. The Coordinator will be whomever wants it. If there s a dispute about who wants it, just ask me and I'll try to be impartial and choose the best candidate. Dreamy§14:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that a coordinator can make decisions while the Lead-Coordinator can overrule them if they think it is better for the WikiProject as a whole. The Coordinator cannot override the Lead Coordinator. Dreamy§14:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, I'm confused as to what the role of Coordinator (and Lead Coordinator) is. Is it a purely organisational role? You know - contacting old members, choosing article collaborations, updating the front page, that sort of thing? Dreamafter, you talk about "overruling"... Overruling what? Surely decisions about the creation of articles, their content, templates, infoboxes, etc. should be directed by Wikipedia policy, and by consensus of discussion between this WikiProject's members? (And if the election of the new Coordinator is by consensus, surely they should be enacting the consensus of the community, and not need to be overruled or be doing any overruling themselves; otherwise wouldn't the community consensus become to remove the Coordinator from their office?) I've never seen a WikiProject with Coordinators before, so, err, can you explain what a Coordinator would be expected to do? -- KittyRainbow (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, purely organisational. It is so that we can send out the notices for users, and the overruling is for when a policy may be broken, also see WP:IAR. And for a project with coordinators, see WP:MILHIST. A coordinator's role is to make sure that everything is up to date on the page. The Lead-Coordinator is to send out notices and to update the front page if the Coordinator neglects to do it. Dreamy§21:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT vote for me, I wouldn't spend that much time here anyways. I know the series well enough to write fanfic, sure, but that's my main dedication. Not this. I don't know about Makatota, but KittyRainbow is more active on the site AND also writes fanfic, and while Calvin 1998 is not the most familiar with AF, he spends enough of his time here that he deserves it. Unidentified Flying Bunny in the SkyTalkContribs04:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
could we create a template that when a article on it's talk page is rated with {{WPArtemisFowl}}, then it creates a "stub" category, a "start" category etc. That way all the articles on the talk pages are rated, and we know which ones are not rated. Legoktm (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the end result. Also, I have all of the possibilities listed here. If everyone likes it, I'll go ahead and replace the old one, as well as create the new pages used in it (categories, priority). LaptopdudeTalk04:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all of the Characters that are mentioned to have been part of his family, like Domovoi, and his Uncle, the Major, I believe, as those to are mentioned. Any others would be better. And for references, you can type in
<ref>[[Artemis Fowl (novel)|Artemis Fowl]], p. <insert number></ref>
Just don't forget to change the <insert number> to the page number the information is found on. This can be used for any one of our articles to reference anything we have. ~ Dreamy§21:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We, by we I mean that the AF Project does not have one, but you could always create one, or as Laptopdude to do it, he seems pretty adept at doing it. We only have the single character boxes. ~ Dreamy§01:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we should make one(or modify an existing one), seeing we could also use one for the Fowl Family article (which could use expansion). By the way, are there any categories other that [[Category:Artemis Fowl]] that I could put the butler family article in? Calvin 1998TalkContribs
I could have sworn that there was something in AI about them... something about how they could possibly go off and ask for help from some of Butler's friends... and there was something about how there was only two people that had his ability of skill, and one was on an island beating up palm trees or something. Were any of them members of the Butler family?
All right, the thing on the first butler/fowl pairing is on. There's also a bit on their training. I'll have to check out arctic incident to get more information on the other sections + to ref the fact that the name of the training is "madame ko's bodyguard academy". Calvin 1998TalkContribs01:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Things like that aren't notable enough for an article, it will end up as a stub anyway. I say just make a section in the Fowl Star. --Hanaichi13:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to need to get references for all the info at Domovoi Butler if I'm going to put it on (yeah, even more refs :( ). But when I do, we can delete the Domovoi Butler page (unless someone doesn't approve of the merge). If anyone doesn't approve, say so! Dreamafter, could you notify the not-so-active members of the project about the proposed merges and see if they approve? Calvin 1998TalkContribs02:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Parents/Adults, Children/Teens. And then another section stating the not-so-close family, like uncles/aunts/cousins/etc... ~ Dreamy§00:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are we defining priority as? My thoughts were that it was a combination of both class (see: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Grades) and importance (notoriety and significance of a topic within the Artemis Fowl universe), not just one or the other. But seeing as we already have the class scale, would it make more sense to make importance a larger factor in priority than class? LaptopdudeTalk20:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that it was how much work it needs to get to FA class, with 1 being needing most amount of work (stub) and 5 being pretty close (A) or already FA. ~ LegoKontribsTalkM22:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it makes sense to define 'priority' as the amount of work it needs, combined with the time urgency and importance.
