Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines/Archive 2

New start
A wikiproject of this name was started in 2006, but nothing of substance seems to have come of it, and there is not much discussion either (/Archive2006). Since this is the most appropriate name for such a project, I've gone ahead and been WP:BOLD and rebooted these pages. Lets hope this time it is more successful. Rd232 talk 02:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I get it. We already have WP:CENT to alert users of important policy decisions, what exactly is this project going to do? Beeblebrox (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The rationale is here User:Rd232/WP (now with an added subsection on WP:CENT). Some of that rationale needs to come here to clarify. To take the lead there: "Wikipedia doesn't maintain, manage or reform policy in a way that is either coordinated (tactical) or long-term (strategic). A WikiProject Policy is needed." ... "This page in a nutshell: If policy is worth having, it's worth looking after." Rd232 talk 03:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * While I agree with some of the points on that page, I'm still unclear as to what this project is going to do about it. For example why the "conference room" would work better than any other talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There wouldn't have been anything special about it, but it's moot as I decided to give each proposal a sub-page (once it comes out of the Suggestion Box). (Of course this process is up for debate - part of the point of this project is to be more flexible about how we do discussion and this initial structure is just a starting point; a working draft if you will.) What remains of its function is this page, I guess.


 * What will the project do about it? Well the idea is to filter the many ideas that Wikipedians have (which appear all over the place) better, and to better select potentially good ideas and turn them not just into proposals but good proposals, and then present them to the community when they're in a form that's really worth discussing because it's already been chewed over quite a bit and obvious glitches addressed (or if not addressable, the idea dropped). One of the aims is to reduce the amount of discussion elsewhere of ideas that aren't well-developed enough, which wastes everyone's time (taking time away from editing) and fills up talkpages (taking attention away from other issues) and possibly kills a good idea before it could properly be hatched. Another aim is to get people to think about policy per se, to collaborate to to try rewrite policy for clarity and consistency for example; because generally policy now only gets changed in response to specific problems, which leads to messy ad hoc policy. Does that make any sense? Rd232 talk 14:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well anyway, I'm trying to get the idea off the ground, so any input on how to develop things would be good. Rd232 talk 03:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I very much agree with all the rationale and objectives. I guess the most important thing now is to get more publicity and more people declaring a willingness to be involved.--Kotniski (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Bug reports
Many of the more-useful proposals on the non-policy proposals page end up as a bug report. Some bug reports have been around for ages. How can we establish better communication between devs and editors? –MT 05:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well my first thoughts are
 * Get more people to sign up for bugzilla accounts (it's separate from WP): Bugzilla
 * Get more people to vote on bugs (bugzilla voting)
 * Make a list of currently requested feature enhancements, and track their status (and possibly consider alternatives, rationalisations, etc)
 * Publicise this: eg make user page and user talk page template notices (for use on people's own pages, not for WP:CANVASsing)
 * Consider whether canvassing for cool features would be OK

Well that's a start. We really need input from people with more experience of this though. Rd232 talk 23:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PS By "track status" I partly mean things like this where a software request is already implemented in optional javascript. Rd232 talk 23:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

For registration+voting, we need a "step-by-step" walkthrough. I think that tracking is a good idea. For important bugs, we should have corresponding 'proposals' pages at /[bugid], with the ability to 'vote' for the bug at wikipedia. There's a persistent proposals section at VP with a somewhat decent list. Perhaps that page is redundant with some of what we are trying to do? (An aside- do we need that large template at the top of the project? It's a bit of an information-shotgun/redundant, I think) –MT 05:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "large template"? you mean the talkheader? remove it if you want. Rd232 talk 12:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is all certainly true - communication with the devs is awful, and frankly the devs' attitude to us "lusers" is is in great need of correction - but I don't think this is really connected with the issues for which this project was set up. It badly needs addressing, but I would suggest elsewhere.--Kotniski (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the goal of the project was to get proposals implemented, and this seems to extend to technical proposals (ie "what is our policy/strategy for getting proposal of type X implemented.     M    10:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "I think the goal of the project was to get proposals implemented" - yes and no. Mostly no in relation to technical proposals. However I think this is a reasonable extension of/overlap with the project's goals, and if all the participants agree and we're not treading on anyone else's toes, why not? Rd232 talk 12:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Old thread, but still: cf WP:DevMemo. Rd232 talk 12:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Organization
Project page more compact. WikiProject_Policy_and_Guidelines/Suggestion_Box is a bit too advanced and daunting. A suggestion is something people leave on a torn corner of paper - a multi-field form is a bit much. As soon as people see a block of text/tables/graphics on the internet, they turn on 'skimming mode', and if this fails to find a "place to start reading" (some bold text, perhaps), they click the back button. I think that we should start with something compact and simple. "If you'd like us to help you draft a proposal, leave a message on the talk page", for example. (I don't see the difference between suggestions and drafts.) When I was asked to draft a proposal, I couldn't figure out what I should do. Perhaps before we develop sub-pages we should provide easy defaults, and thereafter develop the process a bit.

