Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia/Archive 1

Project Template
Created it cribbed from WP:Rowing, needs an image though. Nate1481(t/c)
 * Image from commons added, best I could find replace it if you see a better free one, 'fair-use' is not allowed in templates etc. --Nate1481(t/c) 10:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A European Source of Dyslexia Information
I was just surfing the internet, and i came across the web site Dyslexia International - Tools and Technologies (DITT). which has some interesting Contributions and definitions of Dyslexia which could have some suggestions for this project. their home page is at http://www.ditt-online.org/index.html and they have a "What is Dyslexia page" at http://www.ditt-online.org/Dyslexia.htm (and yes i do have an interest, I am quoted in their Summer 2005 newsletter on page 11 under the heading Reflections)

best wishes

dolfrog 18:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Would it be worth having a 'resources' section on the project page? The kind of link farm that wouldn't be good in the article but could provide a great place for fact checking and source searching. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I'll add one.

New graphics and header template
Thanks, Nate1481! I appreciate folks jumping in and helping to put together the basic components of the Project.

Rosmoran 22:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The categories listed need creating, but having the template gives us a start. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Categorization
From the WIKI guidelines

Every Wikipedia article should belong to at least one category. Similarly every category (except Category:Contents, which is the root of the hierarchy) should be placed in at least one parent category. Disambiguation pages belong to special categories (see Disambiguation); most redirects are not categorized, though there are exceptions (see Categorizing redirects). For the categorization of pages in other namespaces, and categories used for project management purposes, see Project categories below.

An article should be placed in all the categories to which it logically belongs, subject to the duplicate categorization rule stated below. It should be clear from the verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate template if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category.

Normally a new article will fit into existing categories – compare articles on similar topics to find what those categories are. If you think a new category needs to be created, see the section What categories should be created below. If you don't know where to put an article, add the template to it – other editors (such as those monitoring Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories/uncategorized) will find good categories for it.

Categorize articles by characteristics of the topic, not characteristics of the article. A biographical article about a specific person, for example, does not belong in Category:Biography. (For exceptions, see Project categories below.)

An article should never be left with a non-existent (redlinked) category on it. Either the category should be created (most easily by clicking on the red link), or else the link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist.

The order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule (for example, it does not need to be alphabetical, although partially alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful). Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first. If an article has an eponymous category (see below), then that category should be listed first of all. For example, Category:George Orwell is listed before other categories on the George Orwell page.

What categories should be created

Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles. They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject. They should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects, such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. Do not create categories based on incidental or subjective features. Examples of types of categories which should not be created can be found at Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Discussion about whether particular categories should exist takes place at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.

It should be remembered that categories are not the only means of enabling users to browse sets of related articles. Other tools which may be used instead of or alongside categories in particular instances include lists and navigation boxes. For a comparison of the uses of these techniques, see Categories, lists and navigation templates.

Categories appear without annotations, so be aware of the need for a neutral point of view when creating or filling categories. If the composition of a category is likely to be controversial, a list (which can be annotated) may be more appropriate.

Before creating a new category, check whether a similar category does not already exist under a different name (for example, by looking on the likely member pages or in likely parent categories).

Categories follow the same general naming conventions as articles; for example, common nouns are not capitalized. For specific rules, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories).

For proposals to delete or rename categories, follow the instructions at Categories for discussion.

Subcategorization

Although there is no limit on the size of categories, a large category will often be broken down into smaller, more specific subcategories. For example, Category:Rivers of Europe is broken down by country into the subcategories Rivers of Albania, Rivers of Andorra, etc.

A category may be broken down using several coexisting schemes; for example, Category:Albums is broken down by artist, by date, by genre etc. Intermediate categories may be created as ways of organizing schemes of subcategories. For example, the subcategories called "Artistname albums" are not placed directly into Category:Albums, but in the intermediate category Category:Albums by artist.

Not all subcategories serve this systematic "breaking down" function; some are simply subsets which have some characteristic of interest, such as Best Actor Academy Award winners as a subcategory of Film actors, Toll bridges in New York City as a subcategory of Bridges in New York City, and Musical films as a subcategory of Musicals. These are called distinguished subcategories.

The identification of distinguished and non-distinguished subcategories is important for the application of the duplicate categorization rule. It is useful to state in category descriptions whether or not a given category is a distinguished subcategory of a parent category. Use the templates to specify the particulars. If no such information is present, determine the status of a subcategory by common sense and observation of the way existing articles are categorized.

Categories which are intended to be fully broken down into subcategories can be marked with the template. This indicates that any pages which editors might add to the main category should be moved to the appropriate subcategories when sufficient information is available. (If the proper subcategory for an article does not exist yet, either create the subcategory or leave the article in the parent category for the time being.)

To suggest that a category is so large that it ought to be broken down into subcategories, you can add the template to the category page.