Okay, I hate to disagree, but it makes absolutely no sense to me to have priority be how much work an article needs. Surely that is what the class parameter is for? Why duplicate that information? Also, you might like to note that elsewhere on Wikipedia, "priority" is synonymous with "importance". And, even if we had "priority" be a separate parameter from "importance", why should "priority" be a combination of class and some hidden, intangible "importance" parameter? Surely the urgency of work on an article could be determined by its position in the table: i.e. bottom left (stub, 1) - urgently needs a lot of work, bottom right (stub, 5) - needs a lot of work but not so urgently, top row (FA) - doesn't really need work at all. So, yeah, that is basically my opinion on that. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we have a "List of minor Artemis Fowl characters" and a "List of Artemis Fowl characters"??? The former appears to redirect to the latter, but we obviously don't need both so one of them needs to be deleted. And when I checked yesterday, the "List of Artemis Fowl characters" was missing many characters, but somebody's redirected the MINOR characters page to the characters page and merged them together, too-it's a lot improved from yesterday. Which one are we going to delete? Unidentified Flying Bunny in the SkyTalkContribs17:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you merge pages, you always redirect the merged one to the one they merged to. We're going to keep the "List of Artemis Fowl characters" because that's the one with all the content on it. Calvin 1998(t-c)17:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be sensible. Personally I find it visually confusing with all those different styles. (And you're right, it also produces a lot of code.) -- KittyRainbow (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should we be removing all of the participants who are inactive, instead of putting inactive next to their name, as their are a ton more inactive participants not on there? ~ LegoKontribsTalkM02:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that the entire point of the category page would be to keep track of new pages being created, but I don't foresee many pages being added in the future. Also, the current list of articles provides the extra links for the pages (i.e. talk, edit, history, etc). I would say the current page is fine, but I think we should get a third opinion. Your thoughts? LaptopdudeTalk15:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current system is fine, but on Laptopdudes comments on the new pages, there will be some more as soon as the next book comes out ~ LegoKontribsTalkM22:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Project Artemis Fowl editors and coordinators - I have joined your endeavor, and started off with making some grammar edits to the Series Page. Please tell me if you want me to take care of some edits. I will continue to improve the quality of many Artemis Fowl Pages, and hopefully Project Artemis Fowl will be a success. Limaye (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added an FA row, fixed the priority order, changed the heading from "Importance" to "Priority", and made the priority columns wider. ( I didn't update any of the numbers, though.) LaptopdudeTalk19:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there isa bot that updates status boxes like these. But, as we seem to be using a different priority system (1 to 5, instead of Top, High, Mid, Low and None) from every other WikiProject, I don't know how it would react to our articles.
If I'd actually been around at the time this was being implemented, I would've suggested that we use the Top-High-Mid-etc system (apart from being more widely used, it's also more intuitive - whereas as this thread has shown it has to be explained whether 1 or 5 is the highest rank) but I suppose it's too late now...