The proposals process is or should be as follows, italics marks pitfalls:


 * 1) A person has a problem ...but has no ideas
 * 2) They come up with a solution ...but don't know where to propose it
 * 3) They share it ...but it's worded poorly
 * 4) People comment ...but they don't focus on developing the idea
 * 5) There is development and reformulation ...but no consensus is established
 * 6) The proposal gains support ...but nothing further is done
 * 7) Someone is found to complete it ...but fades away on a todo list
 * 8) The proposal is implemented ...but a better solution was overlooked

Reducing the pitfalls. The most harmful pitfalls at the moment are #4 and #6. I think that #1 goes to the help desk, though perhaps by looking at problems we can come up with ideas. #2 involves making the props page easier to find. We can also help people along at this point, in case they want a 'supportive' place to discuss proposals, so that they can get to #3. I think this should go through some discussion at props - we can always pull it out after. At #4 things tend to explode into pages of text, and I'm not sure how to handle this (perhaps moderators). #5 is usually a pretty natural death, but might be due to text-overload, or lack of clarity. #6 requires incentive, and someone to come along with 'clear next-steps', and perhaps we can provide this. #7 requires a prominent "tracking" list, with the ability for people to add support. '''It seems that this project would serve as a "safety net" for all stages. '''

Tracking at project page - contribution here. The main page of projpol should be used for tracking, and this page should be used for all discussions, including proposal drafting and so on. These are very safe defaults. It's harder to keep track of many pages, and many pages make it hard to decide where to go. Much of the project page might be moved to /About, in favor of a short overview, and then todos/notices. This would allow us to better look after both vpprops and this project itself. After we see how the whole process is going, we'll be able to come up with much more specific goals. Thoughts? M   12:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine. I'm not really happy with the Suggestion Box either; it sounded a better idea to me before I actually did it (though I think it could be good at some point in the future with some kind of Wizard or snazzy template perhaps). For now, please be bold and change it as you think best. Rd232 talk 12:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I messed around with things, and I probably broke something, but now there's a (rather ugly) list of proposals there.     M    14:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * May I ask how you decided to add an endorsement to some of these proposals, as if this project supports them? I don't see any discussion here indicating an endorsement. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the 'support'? It was an indicator of what the proposal needs to proceed. Feel free to change it, I think that even if 'this project supports X' was placed there, it would just be an instance of WP:BRD.     M   00:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Goals
The ultimate goal is to develop an encyclopedia, so most of what we do should have a clear path towards that. Some high-level goals include 1) increasing time spent by editors doing productive work, 2) increasing the number of editors, 3) increasing response times for bad edits, 4) reducing conflict among editors, and 5) increasing the quality of edits.

Projpol seems to focus explicitly on 4 and 5. Clear and available guidelines reduce conflict, good style guidelines increase quality. To improve these policies, we might do a review of them, one at a time. This might involve making the policies explicit and simple, discussing problems, and correcting them. (For example, 'administrators are nothing more than editors with access to certain tools' seems to contradict 'administrators have a greater duty to be nice'. Is there a contradiction, and how should it be resolved?) We might also want to request that a bot crawl histories looking for editors whose last few edits were in talk pages, to see whether and which disputes cause people to edit less. Should we do policy review, and if so, where should we start? Perhaps with edit warring, since we're already tracking that? M   15:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Join forces?
I don't see much interest in this project - maybe it would help achieve a critical mass if we joined up with the MOS project, which I think has very similar aims for a particular subset of the guidelines.--Kotniski (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe. How would that actually work? Rd232 (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Take on similar goals. The focus on getting proposals implemented is difficult to pull off without a lot more participants. I'm going to go dump all that into an archive/subpage, and generally mess around with things.    M   17:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What does a good policy page look like?
I think that the most important thing is length. A lot of the time, a problem or misunderstanding is pointed out, or something needs to be emphasized, and the same thing is said twice in different words. This is fine for articles, but it means that policy pages end up being quite large. I've been messing around with CSD, removing extra words, and moving extra content 'lower' so that the actual policy is right up front, and exceptions and deviations come later. This means that to understand a very simple policy, you have to wade through a lot of explanations and fluff. As an example, take WP:EP


 * Wikipedia is the product of thousands of editors' contributions. Each has brought something different to the table: researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess, tidbits of information, or, most importantly, a willingness to help. Even the best article should not be considered complete; each new editor offers new insights about how to further enhance our content.

