Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

WikiProject: Dogs

Hello, sorry to bother you but I have joined this Dogs Project recently and I was looking at the to-do list but it hasn’t been updated since 2014! Im not sure how to edit the to-do list, some of the pages dont need to be on there anymore and some need to be added but it wont let me edit it. SpookMew (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

SpookMew, for the todo list specifically, it can be edited at Template:Dog opentask (which was last modified January 2022), though I admit I originally thought it would have been directly at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/to do (where the 2014 date comes from)! Hope this helps! -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Oooh, thank you! I think I cannot edit it because its a protected page, I will have to wait and see if the moderator of project dogs edits it at some point SpookMew (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

SpookMew, it only needs "extended confirmed" access to edit it, but you are currently only "autoconfirmed". If you look at WP:XCON you can see one of the requirements is at least 500 edits, and looking at https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/SpookMew you're currently a bit under 400. So you'll probably get to 500 before too long anyway. :-) -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I moved Template:Dog opentask to Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs/to do which seemed to be more logical. Thanks for your work in updating this SpookMew — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Formal Joining

Hello I wanted to know if Wikipedia has a formal process of joining a wikiproject. I was unable to locate a join link or find an administrator to answer my question. More information would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

FictiousLibrarian (talk). 03:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@FictiousLibrarian: There is no formal joining process. WikiProjects are a place to collaborate with editors interested in some topic. If you are interested in any topic, you can always join its WikiProject. Some WikiProjects may have a Members/Participants list, feel free to add your name to that list if you are joining. Keep an eye on the talk page of the project you join, so that you can see what discussions are taking place among the collaborators. Best. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd say that one of the most useful things a new participant can do is to watchlist the group's page to keep track of discussions. When you see someone who needs help, try to help them. Maybe you won't be able to help with everything, but if you do your best to help with the things you can do, you'll quickly get a reputation for being a valuable participant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

User Stats for activity in projects

Is there a way to see what WikiProjects a user is most active in? For example, this tool shows my account is most active in Main space, then Talk, then Wikipedia, etc.

I can also see Wikipedia articles I've created, or files uploaded.

Is there a way I can see what projects my edited pages are part of? Do I edit topics around Music more than TV? Do I edit mostly Australian content? Etc. I think I should be able to know this based on the WikiProjects these pages are part of, but unless I look at them individually there doesn't seem to be a way to find this out as a nice chart. Jimmyjrg (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jimmyjrg, I don't think we have a tool that's exactly like what you're asking for, but you might be interested in the list of articles you edit most often at https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Jimmyjrg#top-edited-pages (or see the complete list here).

Previously, a bot written by User:Harej would update pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Musicians, but it hasn't run that task for over a year. If you don't mind out-of-date information, then this search link will give you a list of the three WikiProjects that were supporting articles you edited the last time the bot ran. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. I also requested the feature to see these stats on MediaWiki and someone is looking into it. Hopefully someone puts something together as I think it could be an interesting tool to find new projects and communities to join. Jimmyjrg (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to change B-class checklist behaviour

See also: Module talk:WikiProject banner/Archive 13 § bchecklist unintuitive behaviour, and Module talk:WikiProject banner/Archive 14 § Projects that use the checklist but do not use it to autodemote

There was a proposal by User:DFlhb (and on much reflection supported by me) to make a minor change the behaviour of the B-class checklist, which I am bringing here for greater exposure.

Current situation

• A B-class checklist can be added to a project banner as an optional feature
• The checklist is completed using parameters for the 6 B-class criteria, |b1= up to |b6=
• The template will then "auto-demote" a B-class article to C-class unless all the criteria parameters are filled out and passed, e.g. |b1=yes
• Blank criteria parameters are treated the same as failed parameters, i.e. |b1= means the same as |b1=no

Proposed situation

• Blank criteria parameters will not result in articles being auto-demoted. Only an explicit |b1=no would result in the article being demoted to C-class.
• All criteria parameters marked as passed will result in a C-class article being automatically promoted to B-class.

Rationale

• It is sometimes confusing for editors to understand why typing {{WikiProject Apple Inc.|class=B}} results in the article being assessed as C-class instead of B-class. We should not expect editors to know that certain project templates are set up differently to others.
• We should trust an editor that types {{WikiProject Apple Inc.|class=B}} that they do actually understand what B-class means and so should infer that the criteria are passed. In DFlhb's words, removing pointless complexity by letting people rate things as B-class without jumping through hoops.
• It would allow editors to focus their attention on issues which really need to be solved, rather than articles which just haven't been assessed, by using categories such as Category:XYZ articles needing attention to referencing and citation
• It removes a barrier to WP:PIQA deployment.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I definitely support |b1= being missing effectively defaulting to "yes". I'm more on the fence if |b1= is present but blank, however I'm not sure how easy it is to separate two those situations. I also note in WP:RATER, adding WikiProject Military History brings up B-Class-1 to 5, whereas WikiProject Apple Inc. doesn't bring up any of b1, etc. I assume milhist is different somehow anyway? -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

