Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Talk pages/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Purpose or scope

Resolved
 – Two items removed from main page and another one clarified.

Thank you, Garrettw87, for getting the project off the ground and writing the project page. I read the 'Purpose' section just a few minutes ago and was pleasantly surprised at the range of useful tasks. I have a few comments and questions which I'd like to offer.

  • DEFAULTSORTing is listed as one of the specific tasks which we can do, but adding DEFAULTSORT to talk pages may be problematic for at least two reasons. First, DEFAULTSORT tags may be mistakenly removed during the process of archiving talk pages. Second, since most talk page categories are added via the transclusion of templates, it is not as easy to make sort key exceptions for individual categories as it is on articles. For example, WikiProject Biography may prefer to sort talk pages as "Last name, First name", but another project may find simple alphabetical sorting to be more useful.
  • FYI: There was recently some discussion about converting birth/death cleanup categories from talk pages categories to article categories. The task won't be affected until that happens, of course, but it may soon become out-of-scope.
  • It can be useful to mark resolved topics with {{Resolved}}, but this task requires caution and consideration of the context and history of discussions on a particular talk page. Discussions can become quiet for weeks or months without the underlying issue actually being resolved.

-- Black Falcon (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I grasp your two issues with DEFAULTSORT. (I also might mention that it was SMcCandlish that suggested it and the other things you mentioned, and not me – I've never messed with the DEFAULTSORT thing.) So could you possibly reword your first point on a more dumbed-down level?
Thanks for the heads-up on the cleanup categories. As for marking resolved topics, I think it should only be done when the resolution is obvious and apparent (for example, somebody asking if they can do something to the article, and someone else has already approved it or done it or taken some sort of action to resolve it).
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 20:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
That's my fault, actually; upon rereading my comment, I see that I didn't express my idea clearly. The two issues are related to the fact that categories on talk pages are there generally due to the presence of one or more templates (such as WikiProject banners) and not due to manually-added category tags (i.e. [[Category:category name]]).
On articles, the DEFAULTSORT tag ({{DEFAULTSORT:sort key}}) is placed near the bottom of the page just above the category tags; its placement there has become the recognized standard and no editor could have reason to move it to another spot or page. On talk pages, which generally lack manually-added category tags, the DEFAULTSORT could easily be missed (because it does not produce a noticeable change on the talk page) and archived along with other content.
The second issue concerns the actual choice of sort key. When a default sort key is specified, it applies to all categories on the page unless an override is explicitly specified. On articles, it is simple to add this override (i.e. [[Category:category name|Alternate sort key]]); on talk pages, an override cannot be specified because of the absence of manually-added category tags. This can be a problem when different projects prefer different sort keys (e.g., Talk:2010 in the United States may be sorted either as "2010 In The United States" or "United States, 2010 In The").
Thanks for clarifying the point about marking resolved topics. By the way, I found the discussion for the bio cleanup categories: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 14#Categories related to birth and death. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
So what do you recommend? I was thinking of just taking DEFAULTSORTing off the list, but my guess is not an educated one: I am not well-versed in the usage practices of that tag. And thanks for finding that discussion; I meant to ask you where it was.
By the way, what do you think of our "logo"?
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 04:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I think removing it is the most prudent option, at least for now.
We have a logo? Neat!
I like it: the broom, the page with chat bubbles, and the dust... I think it nicely reflects the scope of the project and is a creative combination. Kudos! -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
That discussion on bio categories went the direction you said it might, so I'll take that item off the main page and mark this section as {{Resolved}}. Incidentally, have you seen {{Resolved comments}}? That could be a useful one too.
Oh and I'm glad you like the logo! It's the first image I've ever uploaded, and the first time I've ever messed with SVG files or Inkscape.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 06:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I did not know about {{Resolved comments}}. It seems like a useful template in certain situations, though its use should be accompanied by extra caution since it not only adds "resolved" status but also hides comments. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion

Resolved
 – Created template for cleanups in progress, and added a link on the main page to see all pages currently being cleaned up.