This isn't policy. There are two facts/semi-positions (editor numerousness, diversity), and a position (all articles are incomplete). As far as I can tell skimming through it, the page just summarizes a number of other policies. We should spend some time discussing what a good policy and policy page is, and then perhaps work on making Policies_and_guidelines reflect those. To throw a few qualities out there: short, non-redundant, separates position/policy/process/rationale, clarification is done by changing the wording and not tacking on extra explanations later (excluding exceptions), purposes are stated and specific and not fluffy. Anything else?   M   18:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to improve WP:POL in order to make it a bit more clear what our policies should be like. A review of Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines would help me out.   M   01:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The paragraph you quoted isn't policy, but that sort of thing may, in general, serve a useful purpose by informing the policy. We want people to understand why the policy is the way it is, after all. causa sui  ×  11:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"adopt a page" model
Hi team,

What a cool club! :) Over at village pump:proposals, User:WhatAmIDoing made a thoughtful suggestion, that we'd make the most progress if we "adopt a page" and hone it for several weeks.  I think if my edits to certain policy pages had been discussed, critiqued, etc., by members of this group, the language would have been longer-lasting; as it is, every three days, someone visits the page, gets angry that his Pet Text is gone, reverts it, and I have to have the same conversation over and over again until I give up and entropy takes over.

So, if you agree, the first thing is, we need to get rid of this text:

Then, I guess we should strategize about where to start?

I'm really excited that you've started up this group, by the way. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll put current activities at the top of the work done section. I think that deletion is a great place to start, there's a lot of room for improvement, it's very important both externally and internally, and isn't that difficult to improve. I've been hanging out at CSD for a while now, and recently rewrote PROD. Adding a structure to our top-level deletion page, to lay out our entire deletion operations and then work from there seems a good next step. Also, check out WP:PG, especially the content section. The lower 'how to change demote etc' stuff needs to be fixed, but that can't happen until the RfC page is fixed (it's a mix of instruction manual, noticeboard, etc. iirc), which involves fixing our dispute resolution/talk page policy stuff. The naming conventions policy is also in dire need of repair - it's a giant index, except every single index entry has its own huge heading.    M   00:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Good change, and good idea pointing out WP:PG... we should work that in to the "instructions" somehow, if it's not already there (I may have just missed it). I think that you're on to something when it comes to RfC needing to be changed/fixed as well, but that's a discussion to have on the policy page. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 01:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

getting new interest
1) Put a post here: WP:Community_portal

2) Isn't there a "league of copy editors" or something? I'll bet a lot of those people are professional copy editors.  When I was creating my new Task Force for the law school curriculum, I manually pasted invitations on literally hundreds of talk pages; as long as they had a userbox that expressed some interest in the law, I felt justified in doing so.  You might want to do the same for people have self-identified to be interested in copyediting, like the League.  Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * heh... there was a WikiProject League of Copyeditors, but as you can see by going there it's currently inactive. They were never really "professional" in any sense regardless. There really are no, and are likely never to be, and "professional" Wikipedia editors, since that's sort of against some core principles that Wikipedia holds to. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 01:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Userbox
What is it? I want a uxerboooooox! Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)



Voilà.   M   00:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not bad! I'm not big into joining groups or anything, and I don't like cluttering up my user page with these sorts of things, but it certainly doesn't bother me that others use them. Every project seems to have one regardless, so at least now we do as well. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 01:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Dragooning your effort
Hi folks!

Two points. First, I'm Shanghaiing your efforts here as a part of Village pump (proposals)/Archive 51. If I had known that this project page was being "rebooted" when I wrote that post, I would have said something here earlier. Anyway, Thanks for you efforts so far, and hopefully we can continue to get this going. There seems to be a lot of recent interest in this subject, for whatever reason.