Subcategories defined by ethnicity and sexuality are often classed as distinguished. For example, Category:African American baseball players is a distinguished subcategory of Category:American baseball players, as this category is not broken down systematically by ethnicity. See also Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality.

Remember that subcategories will often belong in at least two parent categories. For example, Category:British writers should be in both Category:Writers by nationality and Category:British people. When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the first really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the second also. If two categories are closely related but are not in a subset relation, then a link to one can be included in the other's category description

dolfrog (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Bunching
Just found Template:FixBunching. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

looks good I will try it out later

dolfrog (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

otitis media with effusion
Otitis media with effusion is a recognised cause of auditory processing disoder, and as such is also recognised as an underlying cause of dyalexia. Therefore otitis media does belong in the dyslexia category as one of medical problems which cause the neurologicla issues that can cause dyslexia.

dolfrog (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See discussion and consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, dolfrog. That's all well and good. But the article doesn't mention anything about that. In fact, the only place the word "dyslexia" appeared at all was in the category list. Adding a seemingly off-topic category to an article that seems to have nothing to do with that category without any discussion on the talk page tends to get reverted.


 * If you want to place this article into the dyslexia category, then you probably need to add what you're saying to the article. In order to add it to the article, you need to provide reliable sources that back up your claims (I'd look at the guidelines for reliable sources for medical articles as well). If you can suggest good text, and provide solid medical references for what you're saying (such as studies and reviews published in peer-reviewed journals), then we can likely add this to the article. If the addition warrants the category (we won't know that until we see the addition), then we can add the category.


 * I'd suggest that you place draft text here on the talk page for discussion (though you are by no means obligated to do so, it might help to avoid multiple reverts if you built consensus first). If the text is on point and well sourced, I'll back it for inclusion (for my part). Keep in mind, though, that it may or may not make sense to add the category even if we add some verbiage to the article. As I said, we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it. Make sense? -- Transity  ( talk &bull; contribs ) 14:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. The category is fine if the page substantially mentions it (up to WP:MEDRS standard, obviously). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

King-Kopetzky syndrome
Hi I noticed that you started the article about King-Kopetzky syndrome or Obscure Auditory Dysfunction. Both of which are peculiar to the UK, and have now been absorbed by the UK Medical Research Council into the current Auditory Processing Disorder research program as of 2004. may be you would like toi merge the King-Kopetzky syndrome article into the Auditory Processing Disorder Article, which wil be my next editing project after i have finished my work on the dyslexia project

dolfrog (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would be very grateful if you do not merge them yet, as it stands I think there might be a merit in keeping King-Kopetzky syndrome as a separate article , as it is a well known name and there is plenty of puplications about it.Meanwhile, I will do some inquiries about the subject. Many thanks. Ghaly (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC
Could we have a wider view on the appropriate use of Wikipedia categories? (e.g. is Category:Dyslexia appropriate for articles such as List of languages by writing system and categories such as Category:Writing systems?I've just created the above RFC to get wider input on this current dispute. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What is an RFC
 * dolfrog (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A Request for Comment, a formal request for outside views on a topic.
 * I reverted your edit to the RFC page. That one is reserved solely for a neutrally-worded unsigned request that doesn't try to "frame" the discussion. There's equally no point in adding stuff to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/lang/manual; all discussion takes place here. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Outside opinion: Category:Dyslexia should only be used in articles that are primarily about dyslexia. Writing systems and the like should not have this category. – Quadell (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that there may be some confusion between the purpose of the category system and this project's scope. If editors here think that an article is within their scope -- that is, any article that the members choose to support by improving or answering questions about, regardless of whether anyone else at all thinks that it has anything to do with dyslexia -- then they should place  on the article's talk page.  They may certainly do that for List of languages by writing system, if they choose to support that list. By contrast, articles placed in Category:Dyslexia should really be directly and specifically about dyslexia.  This approach is consistent with standard practice, helps readers find the most important articles (instead of drowning the more important articles in a sea of essentially unimportant articles, like laws that don't even mention dyslexia by name, but which might have a small effect on education of some students with dyslexia in a single country), avoids cluttering articles with dozens of categories, and eliminates the slippery slope problem (e.g., gives us a firm reason not to include United States Constitution, even though its due process guarantees affect thousands of students with dyslexia).  As a general rule of thumb, if an article doesn't have at least a solid paragraph about (some form or aspect of) dyslexia, then the article probably shouldn't go into that category.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if the originator of this RFC would explain the context and the reasoning behind this proposal. As it stands, I can't for the life me imagine any reason why List of languages by writing system or Category:Writing systems would be placed in Category:Dyslexia; as other have already noted, neither of them is a page about any aspect of dyslexia. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't want to "frame" discussion. I agree with you that it's screamingly wrong as a category. But it was a case of doing it by the book to get outside opinion, as User:Dolfrog was not taking the word of existing editors here that this categorisation is inappropriate. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What none of the opinion providers has asked yet is the very key question. "How are Writing systems related to dyslexia ??" No one has read the research which links Writing systems to dyslexia No one has asked even if there is any research to link the two topics. No one has even attempted to discuss the issue either. All have just said that writing systems have nothing to do with dyalexia without doing any research to prove the case one way or the other. All we have had is ill informed opinions and some taking rash actions based on these ill informed opinions. If you take some time out you can read the relevent research which explains:
 * how different neurlogical abilitities are required to reading in the various writing systems depending on the structure of the orthography being used.
 * dyslexics can have different nuerological ability deficits which can cause them to have problems reading.
 * For some their nuerological skill/abiliyt deficit may not be a problem for them in a writng system where their ability defict does not conflict with skill / abiliyt requirement of the writng system they are using.