It is finished at User:Legoktm/Sandbox3 and examples can be seen at User:Legoktm/Sandbox4. Things to remember, You MUST capitialize the first letter in each word, i.e. stub to Stub low to Low and you CANNOT use Mid, you must use Medium. If it is fine with Dreamy, i will go ahead and change the main template and start recategorizing articles. ~ LegoKontribsTalkM03:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like some fine work there! :) But, can I ask, why Medium instead of Mid? I thought one of the reasons to change it was so that the statistics bot doesn't go all crazy on us? (If so, we really ought to change "priority" to "importance". Also the category format seems to be "Top-importance Artemis Fowl articles", etc. rather than "Priority Top Artemis Fowl articles".) Now, I have no idea whether the bot does actually go mental if you deviate from the pattern, but, err - personally I'd rather not chance it? :| -- KittyRainbow (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we use Mid, then it will say "This article has received an importance rating of Mid within the Artemis Fowl Wikiproject." If that is fine with everyone, then you can use Mid instead of Medium. I have switched the category links. ~ LegoKontribsTalkM04:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a couple of the required subpages, but we still need a way to come up with the "Selected Article", "Did you know?", and all that, because those need to be updated regularly (probably weekly). Calvin 1998(t-c)00:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Might I suggest that we use Template:Random portal component in order to facilitate easy rotation of articles? Essentially it allows us to compile a set of subpages of possible articles, from which it will randomly select one when someone visits the portal. (You can see this in use on Portal:Poetry - and soon, I hope, on Portal:Children and Young Adult Literature.) Then the only section that would require regular manual updates would be the news section... Although, considering that there tends to be no AF news at all for months at a time, is there even any point in having a news section? Also, since there's only about three people related to AF, it might not be worth having a "selected biography" section either! XD; -- KittyRainbow (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is a portal... so there isn't a problem with being in-universe. It makes more sense to have characters in that section... perhaps rename it "Character of the Day"? Calvin 1998(t-c)01:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current status: Main portal construction completed, now we need to make all the subpages, including the rotating character bios and selected articles. Also need to add the portal template to all articles in Category:Artemis Fowl (maybe with AWB?). Calvin 1998(t-c)05:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I looked it over, fixed a couple grammar errors, added the names of those books, and the name of that city. Nice job. Also, since i don't know how to cite sources, the town was on page 380 and the books on page 381. LaptopdudeTalk22:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that Warlock (Artemis Fowl) has Template:WPArtemisFowl on its discussion page, even though it is only a redirect page. Should the template be removed? Also, since it seems we want to use that bot to keep track of our pages, I could edit Template:WPArtemisFowl and fix the category links so that the importance category works with the bot without any edits to articles. If you want me to do that, what should we do about the leftover no-longer-in-use priority categories? Speaking of the bot, should we put a link to the statistics table or the table itself on the project page? Finally, I have updated the Log of Active Users on my userpage. LaptopdudeTalk23:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... yeah, redirects should have Category:WikiProject Artemis Fowl on them, but no template, it's more or less useless. As for the template/category modification, yeah, go ahead and do it. I think there's a way to delete the old categories, but I'm not sure what it is. And as for the main page, I think it's time we redesign the whole thing again. I suppose we can decide then what to do with the statusbox. Calvin 1998(t-c)23:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I made a draft of a possible new design on User:Calvin 1998/Sandbox, after the horizontal rule. It's more or less the same as the current one. It transcludes all the messy code off User:Calvin 1998/Sandbox 2, so design modifications should be made to that page. All content is passed using the pipe-things, so it's all on the main sandbox, where the page actually is. I'm going to need help making the rest of the content for the page.Calvin 1998(t-c)00:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished redoing the template, so see the changes by starting at WP:AF/P and using the links from there. Since the bot only runs every 3 days, the table at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Artemis Fowl articles by quality statistics hasn't been updated to include the importance ratings yet. I think we can simply include the table on the project page with {{subst:Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Artemis Fowl articles by quality statistics}}. I'm also going to look into getting those extra categories deleted. LaptopdudeTalk01:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! I'd prefer if it there was a paragraph break after rather than before the "WP:AF redirects here..." bit, but, eh, minor aesthetic