MILHIST explicitly hard-coded their banner to require B-class checklist and tied their rating scheme to the checklist. Honestly, I like the idea- it's clearer than Rater's often-opaque reasoning. I would rather move to using the B-class checklist to calculate articles' quality and mostly deprecate the |class= parameter instead. Another benefit is that it makes what improvements are needed clearer. With Rater, I frequently am unsure of why it rates an articles as one class or another. It's given B-class to articles lacking sources, for example, while denying B-class just because an article didn't have templated citations. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

This is going off-topic a bit, as there's been more than enough discussion elsewhere about the class parameter which led to WP:PIQA. But for WP:RATER, it uses ORES to predict article quality, and it's own documentation even says This is only a prediction, and may be inaccurate (occasionally wildly so). The current proposal is only about what's in the "Proposed situation" above though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I know that Rater uses ORES; I am frustrated that ORES is opaque and questionably accurate. Checking against the B-class checklist makes more sense- it's clearer and stricter- and I wish there was an alternative to Rater that did so.

As a side note, MILHIST will almost certainly oppose any attempt to change how their banner's checklist works, but they also use a bot to auto-assess all of the parameters so it isn't an issue; and they use a slightly different assessment criteria anyhow. This proposal seems to be (should be) restricted to those projects that use the regular criteria. SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I concur with your side note. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The proposal here is for a change to the default B-class checklist so MilHist's would not be affected. However it would be great in the future if we could find a system that all projects could support. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

My views here are similar to Kj cheetham. I'm curious as well about the depreciation of the checklist but will wait for that separate discussion which I think should happen after this one. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 09:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• Here's a better idea: deprecate B-class checklists. As stated above, when a reviewer tags an article as |class=B, it's because they understand what B-class means. In any case, the redesigned WikiProject banner shell already ignores B-class checklists anyway, so it doesn't really matter. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I'd support depreciating the checklist parameters as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  Can I suggest having this discussion separately as it may sidetrack this discussion? At some point I would like to explore moving the B-class checklist into the banner shell because it doesn't make any sense to assess these for each individual project. But I would be reluctant to deprecate them altogether because it is a useful tool for many editors. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps my experience is different to others but it has not been my experience that if someone types Class=B in their project header they have an understanding of the criteria that would make it so. The idea that an unfilled criterion should be considered a yes is just daft. If the person filling it in is not sure whether it passes, we should be cautious rather than risk undermining our quality standards. Monstrelet (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Well there's nothing to stop someone typing |class=A or |class=FA either . I don't think you can enforce the criteria by using a template, but it should be easier for experienced editors to assess articles. The confusing part currently is that some templates will accept |class=B and others will not. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, as the assessment system is a hierarchy, it shouldn't be possible to pass a higher grade without passing a lower, so a complete B class check should be in place for an A or FA. Also, as any editor can assess to B, IIRC, why assume only long term editors will be doing the assessment, rather than eager new editors (and I would recommend new editors to at least try assessing in order to get a better understanding of what wiki thinks make a good article). Anyway, I've said my piece. Monstrelet (talk) 08:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, the system has been broken for years. As you said, there's nothing to stop someone from changing these ratings, which are arbitrary and not "official" (in a sense that, unlike GANs and FACs, there is no formal review process). That leads to situations where I often encounter a "C-class" article, and it's somehow more comprehensive and well-sourced than a "B-class" article. And while A-class is a thing, rarely do I ever seen an article being graded that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll share my rationale too. Months ago, I did a statistical analysis of WikiProjects that opt-in to B-checklists. For all the projects I looked at, 80-90% of articles in categories like Category:XYZ articles needing attention to referencing and citation were there because of missing, not failing, B-checklists. That makes them pointless for prioritizing cleanup. The two biggest projects opting-into B-checklists override this behavior to align with the current proposal: WP:FILM (code) and WP:MILHIST (code).

Autodemotion based on missing criteria is also a problem. I've regularly come across WikiProject banner shells on talk pages where someone reassessed every project to B-class, but one still shows up as C-class (due to missing B-checklist). That project gets no benefit from keeping the outdated class evaluation; outdated ratings are a much bigger problem than people rating articles incorrectly. Outside of FA/GA, ratings aren't a big deal, and I've never seen an editor rating articles incorrectly en-masse.

The underlying idea behind the current behavior is that articles need to systematically be marked as passing the B1-B6 criteria, but that's pointless busywork. Only B, C and Start-class articles are eligible for B-checklists. Among these, 75-85% (depending on the project) are Start-class. We already know they fail, likely all of B1-B6. It would be pointless to spend days filling them out.

