Template talk:WikiProject Proposal

SWPP/Design
The template says not to edit the SWPP section, but I wondered whether someone should change it to not show up if the pages it will link to don't exist. I just think it's silly having a section talking about Similar WikiProjects if such projects don't exist. Similarly, if "Description" isn't provided, I think replacement text should be put in its place (such as "No description provided by proposer").

I also query whether the design of this could be made a little more user friendly? The headings are quite garish and messy. Perhaps a table could be used in its place?

==WikiProject == {| class="wikitable" style="width:75%;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;" ! Support ! SWPP ! colspan="2" | Discussion
 * colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" |
 * style="width:70%;" |
 * style="width:30%;" |
 * WikiProject
 * 
 * WikiProject
 * 
 * colspan="2" | ===Support===
 * colspan="2" | ===Support===

Neutral

 * }

Produces something along the lines of (without the blue border):

I've taken the liberty of creating WikiProject_Proposal/Proposed_alternative for people to see things more clearly. I think this would be better. What is the feeling of others? Greggers ( t &bull; c) 18:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal discussion
I truly like the flow and appearance of your redesign, Greggers. The only qualm I have is a carry-over from the old design: with the proliferation of task forces, there is no method to insert a task force name. Say I wanted to make the Greg task force of WikiProject People Named Greg, I should be able to input ProjectName=People Named Greg & TaskForceName=Greg to output the SWPP of Greg task force. Just my two cents. hornoir (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've edited the template to accept TaskForceName as a parameter and use it. I think this is what you requested. Greggers ( t &bull; c) 15:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That was my request, indeed. This was not a problem with your template, as so much as it was a problem with the previous version as well.  There are as many task forces proposed now as WikiProjects (and several Project proposals should be task forces instead).  Regardless, thank you.  hornoir (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's much prettier than the existing system, but I'm not sure that aesthetics are the most important quality. Loading a page with a billion tables (and that's about how many proposals seem to be open at any given time) is going to be slower than the 'plain text' version. The computing overhead may make users with poor connections unable to participate. Consider also the impact on people using screen readers: tables are less friendly and accessible than plain text.

Finally, we really do need to quit using "SWPP". Most proposers of WikiProjects are relatively inexperienced. Can't we spell it out? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing, I expanded "SWPP" as per request. As for the loading time and readability, you have an excellent point. I hadn't considered this and can see no decent way around it. I guess we're left with merely a decision as to whether aesthetics and readability are more or less important than speed and accessibility to screen readers. From my point of view, I put more weight on the readability factor. But I have a fast connection and don't use a screen reader. Thanks for that input, it's certainly something worth considering. <b style="color:#00A">Greggers</b> <sup style="color:#A00;font-weight:bold;font-size:12px;">( t &bull; <b style="color:#A00">c</b>) 16:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Something that has always bothered me with the proposal page was having support, neutral, and oppose as headings. Whenever someone adds their opinion by clicking on one of these sections, the exit summary just says /*support|neutral|oppose*/...there is no way to know what the person is voting on unless the diff is looked at. How about having support, neutral, and oppose bolded (or start the line with a ;). Maybe this should be done for the other sub-headings for each project proposal too. This way, people will click on edit next to the proposal heading and the edit summary would be more descriptive. I'd rather immediately see what people are voting on and take another step to see their opinion, instead of seeing how a person voted and taking another step to see what they voted on. Another option could be to include the project name in each of the sub-headings. It would be redundant and wouldn't really look good, but would make reading the page history much easier. --Scott Alter 21:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Either that, or append  to the end of each heading (perhaps in parenthesis)... I'd have to agree with above usability sentiments re the proposed design, though, and add that it seems a solution in search of a problem. The current layout isn't pretty by any means, but it's functional (except for the headers problem), and that's far more important than aesthetics. A good analogy IMHO would be XfD discussions - there's all sorts of ways we could prettify them, but there are also way too may reasons *not* to. 「ダイノ ガイ  千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 18:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Where do I go to make a proposal for a WikiProject?
the title kinda says it all, but I just want to know who or where to go to submit my idea. Do I just do that here?--God&#39;sGirl94 (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Council/Proposals. Rd232 talk 17:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Remove SWPP section?
"SWPP" seems like a pointless waste of space. Why is it even necessary? The only link we need in my opinion is the proposed project's name. I say we remove the "SWPP" section in the template as superfluous. ~EdGl  &#9733;  17:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * a scan of its use at WikiProject Council/Proposals does such it's a complete waste of space; the cryptic name doesn't help. However it would be helpful if renamed "Related Wikiprojects", the intention being to list related projects in bullet point form and note the intended relationship / cooperation / avoidance of overlap etc. In general, if we develop the AFD-style sub-page approach under discussion, we can make a larger and more detailed template for proposals, which may well be helpful. (And as long as we don't insist on its use, it will do no harm anyway.) Rd232 talk 17:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Even with the clarification of its purpose, I still don't see why it needs its own section, and why it takes the form WikiProject Example and Example. It seems like "SWPP" would vary from proposal to proposal, therefore I say we should have the proposers list the related WikiProjects in the description section. ~EdGl   &#9733;  18:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I think I a separate section would be helpful as suggested above. But since this would be completely different from the current SWPP section, maybe I'm confusing the issue. -> Delete SWPP and create Related Projects. Rd232 talk 18:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be willing to compromise on that, if the section started out blank instead of having those two default links (because most of the time they're redlinks). This would make it more customizable. ~EdGl   &#9733;  18:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The links are almost useless. In the case of my recent proposal (WikiProject Policy) they redirected me to a defunct project on the topic I wasn't aware of. Somehow I don't think that happens too often, so we could ditch them from the template. Alternatively we could leave them in and ask the proposer to remove them if they're redlinks. Rd232 talk 18:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I still think making it part of the description is better because it would in some cases give the proposer more flexibility and less redundancy, in case they prefer to explain (rather than just list) how the proposed project would related to another project. I think the fewer sections we have, the simpler, the better. ~EdGl   &#9733;  19:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the main problem is that people (like me) didn't know what it was for, and just copied everyone else's examples. Also, going from my recent scan of the peer review place where I found preloaded text, there is a bit of code that makes the link appear - but only if it exists. I'll try and find it. That is the number one Wikipedia policy - copy everyone else! DeMoN 2009  08:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Instructions should be clear and permit flexibility (starting with the heading!). A related projects section is basically a good idea I think and should be part of the template, and proposers can have the freedom to remove it if they want. Rd232 talk 15:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here:

Put ProjectName as Football - Both show up because they exist.

Put ProjectName as Tulips - None show up as they don't exist.

Put ProjectName as Swimming - One shows up.

Seems to work! DeMoN 2009 09:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Preloaded text and documentation
Please read this: mw:Manual:Creating pages with preloaded text. It looks like we have to set up a subpage so we can include the documentation without having it show up in the preloaded text. ~EdGl  &#9733;  00:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried doing that here - User:Alistairjh/Sandbox14


 * It preloads text from somewhere but I can't remember where. On Holiday

Documentation for Support section
I thought I'd left this note yesterday, but apparently not:

Can we add some basic instructions so that people who sign up as "Supporters" realize that this means "I want to join", not "I think somebody else ought to do this, but I'm not willing to do it myself"? Perhaps just changing the section name from "Support" to something like "Future members" or "Volunteers" would be sufficient. It's only fair to the person making the proposal to be clear about whether you will join or not if the project gets approved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Support but not join" votes are useful too in my opinion, so what if we have something like this:

Support

Please specify whether or not you would join the project.


 * Yeah, I'll join if this is created! ~EdGl   &#9733;  19:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Great idea, wouldn't join though. ~EdGl   &#9733;  19:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * ~EdGl  &#9733;  19:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, that would work for me. Any way that lets the proposer to know which of the supporters are going to show up in practice will work for me.  It's just not really very nice of us to encourage someone to create, and then get stuck with, a very lonely new WikiProject in those cases when it turns out that all of the "supporters" are in the "great idea, wouldn't join though" category.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's important to distinguish both kinds of support votes. I implemented my example in the template. Simply making another subsection (one for each type of support vote) would work, but I'd like to limit the number of sections as much as possible so that the list of contents in the archives does not look too cluttered. ~EdGl   &#9733;  02:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm amending the text to "Also, specify whether or not you would join the project." to more clearly present the choice between support in principle and support with intent to participate. (Right now, it could still be read as support = join.) <b style="font-family:Constantia; font-size:medium; color:#0077bb;">TheFeds</b> 03:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"T:WP Proposals" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T:WP_Proposals&redirect=no T:WP Proposals] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

"T:WPProp" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T:WPProp&redirect=no T:WPProp] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)