issue. Oh, and I'd recommend keeping the WikiProject parentage thing - I think that sort of interWikiProject linking is helpful, and most WikiProjects have it. But, yes, seems fine. Good work. :) -- KittyRainbow (talk), showing up to give her opinion, at 23:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... yeah. The {{hidden begin}} template that is used uses collapsible divs, which don't work on IE or Safari, I'll translate everything into collapsible wiki-tables (which I think work on all browsers) when I get time. Calvin 1998(t-c)19:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it might be nice to have a template where you simply put in the book number and page number and it automatically displays the cite information, so I volunteer to make one. Yes? No? LaptopdudeTalk22:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm for it... it's not that hard, it just needs to contain the {{Cite book}} template, substituted, with all the parameters replaced with the template's own but with the author, publisher, ISBN, etc, etc, already filled in. Calvin 1998(t-c)22:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While we're on the subject of templates, can someone change {{AF character}} so it supports putting in an image? There are a couple images from the graphic novel that could possibly be used under fair use. Calvin 1998(t-c)17:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KittyRainbow is already the de facto coordinator anyway... I say we remove the role of "Lead Coordinator" and just have 1 coordinator... Calvin 1998(t-c)05:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable)22:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added them to the main project page after fixing them up a big (turned out the problem was actually in one of Dreamafter's userboxes :P ). Calvin 1998(t-c)21:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked in the 3rd book and the saying for the second box is actually "Aurum Est Potestas". I made the correction already. Also, if the first one is in reference to the code on the 3rd book, isn't it "Think, fairy. Think Again."? LaptopdudeTalk03:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is but I put "So think" because I'm a fan of Artemis Fowl and there fore a match for the people. And in my version of the Eternity code on page 87, it's aurum potestas est. And it's the same in the Opal deception. Are you American? Because the american version changed the average height of a fairy from a meter to three feet. So maybe they did yet another change.FairfieldfencerFFF08:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strange. I just typed those words in on Wikipedia and my version translates to gold power is. Perhaps Eoin Colfer isn't very fluent in Latin. That or Latin doesn't go the same way as English words do. So aurum potestas est actually does translate to gold is power.FairfieldfencerFFF09:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling that aurum potestas est is actually correct Latin. Some languages completely flip around words, so it appears in the wrong order when you literally translate it. Not sure though :( Calvin 1998(t-c)14:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About the Latin, according to my Latin teacher, verbs generally would go at the end, so technically, Aurum potestas est is correct (from what I can tell). But it doesn't really matter very much, I don't think...IceUnshattered (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they already existed somehow ... :( . I manually ran the 1.0 bot to update the table. Oh, and you might want to update your log of active users (and stick it on it's own page so we can transclude it onto the main page). Calvin 1998(t-c)02:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only one suggestion: the jyear, jmonth, jday thing is tedious to write out. Any chance you could use some parserfunctions to allow straight input of date (like 2008-07-11 or 2008-11-07)? #time: parserfunction might do the trick. The changes are good, but perhaps instead of making the user bold, how about highlighting it some color (no ideas for which color...)? Calvin 1998(t-c)00:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the reason I did bold instead of a color is because a color could interfere with the current 'yellow if greater than 30 days'. Also, I did not know about #time: , but I'll look that up soon. Right now I'm going to bed, so I'll take a look at it tomorrow, but at first glance it looks promising. LaptopdudeTalk03:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone interested in setting up a WikiProject-wide project (to say, clean-up an article)? Most large WikiProjects I see have one, and it greatly enhances the project's teamwork abilities and the quality of their articles. By the way, if anyone has figured out by now, I re-assessed and updated the table of articles. Calvin 1998(t-c)01:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A WikiProject for a single article? That seems a tad over the edge don't you think? All you need is one determined editor, or notify all the members of this WikiProject that the article in question needs cleaning up. What is the article in question?FairfieldfencerFFF20:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Calvin. Whatever other people will do, Icy's on it. ^^. And I like the idea of a Project-wide articlecleanup. For a Project of AF's size (small), it seems logical. IceUnshattered (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm probably not going to be able to get a copy of the Time Paradox for a couple weeks, so don't expect me to clean up the horrendously large plot summary'retelling over there. Calvin 1998(t-c)21:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
