Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redwall

Identifying character articles NOT for merging

Ideas? Anyone read the thing and know the major characters, such that would have independent significance outside the work? There may not be any. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied discussion about this topic from user talk pages

Would we leave Martin the Warrior (Redwall) at his own article or merge him as well? --tjstrf 20:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking Martin, and maybe one or two others (Maybe Matthias, Mattimeo, and Cluny as the main characters and main villian in the early books and movie/tv adaptions) could keep their own articles but still get mentions in the main list. We'll have to be really careful about what we do and don't merge though. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed though, that both Martins are covered in the same article. I think "Martin the second" should be just in the list. If we were leaving everything else as is I would think he should be treated in a seperate article from Martin. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other than Martin the Warrior, Matthias, and possibly Cregga Rose-eyes I believe the rest of the characters would be best dealt with by merging into lists. Cluny only appears in one book. Also, as far as reading the thing goes, I think I've read every book up until the second latest one at least twice and personally own nearly all of them. --tjstrf 21:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of the list

How shall we structure Wikipedia:WikiProject Redwall/List of Redwall characters: by book? by species? alphabetically? - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, should it be List of Redwall characters or Characters in Redwall? iirc, if you are using the mini-bio format the latter name is preferred. Also note that there's nothing preventing us from listing by all 3, through the creation of secondary lists which link to the relavent subsections of the main article. --tjstrf 21:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latter is better. Let's build it in WP space though without taking it to mainspace first. Then we'll move it to whatever's more appropriate. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking by book, but all three might be a good idea too. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 00:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doing the listing by all three criteria would save a bit of trouble for people looking for characters that appeared in multiple books as well. --tjstrf 00:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indenting) I'm noticing that someone at some point already organized some characters by recurring role. For example, Abbey Leader (Redwall), Birds in Redwall (already a start of a species list), Badger Mother. That's potentially a fourth way to do it. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 14:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think alphabetically or by whoever appeared most would be a good way to do it. That is, arrange the main list alphabetically, so that you could find a char easier. Then, while describing each character, have it say 'first appeared in Mossflower' and link Mossflower to a list of characters in Mossflower. Additionally, it would also included species names, possibly with more lists. Of course, that could potentially be a whole load of work that no one wants to undertake, or just a pain in the neck, but it's an idea. Best regards.--Song 20:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um...

Maybe you guys didn't see this, but a project already exists... - Anon

Sure did, buddy. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if you don't mind me asking, what's the point of doing it all here, when the point is to do it there ? - Anon

There y'all can do whatever you want. Here we have rules on what goes in and in what form, and 95% of the Redwall stuff here is deletable. So we started this project to bring order to this particular "walled garden". I have no other interest in the series, and will quit as soon as the task at hand is finished. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why not delete it here? -Anon

Would you rather? Is your wiki public domain? If the license is free enough, maybe we should. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, free license. Owned by Wikia. I think articles such as Redwall and Brian Jacques could definitely stay here, but character listings on Wikipedia are unnecessary. -Anon

Yeah, but the Redwall Wiki is an entierly different kettle of fish. This project is to coordinate the treatment of Redwall on Wikipedia. You on a different website can do whatever you want. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 13:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I totally agree with anon btw. The material over there in GFDL. We can just incorporate them by reference and link them throughout. They can hold the cruft over there, and we can keep just the books, the main characters, and a list of characters without particulars but with links to the RW wiki. I've seen that done with Gundam stuff and 9/11 obituaries. As long as the license is free, the KNOWLEDGE is PRESERVED for GENERATIONS TO COME and for JIMBO'S CHILD IN AFRICA (perish the thought of him reading about fake squirrels, but...) - - - to quote the condom-promoting horse, my job is done here! - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the anon, I believe the point is to centralize things. The purpose of having Redwall articles here rather is that it be all sorted and encyclopedic. Otherwise we might as well just have a stub that says "Redwall is the titular novel of an 18(?) book series by author Brian Jacques. If you want to read about it in any more detail than this, go to Wikia, these 43 fansites, and your local library" --tjstrf 22:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with articles on the books or Mr. Jacques or anything like that; that's understandable. Articles on the characters here seems a bit wasteful I'd say though. - Anon