Would it not make sense to also have the "requests" page as a section on the main page, instead of a separate one? It seems that it would be easier to get to, that way. Just a thought. Hi878 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

And here's another idea: Could we have some sort of reservation sysyem? Meaning, if someone decides that they want to clean up a talk page, there is a place that they mark saying that they are working on it. Would something like this work? Hi878 (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I prefer having the requests on their own page. If there are ever a lot of them, they won't clutter up the main page. However, if more people would prefer them on the main page, I'm ok with that as long as they're at the bottom.
Regarding a reservation system: I'll work on it.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 18:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Alrighty then. :) Hi878 (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I am going to assume that the template you just added is for the reservation thing. If that is as far as you will go, I have another suggestion for it. Perhaps some sort of subpage where we list what we are working on? Or on the main page, for that matter. I'm just a bit worried that people might not see the template. Hi878 (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... yes, that's what the template is for. So you're worried that the cleanup-in-progress banner won't be seen .. by who? Normal talk page visitors, or other members of this project? As for normal talk page visitors, there's not much I can do if they don't see it – and they certainly wouldn't see something posted on one of our project pages. As for other Cleanup Crew members, here's an idea: What if I added a category tag to that in-progress banner, so that all pages currently being cleaned up would appear in a category called something like "Talk pages currently undergoing cleanup" or something like that? Then if someone wanted to know the exact user working on it, they could just view the page's history to see who stuck the banner on there. It's also an easy way to have a page automagically generated showing what's being worked on without the one working on it having to come edit another page just to show he's working on it.(terrible sentence) What do you think?
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 06:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I like it. And I agree, that was an awful sentence. :) Hi878 (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, but wait – if someone puts {{Tpcleanup underway}} on a page, it would replace {{Tpcleanup}}, thus removing it from Category:Talk pages needing cleanup. So how necessary is a separate category for pages being worked on?
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 22:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Right, didn't think of that... I suppose it works the way it is now. :) Hi878 (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning up archive pages

Also do you think it's OK for us to work our magic on archive pages? Supposedly we're not supposed to edit their content at all, but ... that means we can edit everything but the actual content, right?
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 07:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be fine as long as we do not modify the text of comments, though we should be more conservative when editing archives. Talk page archives are routinely edited to subst, replace, or remove transclusions, so other cleanup edits that do not affect the text of comments ought to be fine. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
My feelings exactly.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 20:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know... I probably won't edit the archives; perhaps we could have some sort of thing where one person fixes up the talk page itself, and another fixes the archives? Not sure about that, but it's an idea. Hi878 (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I sometimes edit archives to repair dead or expired links. -- Ϫ 07:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Project banner and subpages

Resolved
 – Project category created.

Just a quick note, you might want to reconsider having a bulletin board, I would think the project talk page would have the same function. You might also want to bluelink Template:WikiProject Talk pages to have a banner for tracking any internal project pages, categories, images, etc. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

#1:  Done. #2: Would you mind elaborating on the purpose of such a template?
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 05:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Basically a project banner, so that you can have categories and a consistent link to the project page from anything. At this point for you I would think it would just be for the project space stuff, otherwise it would be of limited utility, but still fairly standard for all projects. Drop a note at Template talk:WPBannerMeta and someone should be able to whip one up for you fairly quickly. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, ok. So what's the point in us having one of those? Obviously all talk pages are in our scope, so putting it on those would be pointless. You say it would just be for "project-space stuff" – do you mean subpages of this page? If so, that seems pointless too, since there are breadcrumbs right below the title of the page, at the top. It may be "standard for all projects", but I don't see the point if there's no use for it.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 01:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely. Unless, of course, you are volunteering to go and tag every single talk page on Wikipedia? :) Hi878 (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll add my support too. A project banner is generally a good way for a project to organize pages which are of interest to it, but I don't think that one is necessary for this project. Excluding talk pages, we have only a handful of project pages, four templates, two categories, and one image. So far, it's nothing that can't be organized within Category:WikiProject Talk pages itself (it was a red link, so I created it). -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Good idea about the category. I added that to the main page.
Optigan13, is this resolved, or do you have further comments?
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 02:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Nope, that was it. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Examples

I just completed cleanup of Talk:Longview, Texas, which was tagged with {{Tpcleanup}}, and wanted to share some of the issues I found:

  1. {{Talk header}} was present on the talk page despite the absence of "frequent or perpetual debate [... or] controversy";
  2. Two topics were missing section headings;
  3. Two comments were unsigned and undated;
  4. Several comments lacked proper indentation;
  5. Two IP signatures pointed to a red link IP user page;
  6. Excessive whitespace in some sections;
  7. Excessive unnecessary capitalization of section headings; and
  8. The content of a user's comment was changed by another editor on three occasions: [1][2][3]. I reverted the first and third, but left the second in order to avoid inserting a possible BLP error.

I know, of course, that these issues may not be present on other talk pages, but this example suggests that the list on the project page is quite comprehensive. Also, I was surprised that a page with only about 30 revisions contained three instances of a user modifying the content of another's comment.