Also, as part of the effort to dragoon y'all, and in response to some feedback at the proposal announcement above, I wanted to let everyone know that I've edited the notice in the sign-up portion of the project page. It now reads: "by adding your name, you hereby swear to adopt a policy page from the list above". I have nothing against the goal of reducing and simplifying policies, and I think that is a good goal, but I think that this should be a more general effort. — V = I * R  (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good call. actually, I maybe stole your thunder regarding changing the sign-up notice. I think we should delete the line entirely, or perhaps just put in something more whimsical like,  "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of Wikipedia editor, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Policies and Guidelines of the Wikipedia."  Based on the US president oath of office.  Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 14:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and all that. I've changed the notice. My take is this - every once in a while, someone comes along and gets downright annoyed with the crappy state of our policies. Similar proposals have been made before - F203 made one at around the time of this discussion. The problem, of course, is that few actually do a damn thing to clean things up. Policy cleanup is hard, you have to be neutral and patient. You have to be able to cut crap out without actually changing the meaning. I've found that editing in sustained 'bursts', where each edit is itself clear and unarguable, is a great way to do things, since a full-on one-revision rewrite is very hard to follow. I guess people run into these barriers, or don't know where to start. Or they get stuck in discussions. I'm not actually sure who's currently running around cleaning policy up (as opposed to being very familiar with it). This project itself wasn't up to that much, but I had a 'hitlist' going, so, uh, I basically moved it to this page... the idea was to make some actual-work-being-done more visible. If you go off and get some work done, or see it being done, add it to the page, notify the person doing the work.   M   23:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Those are very good points regarding the difficulty here, and we shouldn't really expect loads of participants here because of that. Policy editing is a marathon, not a sprint. We should try to capture that in the introduction... it's sort of there, but not quite.
 * Anyway, yea, documenting what any of us has done (or in involved in) is a great idea. There are always edit histories of course, but this pulls everything together in a cohesive manner. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 02:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions
I'm trying to clean up Naming conventions, and am having some problems with it. Perhaps someone here has a better approach.   M   00:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions 2
Progress has been made with WP:Naming conventions; there is now a proposal to rationalize by merging several other naming conventions pages into it. Please have a look at the discussion at WT:Naming conventions.--Kotniski (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

WT:RFC#Revamp
Anyone want to comment on the proposed revamp of WP:RFC/U (user conduct RFCs) at WT:RFC? Rd232 talk 09:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: this has now been implemented. Rd232 talk 08:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist suggestion: WP:POLICY
User:Camelbinky has proposed changing WP:POLICY's description of Wikipedia's policies to emphasize their optional nature. He appears to believe that WP:NOTLAW contradicts the longstanding statement that "Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are standards that all users should follow," and appears to believe that a short-lived straw poll about NOTLAW demonstrates a consensus for this change.

Editors watching this page may be interested in watching that page for the next week or so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Way of reducing sizes of some guidelines
A number of guidelines have sections that contain sections which are instructions on how to perform actions, without any debatable content, e.g. Images. A lot of this info could be transferred to a how-to or relevent help file, leaving bare minimum to keep the policy or guideline in context. This would reduce the size of guidelines and redundancy with the help files, and serve to highlight the actual guideline material itself. Lee&there4;V <font color="#a3bfb1">(talk • <font color="#a3bfb1">contribs) 01:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC) (Help Project)


 * Yes, but at the expense of making editors navigate and read at least two pages to find necessary information ("what" to do and "how" to do it). The current "one-stop shopping" system means that editors waste less time searching for information, which means more time writing the encyclopedia.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If that was the current system, then yes. But most of the time help information is kept separate from guidelines and policies - that seems to be the current standard. I would actually propose something more radical - introduce a true one-stop system, where we don't make any attempt to distinguish the "what" from the "how". It would mean moving all policies and guidelines into help space, and merging them with help pages as appropriate. (But until such a proposal is adopted, we should try to make the current system consistent within itself, so I generally agree with Lee.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

These things are a mess because they're trying to achieve too many things (describe the software usage; describe policy/guideline; help people actually do things, both newbie and very experienced); because in some cases they were written on Meta and transferred without much adaptation; and because there's no logic about the Help: and Wikipedia: namespace usage. Help:File page, which I just tried to improve a bit, is a good example - it's got guideliney stuff in it. Duplication should of course be minimised, but clarity is an issue too. "One-stop-shop" is a laudable objective, but it's much less important than either duplication or clarity: this is a wiki, after all, it's all about organising information clearly and clicking if necessary.