The documented research I published demonstrated this quite well. but was ignered by all. so all the opinions have been provided in ognorance of the documented research which proces most to be ill informed. Gordonofcartoon called it framing the discussion. not true just providing the research to read before anyone should make an opinion. If the facts are not presented how can anyone pass an opinion. (may be WIKI editors can because they know it all) The research is from 1999 so where the so called experts have been since then I have no idea. History of developmental dyslexia 1999 Wydell and Butterworth reported the case study of an English-Japanese bilingual with monolingual dyslexia. Suggesting that any language where orthography-to-phonology mapping is transparent, or even opaque, or any language whose orthographic unit representing sound is coarse (i.e. at a whole character or word level) should not produce a high incidence of developmental phonological dyslexia, and that orthograpy can influence dyslexic symptoms and for any project pages,  to indicate the class, but if we don't the default of NA continues to apply, so there is no need for anyone to change the way they work unless they wish. --Mirokado (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * not sure if these templates have been followed up this was Rosmoran specialist area of the project, she created the template before she stopped editing abpout 2/3years ago. I will have a look at the articles listed above. dolfrog (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The dyslexia interventions article should be merged into Management of Dyslexia article dolfrog (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks reasonable to do that merge. --Mirokado (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth have you removed the project template from the dyslexia categories? They are some of the objects a project most needs to keep track of, otherwise you don't know if someone proposes a deletion until the category is removed from all the articles. I know, it happened once or twice at WP:DISABILITY until I updated the classifications there. --Mirokado (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

OpenDyslexic font
Members of this WikiProject may wish to start an article about the OpenDyslexic font. Also, these links may be of interest. —Wavelength (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * BBC News - OpenDyslexic font gains ground with help of Instapaper
 * Village pump (technical) (version of 01:23, 8 May 2013)
 * Dyslexic readers

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) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (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 WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

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

Reading (process) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Reading (process) to be moved to Reading. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Greetings
back again, logged in. Hello? Anyone here? Jrbwalk (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)jrbwalk


 * Hello! I've been poking around the various dyslexia articles, and wondered the same thing. It looks like there was lots of activity here a few years ago, and I'm curious where things were when they paused. —Verbistheword (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You seem much more qualified, and scientific. I am just an ex-teacher who has a son who has had a lot of labels. I landed on Dyslexia for a lot of different reasons. Just last night I got a note from his birth mother...she is "extremely right brained", because of a facebook post I made. I keep coming across that idea. Does it mean anything to you? I am firmly in the camp that it is a difference, very likely to give visual strengths...my son at age 4 had a low verbal IQ, which nearly tripled by age 18, but also, at age 4, had the "visual spatial skills" of a ten year old!  Very interesting stuff. I feel the current page on Dyslexia needs the additions of the works of Dr. Thomas West and Dr.s Brock and Fernette Eide.Both are searching out gifts. Have you heard of their work?

French talk page format
Following a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, it was suggested that I should post the way that French Wikipedia formats its talk pages in case it might be of interest to anyone here. It will produce the same effect as for example, fr:Discussion Wikipédia:Accueil principal; you can scroll down that talk page to see if the lines and colours help to make the threading any clearer.

If you'd like to try it out, put the following into Special:MyPage/common.css:  .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl {background:#f5faff;}

.ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl {background:white;}

.ns-talk .mw-body-content dl {border-top: solid 1px #a7d7f9; border-left: solid 1px #a7d7f9; padding-top:0.5em; padding-left:0.5em; margin-left:1em;} Of course, you only have to remove the above to return your talk pages here to normal. HTH. --RexxS (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * spotted that I'd missed the '#' from  I've corrected that above. --RexxS (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Dyslexia-tailored fonts and coverage on main WP Dyslexia article
Hello, new to this page (and the process of Wikipedia editing in general).