Any comments, thoughts? Did I miss anything? -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Awesome job! Thanks! Did it take much effort? It looks like it did. I appreciate it! I think I will be putting an Examples section on the main page, and your edit will make a fine first example.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 04:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, and it took about 5–10 minutes to do, most of it spent on checking each revision in the page history. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Check out this one I just finished. It took me like 4-5 hours to do because it was so bad off. Previous version – Diff – Current Version
I think that one's a little too complicated to put on the examples page, don't you think?
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 05:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow! That is a very comprehensive cleanup. File:Thumbsup emote.gif
I agree that it's probably too complex to illustrate specific cleanup issues, but it may be useful as an example of how large a cleanup project can be. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

How did I do?

Alright, I just finished cleaning up Talk:Christianity. How did I do? ~~ Hi878 (Come yell at me!) 05:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 16:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Nothing that I missed? That's good. :) ~~ Hi878 isn't home. (Can I take a message?) 17:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I didn't go through the revision history to see if the signatures you added were correct. However, I just looked at the page again and noticed some threads seem to be out of chronological order. Don't worry about it – I'll fix it.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 06:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Dang it! ~~ Hi878 (Come yell at me!) 05:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Correcting typos

I want your thoughts: do you think it is OK for us to correct other people's typos (like when they get a letter or two swapped around)?
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 06:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should, for two reasons. First, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments discourages it on the grounds that it may irritate people (I don't really see why, but I suppose it's possible). Second, there is a risk that we will change the meaning of a comment or the context of a discussion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Point taken. Although it may not deter me personally from possibly fixing a typo here and there, I won't recommend doing it.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 20:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that we should either, because there are people that I have seen that get very annoyed when someone fixes their typos. Probably best to steer away from that area. ~~ Hi878 (Come yell at me!) 04:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
What I want to know is why would people get so annoyed about something like that?
Also, if we shouldn't fix typos because people get mad, what about fixing typos on archives? Nobody watches archive pages.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 06:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Dangerous ideas, my friend. ~~ Hi878 (Come yell at me!) 05:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
It would be more worthwhile for you to explain the error of my ways. Plus you didn't answer my first question (but it's ok if you don't have an answer).
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 07:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
People get annoyed because it points out that they spelled something wrong, and they might not like it. And again, I think that we should just stay away from archives, because we really aren't supposed to mess with them. Hi878 isn't home. (Can I take a message?) 15:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Encouraging civility

I think we should consider removing (or clarifying) the following point from our task list: "Encouraging civility by warning those who engage in personal attacks and such."

On high-traffic talk pages, incivility or personal attacks are likely to be noticed and acted on by those editors who watch the page. On low-traffic talk pages, any incivility or personal attacks which we encounter will most likely be several weeks or months old. Warning someone for weeks- or months-old incivility is not likely to produce a positive result; there's little reason to dig up or revitalize dead-and-buried horses. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say worry about it if the comment is less than about a week old; older than that, just leave it alone. Hi878 isn't home. (Can I take a message?) 15:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
That seems like a reasonable cut-off threshold. I've attempted to clarify the point (diff). -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Handling of user talk page cleanup

There are three options I'm considering for handling user talk pages, and I can't decide which one is best or makes the most sense.

  • Handle them like any other talk page, cleaning up as the need arises
  • Avoid them unless the user opts in (via category)
  • Clean them up like normal unless the user opts out (via hidden category)
    [inserted "hidden" at 05:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)]

Thoughts?
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 22:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I like the second option. They most certainly shouldn't be like other talk pages, but the opt out idea won't work, because most people won't have heard of this, and they won't know to opt out, if they want it left alone. ~~ Hi878 (Come yell at me!) 22:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Hi878. New users won't have heard of this opting in out thing. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 22:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Or experienced users; this isn't something that everyone knows about yet, sadly. ~~ Hi878 (Come yell at me!) 22:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
NSD, I don't understand. Hi878 was talking about people not knowing about opting out, but you're talking about opting in. Did you mean to say "out", or am I missing something?
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 17:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I meant out. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 17:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, here's how I was thinking opting out would work: If one of us made a cleanup edit on a user talk page, in the edit summary we could include an opt-out link pointing to a page telling them what to do. But yeah, that doesn't make as much sense as opting in.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 05:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that opting in would make far more sense. ~~ Hi878 (Come yell at me!) 23:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Spreading the word

Does anyone have any ideas on how to get the word out and get more people to join? (Or am I gonna have to go crawling to some other projects asking them how? )
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 06:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

One idea is to link to the project page in edit summaries (e.g., here). Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links uses the an edit summary which includes a piped link displaying the text: "You can help!" -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Good idea – I'll put it on the main page.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 20:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Try posting a link at Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board. -- Ϫ 07:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Another good idea.  Done
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 07:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
We could have someone come up with some sort of clever ad... ~~ Hi878 (Come yell at me!) 05:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought of that. I just haven't had the time to make up a good-looking animated GIF to put into the ad system.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 20:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What happened?