So I'd say that really, we need to split things better. For instance, make the Help: pages aimed very clearly at newbies - just simple and not too scary or detailed; focus on links. Where there's technical complexity, find a way of putting it somewhere else, eg a help page with a related name focussing on the technical, or on a subpage, linked from a section at the bottom. Keep guideline stuff separate. In the example kicking off this thread, Images, the actual guideline stuff could boiled down to a paragraph, and the rest moved to a help page. Rd232 talk 09:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with all of that, though it's my feeling that there's no real need to keep the "guideline stuff" separate - it's just something we've got used to doing. If someone's looking for information about Images on Wikipedia, they're probably going to be interested in all apsects - the technical means and the community norms - splitting the two is artificial and sometimes counterintuitive. A far more valuable split, as Rd also mentions, is between the essential information that newbies need, and the more complex information that experienced editors are likely to be searching for. --Kotniski (talk) 10:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reasons for splitting off guideline data are mostly for maintainability, clarity, and emphasis. For instance, guidelines may change more frequently than help instructions, and whilst users may figure out tech stuff by looking at examples and adapting, the guideline elements are less easy to absorb by osmosis. Rd232 talk 10:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I necessarily agree with that (do community standards change more often than software features? do users not learn a lot about norms by observing rather than reading?) In any case, I don't see how such a split adds clarity or emphasis, and it may actually damage maintainability, as we've seen (everyone busies themselves with the sexy policies and guidelines, and the help pages are often left and forgotten until someone realizes how out-of-date and badly written they are). --Kotniski (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that has more to do with duplication, and a failure to clearly/visibly link related pages, than anything else. Rd232 talk 11:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe, though the fact that policies/guidelines help people to win arguments (or so they think) must be a big factor... But the duplication comes about partly because it's so unnatural (in some cases) to split the tech stuff from the norms - hence the norms come to be mentioned on the tech pages, and vice versa, just out of the writer's natural desire for clarity.--Kotniski (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To an extent, yes, but it can be kept to a minimum. Better use of WP:Summary style might help. Rd232 talk 12:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

MOS Taskforce
There is currently a program of rationalising styleguide pages. Please see WT:MOS. Tony  (talk)  03:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should the NPOV policy contain two sections devoted to pseudoscience and religion?
Please see this section of Wikipedia talk:NPOV. The NPOV policy currently contains two sections on specific topics: a 534-word section on pseudoscience and a 267-word section on religion. These sections were removed last month as being too specific after an RfC was posted on April 3. The pseudoscience section was moved to WP:FRINGE, and the religion section removed entirely. The sections have now been restored by others on the grounds that consensus was not established, or has changed. Fresh eyes would therefore be appreciated here on talk to decide whether to restore or remove the sections. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 00:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Policy templates
I have proposed merging Guideline list into Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please see discussion at Template_talk:Guideline_list. Rd232 talk 13:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested edits
The explanations of and instructions for requested edits are all over the place currently, being split between Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests, Template:Edit protected and Suggestions for COI compliance (and possibly elsewhere too).

The titles Requested edits and Edit requests are currently redirects to WP:AN which doesn't deal with them, so they have been nominated at Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 May 20. I think one of them should be repurposed to provide a central overview to the policies and guidelines. It would seem like a useful fit with the project's goals to take on this task.

You comments a the above-linked RfD would be most welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll stick my oar in. Rd232 talk 02:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability (geography)
A draft proposal for a guideline on the notability of geographic places is being constructed at Notability (geography) G. C. Hood (talk) 12:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Attack page
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Attack page suggesting a change in the policy's status to a guideline or its redirect to WP:CSD. Comments should be placed on the talk page. G. C. Hood (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

request for comments on general reliability of children's sources
A request for comments is pending on whether children's sources are generally reliable enough for adult-level facts so that Wikipedia editors need not be advised to look beyond a source itself to find out whether a source meets WP:RS. A similar question applies to large-print books not described as full-text. Please consider participating. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject volleyball - invitation to discussion
This is an special invitation for experienced editors to the discussion in WikiProject Volleyball about the proposal for Notability Guide for Volleyball Players. Your wise and kind participation will be highly appreciated. Osplace 20:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC announcement
Please see the RfC at Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything/Archive 2 --Guy Macon (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Policy and Guidelines at Wikimania 2014
Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014 For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Deprecation of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board
A proposal to discontinue use of the RfC request board is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. G. C. Hood (talk) 08:54, 6 August 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) 22:47, 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) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Inactive
This project appears to be inactive. Is anyone interested in reviving it? Otherwise, where is the best place to discuss editing the policies WP:Civility, WP:NPA and WP:Harassment in a co-ordinated way, so that the policies do not overlap unnecessarily or contradict each other, and so that the individual policies conform to Policies and guidelines?--Boson (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Biographies of living persons to be moved to Living persons. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Relevant discussion
There is a village pump idea lab post at Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 22 that may interest you. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  19:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)