I sort of agree that 80+ articles on each individual character here on Wikipedia is a bit silly. That's why this project was created, to merge them and "cut down on the cruft" without sacrifcing knowledge. As for just saying, "go to this other wiki to learn more," there is currently a huge debate on the villiage pump about that whole idea (centering around Lost and Lostpedia, but applicable to this). ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 13:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Lostpedia under GFDL? 9/11 wiki and Gundam wiki is good precedent... - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no ideological problem with crosslinking to other wikis, but I do have a problem with this method being used by some deletionists to say "Ok, we're deleting all these well-written and informative articles on fictional concepts because we can just export them to some other place." (In this case, the Redwall articles are not well-written though.) --tjstrf 00:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionism is not the problem. The problem is that an encyclopedia cannot cover specialized subject areas in a great level of detail, but a specialized wiki can. Since by definition whatever content we have on it will never rich the level of detail that exists on that wiki, maybe we shouldn't try to replicate. Since we can't copy the content straight from there (b/c it's all cruft) maybe instead we should copy it all out of here. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's not exporting them out Tjstrf. I can guarantee you all the Redwall character articles here exist (I'm going to say 99% chance) at the Redwall Wiki, in all likelihood even more fully expanded. There is no knowledge being sacrified by deleting them here. -Anon, 9:39PM 26 October 2006 (EST)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. Also, I note that yours is a comparatively new project. You may be interested in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide, which has a lot of information regarding project organization from several of the most successful WikiProjects. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 19:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

I made a template to add to Redwall articles like the other wikiprojects have. I did not include any of the parameters for rating the articles because I really have no clue what I'm doing with templates. Considering that I think a lot of the Redwall articles should ultimately be merged and redirected so that there end up being far fewer articles (and far more redirects) it would be nice to have some sort of parameter on the template to say, "this article should be merged" or "this article can stand alone". Maybe where other wikiprojects have ratings? What do other people think? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the template to everything in Category:Redwall and everything through M in Category:Redwall books, if someone wants to pickup where I left off. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finished Category:Redwall Books. Other sub-cats need it still. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finished Category:Redwall characters. All that's left is the locations I think. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's anything left to do I'll finish it up.--Song 20:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Every article currently in the category has been marked.--Song 21:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about fan clubs.

Beginning to add the project template to various articles I noticed that Category:Redwall has several articles about on-line fan websites. Most of the articles about the books themselves are in subcategories, so in essence most of Category:Redwall is fansite articles. Any idea what should be done about these? I'd like to eventually reduce the total number of non-redirect articles so that we don't need subcategories for characters, etc. However, if we re-arrange it so that all or most Redwall articles are just in Category:Redwall it almost seems like it would be silly to have fansites in that category. Perhaps we would then need a subcategory for fansites? Perhaps we need that now? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Changes

Hey all, it looks like there hasn't been any real activity in here for a while, but hopefully this will still be seen. I've been doing some behind the scenes work of late; I made articles for Fortunata, Shang Damsontongue, Dingeye, Thura, Bloodwrath, Midge Manycoats, and started a proper one for Verdauga Greeneyes.

I also spent all night making all the articles listed under the "Redwall characters" category consistent; bold name with a one line intro including the book they appeared in, as well as any and all actors that voiced them in the audiobooks or animated series. Then a few paragraphs for the body, linking wherever I could to other Redwall articles. Then I made sure to include the Redwall template at the bottom of each.

Hope this is okay with everyone. I've also been making a lot of changes to the List of species in Redwall article. Anyway, I'd love some feedback on my talk page or any of the talk pages of articles that I've made or been changing. Thanks! GlassCobra 12:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at your articles when I get back, see what I can do.--Song 22:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read them, and liked what I saw. Just one point: Wouldn't it be wiser, for the shorter of your articles, to just put them in the big list? Otherwise, good work!--Song 03:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What should be done?