What happened? Where did you all go? You seem to have disappeared... ~~ Hi878 (Come yell at me!) 20:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

In my case, 2010 FIFA World Cup... :) -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, whatever... :) ~~ Hi878 (Come yell at me!) 18:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk pages

If I clean up a user talk page, would I also put that in the Cleaned Up category? ~~ Hi878 (Come yell at me!) 20:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that way lies too much potential for controversy; see Editing of other editors' user and user talk pages. I don't see any problem with editors voluntarily adding their own user talk pages to the category, but I don't think we should do it for others. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
See section 9 on this page, "Handling of user talk page cleanup". What you are talking about isn't what I was referring to. :) I mean if people have opted in, and we clean their pages, do we add it to the category? ~~ Hi878 (Come yell at me!) 18:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

An Icon

I got bored, and decided to create an icon for us. Use {{User:Hi878/TPCC Icon}} It uses {{topicon}} so it can be positioned in the same way. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 06:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Archive talk pages

I assume (auto-)archiving fall within the scope of this project. I have started to write on essay about it. Feel free to contribute. But, if you have completly different opinion use the talk page instead of re-writting. --Kslotte (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Very nicely done. I added a link to it at Help:Archiving a talk page. -- Ϫ 13:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Auto-archiving of Template talk:Automatic taxobox

Auto-archiving of Template talk:Automatic taxobox seems to have worked only once so far. That page could use another auto-archiving desperately. Any idea why it's not getting archived a second time? Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 22:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably because the archive age parameter was set to something like 999999? :) I lowered it down to 60 days but you can set it earlier if you want it archived sooner. -- œ™ 11:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Haha, wow. Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 04:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

{{Tpcleanup}} and Category:Talk pages needing cleanup

I'm not sure if these are still used. I added a page a few minutes ago and the only other page in the category has not been touched since June 2011. The page I tagged is Talk:Kitsch which has 13 old unsigned threads that are ignored by the archiving bot. 83.254.128.245 (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC on editing other user's article talk page comments with Flow

Wikipedia:Flow is a planned improvement to the way MediaWiki software handles article talk pages. There is an RfC about how to configure Flow regarding editing other people's article talk page comments. Your input would be welcome. The RfC is at Wikipedia_talk:Flow/Archive_3#Request_for_Comment_on_editing_other_user.27s_comments_with_Flow. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject proposal

I would like to invite this group to the discussion Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Neutral Editors.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Asset_Systems&action=edit&redlink=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics/Companies&action=edit&section=42

Requested Articles/Business and Economics/Companies (section). Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics/Companies&action=edit&section=42

Conflict of interest: International Asset Systems employee (marketing)

Interasset510 (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Code Lyoko

Resolved
 – Someone else took care of this.

I made a section here wanting to see if everything above the section above mine can be simply archived, due to the length of the page (52 sections and 88 KB) and the mass amount of arguing and flame war's, most of which is mod vs user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord.Quackstar (talk • contribs) 23:15, July 4, 2010

I have added this page to the "Talk Pages Needing Cleanup" category. We seem to have become inactive, though, so I'm not sure when this will be cleaned up. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 21:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm still actively cleaning up talk pages, though I mostly only deal with project banners and other templates at the top of talk pages, organizing and formatting according to WP:Talk page layout. I've just recently started adding "You can help!" to my edit summaries to try to get more people aware and involved in helping out. -- Ϫ 01:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 Draft Ross Bay Villa page is ready to go, but for "INVALID DESIGNATION" in InfoBox.  As the designation is perfectly valid and the details are included, what does it take to get rid of this irritant? Then, please, please, can it be vetted and put on line?

Ross Bay Villa, Victoria, BC, Canada

 PLEASE can somebody help me get this wiki-page up online. It's virtually finished, but I absolutely cannot figure out how to: 1): Get rid of "INVALID DESIGNATION" message in InfoBox; 2): Submit for completion. 
  
  Many thanks, Nick

 PS: The designation is perfectly valid and the details are included in the InfoBox: What does it take to get rid of this irritant?

   Russcomm (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested Company Article for Four Fountains De-Stress Spa

How do i submit the draft of article on related wikiprojects (Stress Management, Spa Therapies , Massage) talk page so that an editor can review it?

Is this project active?

This project seems to have become inactive - correct me if I'm wrong. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

A new newsletter directory is out!

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

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

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

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

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

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Talk_pages/Archive_1&oldid=1136047450"