I've ended up here with some concerns about how the main WP page for Dyslexia is presented currently, specifically relating to how it discusses the merits of dyslexia tailored typefaces. I might be wasting time with it but has there been any interest on this page in to looking at how consistent the coverage is across Wikipedia articles regarding the efficacy in using these to mitigate symptoms of dyslexia? And how up-to-date the views presented are.

Currently the dyslexia page header image is of the OpenDyslexic typeface; the caption states "An example of OpenDyslexic typeface, which is used to mitigate common reading errors due to dyslexia" and links to a masters thesis as the first citation for the page and supporting citation for this statement. This is not a peer reviewed piece; it is unpublished outside of the University of Twente. It also discusses a different typeface, specifically Dyselxie, which is not open access, rather it is a paid for product produced by graphic designer Christian Boer as his own final thesis project at Utrecht Art Academy in 2008 (source: https://www.dyslexiefont.com/en/background-information/the-designer/). The thesis also shows that the results do not support the hypotheses that Dyslexie font will increase reading speed for dyslexics, that it would increase reading speed for individuals without dyslexia, or that attitudes of dyslexic individuals toward the typeface would be positive (this last one showed that just shy of 20% of dyslexic individuals found the font 'very pleasant' and short of 5% found it 'very unpleasant', with mirroring results from non-dyslexic individuals - however the vast majority of both groups were neutral). Discussion section indicates support for the hypothesis that Dyslexie font decreases error rate in reading (compared to size matched Arial font), but the results show only a 'trend' (p = <0.1, not statistically significant), that is not further supported by the data. Over all I'm of the opinion that this single, unpublished thesis that doesn't support its own conclusions does not constitute citable evidence.

Moreover; included in the body of the dyslexia article is further reference to OpenDyslexic and other type-face related research in to mitigating dyslexia symptoms. It goes on to mention that differences noted in reducing error disappear when the distance between letters is controlled, indicating that the benefits may be due to increased letter spacing alone.

Other articles on WP include Dyslexia interventions, OpenDyslexic and Dyslexie, and these all surmise the current, very limited research body on typographic aids for dyslexia, which is to say that any support for their efficacy is anecdotal and that there is no statistically valid support for the usefulness of these fonts (despite claims made by the producers of said paid software).

I think my main concern is that by having an unsupported image as the defining image for the article dyslexia, the wrong message is given about the relevance of this particular methodology in combatting symptoms of dyslexia.

Apologies if this is not the place to post this; I made my concerns on the talk page for the dyslexia article, however they have since disappeared or been archived, I'm unsure which. JMcManly (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

May be useful information
From History of dyslexia research

Wydell and Butterworth reported the case study of an English-Japanese bilingual with monolingual dyslexia. Suggesting that any language where orthography-to-phonology mapping is transparent, or even opaque, or any language whose orthographic unit representing sound is coarse (i.e. at a whole character or word level) should not produce a high incidence of developmental phonological dyslexia, and that orthograpy can influence dyslexic symptoms

— Preceding unsigned comment added by dolfrog (talk • contribs) 16:30, 13 June 2009

I don't get onto Wikipedia much so am probably putting this into the wrong place, but would like to suggest something about the organization of information about dyslexia: I'd like to bring up the fact that the "dyslexia" diagnostic term was coined by Rudolf Berlin of Stuttgart, Germany, in 1887 to describe the inability to read. It's an Ancient diagnosis. We now know that dyslexia is actually an "umbrella" diagnostic term, that describes many different cognitive functions involved in reading, and that if you perform detailed cognitive testing of a group of dyslexics, many of them will have totally different "signatures" of functional abilities and weaknesses.

I'd like to suggest that it's by relying on just the term "dyslexic" that you're having trouble going global with descriptions. If, for example, you separate it out and talk about cognitive functions such as vision tracking, symbol recognition, symbol processing, and working memory, then you could easily apply those cognitive issues to any language out there. I refer you to a very interesting school called the Arrowsmith school in Canada. Here is the page in which they describe the 19 learning dysfunctions that they test for. http://www.arrowsmithschool.org/description.htm

Note that in almost any dyslexia literature, it typically refers to something called "phonemic ability" or something like that. Unfortunately, this is massively outdated and yes, refers almost exclusively to the English language. Note that I am not in any way affiliated with the above-mentioned school but unfortunately nobody else is documenting or talking about separate cognitive functions that make up dyslexia. (That I know of)

Even if you just added a category called "Dyslexia, Cognitive theories," it would be a first step IMHO. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moretoastplease (talk • contribs) 07:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Taare Zameen Par listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Taare Zameen Par to be moved to Like Stars on Earth. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Reading (process) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Reading (process) to be moved to Reading. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Eddie Izzard listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Eddie Izzard to be moved to Suzy Izzard. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Carl XVI Gustaf listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Carl XVI Gustaf to be moved to Carl XVI. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.