We probably need a better 'to-do' list. I've already added the Redwall template to all the articles currently in the list, so that's done. What else can we do? Ideas anyone?--Song 17:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a little far out, but...maybe we could use a portal? Most other WikiProjects have one. It would require quite a bit of work though. GlassCobra 20:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually...that sounds like a great idea! I'll start reading up on portals- as of now I know almost nothing. In the meantime, could you add that to our to-do list? Is there a 'person in charge' or something like that, or is it just us two?--Song 03:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all - I stumbled here somewhat by accident, as I have a passing interest in the Redwall series. If there's anything I can do to help set up a portal, let me know, as I have some experience with them from another project.Carom 03:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roll Call

Okay, well I've been looking at some of our participants' contribution records, and some people on the list haven't been on here on months, or even years. Thus, to reduce membership to people who are actually around, I'll be conducting a roll call of all members. I'll be moving all members to a Potentially Active list, and then leaving messages on everyone's talk pages to come and add their names back to the Active list. If there's no response within a few days, your name will be moved to the Inactive list, but it can be moved back to the Active list at any time. Please don't be offended if you just joined, this is only to figure out who's active and who's not, okay? Thanks everyone! GlassCobra 18:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here, but truth be I haven't done anything related to Redwall in a while (too much to do in the Halo universe, I guess.) But I'll definitely try and work on a book, at least. Good idea for the roll-call, I did it over at WP:HALO as well. David Fuchs^(talk) 19:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need a Partially Active list, for the people who are insanely busy but will try to help out wherever possible. *sigh* That's me. High school is taking up a lot of my time, along with Seminary, so I haven't been active for a while. I think I'll just be here on weekends.--Song 18:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partially active is active enough for us. We're not a high-maintenance WikiProject here. :) GlassCobra 20:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright guys, the roll call has been concluded. I've moved the users that were left on the Potentially Active list to the Inactive list. Like I said, though, anyone can add themselves back to the Active list at any time. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 14:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. *glances around guiltily* Since school started, I've been too busy to do much. I'll come on here when possible and try to keep the peace in the background, but I don't know if I can do anything about the actual articles. Sorry. Song 07:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Image

This image is specifically stated as able to be used for whatever purpose as long as the creator is credited. Can we make use of it somehow? We'll probably need an image for the portal; also, we need one for the userbox and other templates. Thoughts? GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 02:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice...me likee. I'm sure we can put it in somewhere...but where? The portal will eventually need a picture- is anyone actually working on that thing or is it just a dream still? Maybe you could cut out the badger head and make a userbox of it- assuming that's allowed, of course. Oh, while I'm thinking about it, maybe we could create a background for this portal of ours. Find out what the Redwall colors are and build off that, or just make something that appears in theme. Or out of theme. I'm not picky. I like that green/white background on this pic- very nice. Hmm...also deciding on a color scheme would probably be smart. Is anyone actually worki- oh, I asked that already. Oh well. *shrug* :-) Song 04:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Carom volunteered to help out by starting a basic portal frame for me, and then I'll go in and modify it. I like this picture too, it's the only Redwall-related one I could find here or on Commons. The only thing I don't like is that it's essentially an ad for a site. Are we okay with condoning a particular site like that? On another note, I'd like to contact that Sean R guy and ask him if he'd be willing to upload more Redwall images for us to use. Looking at the site in the picture and his site, there are a lot of great other images that would be great to use, and I certainly don't mind lending him credit. Everyone okay with this? GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 16:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we work on getting the articles up to snuff first; if we don't have good content to put in the portal, whats the point? That's why I stopped working on Portal:Halo. David Fuchs^(talk) 22:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiking

Hi, might I direct everyone's attention here. May as well not waste time. --79.73.143.255 17:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good! Do you think that that site will have any images we can use? Might we be able to use it as a reference?--Song 03:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is suggesting that the Redwall wiki is intended to replace the Redwall content here. GlassCobra 05:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*smacks forehead* I should have known...--Song 17:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I suppose here is as good a place as any to have this debate. Basically, it seems to me that transwiking is, well, a rather stupid idea. Seeing as Wikipedia is not paper, I can't think of any reason that content doesn't belong here as well as on a more focused wiki. I completely agree with the quote from Jimbo that says "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." Now, obviously there are some limits; Wikipedia will never be a place for things made up in school one day or for every band that some random 8th graders make up, but I see no reason why we should not have comprehensive, detailed coverage about the characters and books of this fantastic series. Thoughts? I'd like to hear some deletionist-leaning perspectives especially. I'd also really like for people to add this page to their watchlists, if they haven't already; I want as many voices as we can get in this debate. Thanks. GlassCobra 08:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. If you think it's a stupid idea, don't create the articles here, and delete the ones that exist. Do you also believe that every single Wookieepedia article belongs here? Don't be ridiculous. Detailed comprehensive coverage already exists with a community willing to provide that coverage. Either transwiki to existing content or delete it here. Perfectly logical. --79.73.169.20 22:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is that ridiculous? Just because an article is in one wiki doesn't mean it shouldn't be here as well. Wikipedia is intended to be a collection of as much knowledge as possible. GlassCobra (Review) 23:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a waste of efficiency, that's why. And that's not entirely true, otherwise there wouldn't be as many policies as Wikipedia has, and Jimbo wouldn't have started Wikia if Wikipedia was the be-all-end-all. --79.74.213.8 12:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a waste of efficiency to have articles in more than one place, on more than one site? It seems to me that it would much more efficient and convenient to have everything in one place. GlassCobra 18:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it already exists somewhere else, it's a waste of effiency to recreate it here with different (or even the same, which I've seen in some cases) words. --79.76.202.82 22:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're discussing effeciency, don'tcha think it's rather ineffecient to have this argument each time something along these lines happens? Why does user 79.76.20 etc care if we chose to waste our time on creating a duplicate of something that already exists? I certainly have no intention of deleting all Redwall articles here, and I'm sure nobody else does either. I think. Also, I've learned that when more then one person reads a book, you end up with more then one version of the story. Each version is a little bit different, and each person get different meanings from the same thing. When the two (or more) versions are shared, each person's knowledge is enriched and enhanced by the other person's viewpoint. Generally speaking, of course. It's not hurting anything for us to create our version of this information, and we can learn from each other if we cooperate. (FYI, sorry for dissapearing, but I won't be on very much. School and other stuff is taking up all of my time. I'll come on when possible. I probably won't be able to help a lot, but I can do behind-the-scenes stuff. A bit. Time pressures are great.) Best regards. Song 07:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I care? Because it detracts from the actual resource. Of course it's not hurting you, it's the fact that it's hurting the RW. The resource already exists, re-creating articles is senseless. Especially, when as I've said, I've seen people lift word-for-word text from the RW and paste it into new articles here. --79.75.209.148 (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a user on the RW, and I can safely say that it doesn't matter. The RW never has, and never will have anything to do with Wikipedia. Honestly, this is senseless. There's no reason to delete the articles here, but if you want to you could link to it under external links, like many Star Trek articles do for Memory Alpha. The RW does indeed have much more expanded articles on all of these, except for publishing information and critical reception. Most of it is strictly in-universe. Although publisher article do exist, and to my knowledge there is an unofficial project more real life topics, it mostly is all in-universe. Also, there are a LOT of images there. Also the UK and US covers for every single book, as well as most of the audiobook covers as well. --71.37.166.113 (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And since I am ignored, I would point you towards Wikipedia:Fancruft --71.91.119.143 (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

95% of the time, cruft is translation for WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and that is probably why you're being ignored. McJeff (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you join?

Yes, me the avid Redwall reader who can name any major character and tell you what they did, is obsessed with Martin the Warrior and his sword, is not a member of this most awesome wikiproject, would like to join. Please tell me how.

User: warriormartin —Preceding comment was added at 00:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To join, just place your name under the Active participants section on the project page. Then consider placing {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Redwall/Userbox}} on your user page to notify others you have joined. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier Public (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello..

I've been working on several Redwall articles on decided to join this project. So.. hi! ^^

-AfkHideki (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would honestly be better off helping out the Redwall Wiki. --71.91.119.143 (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Redwall 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 @ 05:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Franchise naming convention discussion at WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Redwall 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) @ 22:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I am a constant reader of this series and noticed that the Doomwyte page was lacking, so I looked at other pages and saw that they could be better and up to date. I have a question. How can we have a page on Midge Manycoats, but not a page on Tammo? He is the main character of the book. Midge is just a supporting character. Alphasquadron138 (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If Midge has a page and Tammo doesn't, he definatly deserves one. The Blue Wolf 05:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Bluewolf —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Blue Wolf (talk • contribs)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

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

Ikip 02:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

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

Ikip 02:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Children's literature at peer review

Portal:Children's literature is at portal peer review. Review comments are welcome, at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Children's literature/archive1. -- Cirt (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct

No activity on this page x 3 years. I've put the project into defunct status. – S. Rich (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Children's literature for Featured Portal candidacy

I've nominated Portal:Children's literature to be considered for Featured Portal quality.

This was a joint quality improvement collaboration between myself and User:Wadewitz.

Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Children's literature.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

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

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

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]