Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The KLF/Archive 3

Peter Robinson (journalist)
Peter Robinson, NME writer and author of Justified and Ancient History, now has a Wikipedia article. If we ever reference him we can link to his name now. I could have sworn we referenced one of his articles, but I've looked at the most likely articles and can't find anything. --kingboyk 13:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Press releases
Clearly press releases were issued, but are they still preserved? I ask because I have caught a tantalizing glimpse of the Chill Out press release, quoted here and there as a definition of ambient house. One such example was at the blog of our very own User:Electroclass (talk • contribs), here.

I have a slightly longer excerpt, found in a book. Other than that... I don't even know what the rest of it contains, but this seemed like a good opportunity to raise the question. –Unint 01:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised the Library of Mu doesn't have it, but a quick search suggests it doesn't. I'd recommend having a word with User:Drstuey (the librarian of Mu) or posting to the KLF mailing list. (And if you find it please let us know!) --kingboyk 09:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

1987 - Featured Article Candidate
The article on The JAMs' debut album - 1987 - is now a Featured Article Candidate. See Featured article candidates/1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?). --kingboyk 18:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ambient house/KLF resources

 * The article ambient house has Cauty/KLF-relevant citations we can liberate in the name of Mu, and a nice chronology placing Paterson and Cauty firmly at the centre of the genre.
 * The Orb's Adventures Beyond the Ultraworld has a quote from Paterson about the Land of Oz sessions
 * AMG "ambient house"
 * Melody Maker critics lists (3 KLF entries)
 * Muzik mag lists (3)
 * Slant Mag 25 key electronic albums (1)
 * The Stadium Techno Experience - Stadium House reference/White Room homage cover

Will Pop Eat Itself?
Anyone have a copy of this book and would they be willing to share any juicy quotes? It's apparently very heavy on The JAMs: http://www.theedge.abelgratis.co.uk/booksmusic/willpopeatitself.htm --kingboyk 00:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What is this site about
I just found the site
 * http://www.thesoundof.mu

Does anybody know what this "upcoming documentation" is about and who are the authors? On the site, there's also a song for download available. Daniel 20:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's been answered before, perhaps at Talk:The KLF?, and the answer is, I'm afraid, that we don't know any more about it than you do. I suspect it's not Bill & Jimmy, but it's very much a case of "wait and see". --kingboyk 17:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Project Directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:
 * User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
 * User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
 * User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia
Beginning cross-post.
 * See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★ MESSED  ROCKER ★  23:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

''End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.''

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Anniversary
Hiya. What do you think about 23 March as a potential "request date" for The KLF article on the front page? It's more or less 20 years since The JAMs' first release, and I suspect that the actual release date of AYNIL isn't numerologically or otherwise very significant to Bill and Jimmy: it was just a Monday, the traditional release day of new singles.

If you're up for it, then it'll be a case of adding the request date to the Today's featured article/requests section heading, by the looks of what's already being done there. --Vinoir 02:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Plus, though I hesitate to say it, the digit sum of that date would equal 17. --Vinoir 02:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hiya mate. I think go for it. It's 20 years since they started so this has to be the year for the front page; 23 March sounds like a great choice. --kingboyk 13:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah well, the 9th will do just as well! Teriffic stuff old bean. --Vinoir 12:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The KLF personnel
Regarding The KLF personnel and Wanda Dee, these are redirects that point to KLF Communications, but since the scrubbing of the additional communicators info the redirects are no longer suitable.

My take on the personnel issue is that it remains of definite relevance. These are the people who helped Drummond and Cauty actually realise their ideas. Chill Out would be much flatter without the pedal steel work of Graham Lee; the production of the Stadium House stuff (including The White Room) was enhanced by Mark Stent; the vocals of regulars Isaac Bello, Ricardo Lyte, Black Steel and Maxine Harvey exceeded in quality anything that Drummond and Cauty could have themselves mustered, and so on. Also, the duo were, in a sense, able to hide behind these 'frontmen/women' to help foster their own enigma. While there's no questioning the creative force of the duo, or their musical potential (e.g. Space, "WTIL? (Pure Trance)"), or the fact that the pre-Children of the Revolution material is mainly deliberately rough-edged, nonetheless the contrast between the 1987-88 productions and the later work exemplifies the difference made by the co-operative efforts of those regular contributors.

For this reason, I still think that they merit a higher-level view than the fragmented Personnel sections of individual song articles, so that readers can judge the relative contributions of those performers to the overall Drummond/Cauty canon. I agree that such info doesn't sit right in the KLF Communications article, which does after all discuss a record label.