When I come across articles with filled B-criteria, generally, only 1 or 2 criteria are failing, the rest are passed. That's the main point of B-checklists: identifying articles which just need a bit of work to reach B-class. Or to clarify why articles that look like they should be rated B-class, aren't, or why one that used to be B-class was demoted. This proposal preserves those use cases, while making B-checklist categories more useful, and leading to fewer outdated class ratings due to missing checklists; all-around win. DFlhb (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hear, hear. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• I support the proposal, but I'd also support getting rid of the checklists altogether and to streamline and simplify the assessment system. —Kusma (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
• Though this proposal was presented before possibly discussing the continued merits of the checklists, I think it needs to be reversed. If there is support to outright move the B-class checklists, that solves this issue because the checklists go away. We should take the time to sort that out I feel rather than half-heartedly agree with an implementation change, if it's possible consensus in a discussion in the near future will just say get rid of the checklists. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  B-class checklists aren't universal. Projects choose to opt-in to them because they think it's useful to them. There's nothing to get rid of because it's already optional, and it really doesn't sit right with me that we would tell these projects that they're not allowed to run their assessments the way they want. Frankly I'd rather this be discussed at WP:FILM, WP:MILHIST, WP:COMICS, etc. among users who will be affected by it, rather than here. DFlhb (talk) 08:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  I agree this isn't the place to gain consensus to get rid of B-class checklists. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  I wasn't trying to have this discussion here, only noting that my feelings are that this discussion should be had (where ever appropriate), and probably before a decision was made here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  Favre1fan93: in my many years on this site, one thing I have learned is that proposals which involve major changes are unlikely to attract consensus. Therefore I am constantly looking for smaller incremental changes which will hopefully not be controversial but will still be an improvement. Please feel free to start a proposal on abolishing the B-class checklists - I may even support it (it would certainly make my life much easier by removing a headache in implementing PIQA). But please consider supporting this smaller change which would be an improvement on the status quo. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Favre1fan93 in case you missed my reply — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Renaming proposal for subcategories

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 18 § Category:WikiProject X members. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Get a complete list of STEM categories, their subcategories, and page ids

Question - Imagine that I am a STEM educator and wanted to get a complete list of all on-topic categories, subcats, and page ids for just STEM articles on wikipedia. How would I do that?

My first attempt was looking at the categorylinks table - https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Categorylinks_table, but anyone familiar with that would know that it's a dead end. Wikipedia is too over categorized (eg, "coat of arms with plants" is under botany->plants

There is also a very good reason why wikipedia is overcategorized. It's used by different folks with different agendas. A useful categorization always needs to be specific to the perspective of those organizing the information and using it to be productive. Why shouldn't coat of arms with plants" go under botany->plants? I really can't think of a reason why not, tbh.

My next attempt was to talk to the wikidata people. They responded that wikidata is not organized into categories. They pointed me to wikiprojects.

I looked at a bunch of wikiproject pages, and it looks great, but I don't see any straightforward way to get a dump of the categories, their subcats, and the pageids that belong in those subcats.

As far as I can tell, wikiprojects aren't connected/organized by anything other than html headings and links on pages. Eg: https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Science/Topics

This seems unfortunate. Mostly for selfish reasons (see initial ask) but more generally, having a well thought out ontology of knowledge on Wikipedia would be very useful. The DBPedia project tried to do that, I think, but seems to have gone dormant. And the wikidata people don't seem interested, for reasons I'm not clear on.

Part of the problem I think is that such categorizations would be somewhat situational dependent. A stem educator, for example, might have a different perspective than say a botanist or a physicist. Fair enough! But clearly the top level wikiproject folks *do* have a perspective (you can see it on their pages!), and I believe those perspectives are very useful given the effort, care and consideration that has gone into them.

If we could more formally capture the hierarchy of wikiprojects, especially for STEM, I think that would be very useful. Wikiqrdl (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

One note: if I can't convince folks to adopt 'category views' (different categorizations for different purposes) I will say one change needs to be enforced with wikipedia categories, and that it must be a directed tree with no cycles. Eg, I shouldn't end up traversing all of wikipedia by starting at some root category. And furthermore, there should be some estimate of how many pages any root node should umbrella for and effort should be made to bring it under that number. Wikiqrdl (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Ignoring Wikiprojects, is not the hierarchy of Science categories at least found at Category:Science? It's not a simple tree though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kj cheetham Categories and subcats on Wikipedia are described by the categorylinks tables. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Categorylinks_table The links between categories on wikipedia general are controlled by different people with different needs/agendas. They overload the ontology to the point that it is no longer functional or useful (eg, science -> botany -> plants -> coats of arms with plants). A proper categorization must have a narrow and defining purpose, which is why I believe 'category views' are required. The folks on the wikiproject council have a different and I believe productive categorization view about their respective categories that deserves to be captured. Is it a silver bullet for all categorization requirements? No, but it's a very big step forward. Wikiqrdl (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)