S'ya later, Laptopdude! If all goes well, I'll be getting a copy today, so I may actually be able to start correcting summary. If all goes well, that is. IceUnshattered (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already cut the plot down a lot, with spelling corrected thanks to Laptopdude...and it looks like our coordinator took a vacation from the Project, too. IceUnshattered (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the curse of the coordinators...Koboi will come to (insert name of coordinator here) and wipe their minds and they will forget about poor WikiProject AF and... Excuse me for rambling. Maybe anarchy would work for now. I'll try to cut down more on Arctic-kun, see User:IceUnshattered/Drafts, maybe. IceUnshattered (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC) (later - I can't seem to do much with Arctic Incident either. Must try another strategy.)[reply]
I wanted to ask if anyone could generate a bot for our Log of active users? I had a look at the bot policy, but I don't think I have enough experience to generate a bot as I still am rather new, although I am familiar with many concepts of Wikipedia.--Leolisa1997 (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. I had a look at the page already, which is why I asked about the bot. I didn't look at the bot requests yet, so thanks for the tip.--Leolisa1997 (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like as long as the bot can produce the time and page of the last edit (to the project) for each user, it would be relatively easy to manually update the table with the data... Calvin 1998(t-c)17:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
← It more or less compiles a list of all users, sorted by their most recent edit to the WikiProject (see one of the examples). Not exactly what we want (we need time/date and page of most recent edit for each person). Calvin 1998(t-c)15:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It's acceptable, because we could look at the person's contributions and 'find' the article we're looking for, unless someone generates a bot specifically for what we are looking for?--Leolisa1997 (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear WikiProject Artemis Fowl participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises' scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on multimedia franchises. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help the project get back on solid footing. Also, if you know of similar projects which have not received this, let Lady Aleena (talk·contribs) know. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. You can sign up here if you wish. Thank you. LA @ 04:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear WikiProject Artemis Fowl participants...WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA (T) @ 22:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that we should keep to the 'gold' background. I mean, can somebody actually get hold of the British covers and use that instead? I think that it would be better that way.--Leolisa1997 (talk) 10:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was considering the copyright. I suppose that we'll hve to stick with it unless someone can 'obtain' permission from everyone then use the British covers. Any other ideas?--Leolisa1997 (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions: A little more contrast between words and the background/wreath, and put the "Artemis Fowl WikiProject" part above the "aurum potestas est" (est at the end seems to be more correct latin) Calvin 1998(t-c)15:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like that one, and I agree with Calvin 1998, so try putting contrast in the words. Suggestion: Change the background to something slightly brighter (dark blue?).--Leolisa1997 (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are we done, or do I still have time to comment :) ? Anyways, it looks great, but you might want to try sizing down the height of the blue text ("Artemis Fowl WikiProject") and possibly darken the blue of the background. Great job! I'm sorry I'm late, I was awaaay. IceUnshattered (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
School started again, and I have a very full schedule. It will be a rare chance if I get on Wikipedia. Oh well. Guess I'll go into withdrawal. =( LaptopdudeTalk01:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you care, I have pictures of the following: Angeline Fowl, Butler (closeup), Foaly (closeup), Fowl Manor, Juliet (medium long shot, next to Butler), and two of a troll. I could possibly scan in some more if you need them. Calvin 1998(t·c)04:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice... you wouldn't happen to have a link to that Bloomberg interview video mentioned in there, would you? And there is a ton of information in there, it's going to take quite a bit of time to update all the articles. To sum it all up:
Work on second graphic novel is in drawing stages
Arctic Incident is Colfer's favorite book in the series
Minerva being left out is now a valid topic to include in Time Paradox
Juliet is being considered to be included in next one as a bodyguard to the twins
Movie script still being written, filming in 2009 possible
Quote about next book's plot: "Well, the basic plan is that Opal Koboi is in prison in Atlantis and somehow Artemis ends up in there with her. I kind of want to bring Artemis back to being a villain..."
I managed to secure some time away from HW to read the interview a minute ago, and I'm listening to the interview now. I think all that info is pretty useful, and that info about Juliet might be useful to throw in into her bio. I'm not totally sure about AI being Colfer's favorite book, though, I wouldn't put it in, but I'm glad it was put up. Not being a real AF fan, I didn't see the interview. Thanks for throwing it up, Lego. IceUnshattered[ t ]20:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's far easier said than done... first, let's get a draft version up, shall we? Where shall we put it? WikiProject-subpage, someone's user-space, subpage of the article? Calvin 1998(t·c)20:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was unexpected... Well, I think WikiProject sub-page would be appropriate, but I'm not against making a article sub or user sub. Icy's going to have to leave the meteorology articles for now. What should we do for the series page? IceUnshattered[ t ]20:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm for a total ground-up rewrite, hence why I suggested a draft page. The current format and content of the article is, well, rather disappointing. It's missing some crucial topics (critical reception, themes, etc.) Anyone know of any series pages to use as inspiration? Calvin 1998(t·c)20:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page is my user subpage, the page is just titled that, so I can keep my links straight, and to keep it in the WP: AF scope.Cdmajavatalk
editconflict...Ummm...I don't know ^^. Just use Artemis Fowl (series)/Draft, I suppose. I think the "series overview" in the Harry Potter page might be a nice addition, just as a place to follow the general storyline. Most good series pages I've seen have a reception/awards page... And of course, I would do some cleanup on the characters section. I like the "Other Media in the Warriors (novel series) page, though all we really have is the graphic novel and the never-ever-ever-to-come film :). Yeah. Just rambling. IceUnshattered[ t ]20:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that we make a group of editors dedicated to protecting the articles from vandalism, (similar to that of a Task Force), and since the group is dedicated to protecting, I figured we'd call it the Butler brigade. What do you think?FairfieldfencerFFF15:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection before December 2008, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot16:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to the editing guideline Wikipedia:Writing about fiction, we should not be focusing on little things like that but rather focus on the literary and public faces of the subject. You might want to see the Artemis Fowl Wiki for things like that. Calvin 1998(t·c)14:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently doing spoken articles of all the pages within Wikiproject:Artemis Fowl, but there is a lot to do, so I thought I would put a suggestion/request to have somebody else help with the articles? I've done Holly already.--Leolisa1997 13:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Huh...listened to the beginning. Is there any way to improve the quality? I think it gets better later on, but it's an issue, IMHO. Ehh...I don't think you have to say "Section <insert #>", just emphasize the titles. IceUnshattered[ t ]21:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I'd acknowledge that I've read this post :) - I don't have time to listen to it now, I should get back with a reply sometime in the next couple of hours. Calvin 1998(t·c)02:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made my own recording (using TextEdit's "Speech" feature for the voice generation and GarageBand for editing/encoding) of the same article with a couple modifications. See it and the source here. There is a detailed description of how I went about doing it here. I'm afraid it won't make sense unless you're a Mac user, though. Feedback? Criticism? Problems? Suggestions? Calvin 1998(t·c)06:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, plus I don't think the original did much good. Anyway, I haven't got time to listen to the new one, so I will just assume it sounds good.--Leolisa1997 03:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leolisa1997 (talk • contribs)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, just dropping in quickly to tell you that someone wants to change the target of our redirect page I mentioned in the title. Their reason is to use it for another project that gets more attention and users than ours does. Personally I don't see any problem with it since we also have WP:FOWL. (See the entry on the redirects for deletion project page.) LaptopdudeTalk21:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in response to the role call, I am definitely still interested in the project, but I've had too much homework to actually help with anything. After school is over again I would be happy to become active again. LaptopdudeTalk21:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've used AWB to change most WP:AF links to point to WP:FOWL instead. I missed some (and missed WT:AF entirely), and now I can't remember the regex I used, so if someone could finish for me... it would be appreciated. Calvin 1998(t·c)03:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about WP:WAF, and I my interpretation of it is that all our character pages (and much of the book pages, "object" pages, concept pages, etc.) are in a in-universe way. These really should be stubbed, merged away, or deleted. I really think that the only thing proper to talk about in these articles is press about the books, etc. Thoughts? Calvin 1998(t·c)02:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#PLOT: There is an RfC discussing if our policy on plot, WP:PLOT, should be removed from what Wikipedia is not. Please feel free to comment on the discussion and straw poll.
I can't seem to see how these represent an essential/important part of any book, and as they can't be sourced, the best option is removal, I suppose. Maybe a minor mention elsewhere...? iceunshatteredPublic!15:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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) 02:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"
If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
Watchlisting all unreferenced articles
If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"
If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
Watchlisting all unreferenced articles
If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
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 Artemis Fowl 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 Monday, October 11th.
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 October, 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!
What happened? When will the draft replace the article? Aside from some errors, the draft is better than the bulky article (which is really a gigantic list in disguise). Please don't tell me that the draft is going to sit on the backwaters of cyberspace for the rest of eternity. Thanks. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the draft still necessary? It has been implemented, edits are being made on the article, and the draft seems to be inactive. Should the draft be deleted and the link removed from the series article? Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Portal:Children's literature for Featured Portal candidacy
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]
GA
FA
Done LegoKontribsTalkM 23:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