Perhaps what we're missing here is a separate Trancentral article that details the recording studio (some suitable material for which sits in LTTT), instrumentation (which currently sits slightly awkwardly flow-wise in The KLF article) and the additional performers. Thinking about it, I'm slightly surprised that no-one (myself included) threw this one forward before. I guess we were in the thick of FA-nom-World. Anyways, what are your thoughts? --Vinoir 23:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw an "x personnel" article recently but I can't remember which group it was. Funnily enough I did think then that perhaps I should move ours back to article space.


 * WRT to a Trancentral or recording article, do we have enough material?


 * More detailed reply to follow, winding down for the day now :) --kingboyk 23:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty certain that we've got enough to make a good basic shape of article with what we've already got (personnel list/trancentral/instrumentation). Beyond that, Mark Stent has spoken about the process, 45 mentions some relevant bits (including that jiggery-pokery was needed to get Tammy's vocal into meter), and I expect there's material to be found in The Manual.  The duo's unconventional technical methods (1987, Chill Out and, according to Stent, the singles chart era too) and pioneering tendancies make for a worthwhile good-quality exposition, it feels like.  Because it'd be right to point out that they couldn't easily take their music into a live context, even the Wanda Dee thing would seem to be caught by this article.


 * As for it's name, I'd somehow bizarrely forgotten that everything wasn't all done and dusted within the walls of Trancentral, so we couldn't really take that name for the article. P'raps instead we would need something with the gist of 'KLF production methods'.


 * I guess that realistically we need to get past 9th March before anything should happen anyway. :-) --Vinoir 01:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. Like the name of your mechanoid Wiki-servant, by the way. :D
 * You're selling this to me quite well I have to admit... Let's talk about it some more tommorow/next time you're on, or if you feel like it you can map a structure out in a subpage or something... we can even use WikiProject_The_KLF/Additional_Communicators as the sandbox if you like, since it's not in article space.
 * As for a title, how about The KLF in the studio?
 * Kingbotk? Great name isn't it :) --kingboyk 01:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'll have a concerted play in that sandbox at some not-too-distant point. --Vinoir 18:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Some people seem to think the phrase 'in the studio' is too much of a cliche—I did personally get told off for using it in an article once.
 * Also, congratulations on front page material; good to see the project back together again. –Unint 00:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Cliche huh? :) So, open to the floor for any other suggestions... Thanks for the congrats by the way. --kingboyk 10:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Vaguely (very vaguely) comparable articles: Notable or frequent contributors to Pink Floyd, The Beatles' influence on music recording. Any others? --kingboyk 14:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Touring and studio musicians of Phil Collins should do it. –Unint 16:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Themes
In Martin Hinks useful review of "Whitney Joins The JAMs", he naturally expected to find a discussion of the track's lyrical themes in the ==Themes== section. Would there be any merit in renaming such sections as ==Continuity== throughout the album/single articles? --Vinoir 00:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Slayer
These guys are catching us up! 2 FAs from 34 articles... --kingboyk 20:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's now at 9 :) LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD notice
23 (numerology) is nominated at AfD. Unilateral keep votes so far, but there have been concerns that the article needs some serious work... –Unint 16:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Plan
...We need one.

I don't really have the inclination to do a massive source trawl at the moment (I still have a lot of articles from Proquest to get through, which I will do but it will have to wait). We're also a bit rusty. I suggest then that we choose an article which is already in a good condition but which just needs some minor sourcing and some final polishing, and then get it submitted for whatever process is most applicable. A new GA, peer review or FA is what we need to get back into the swing of things I think and to announce that we're back :) --kingboyk 12:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. It'll be cool to see the Project back in full swing. I reckon you should go for the The K Foundation burn a million quid as GA considering the discussion below, and maybe even FA after that if you feel inclined. LuciferMorgan 02:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Four more GAs and the Slayer Project will be tying on GAs with the KLF Project... :) LuciferMorgan 02:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Once the 'Context' section of The Magnificent is in place and the article is copy-edited, that might be one to put up for GA ? I've got my eye on a cool image of Fleka that I'm trying to decide the fair use status of (...not a living person, absence of free alternatives).  Either way, I definitely think that creative attention should swing fully on to giving The K Foundation burn a million quid a dandy bow tie. I had a thorough read-through of it today. It's already very healthy, thanks to kingboyk. --Vinoir 04:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, The Magnificent for GA, million quid for FAC and possible aim for next year's April Fool's, and I think Chill Out for FAC so we can get some of their more serious work featured for a change! --kingboyk 13:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

April Fool's Main Page/Featured Article
Looks like the K Foundation burning a million quid was the leading contender to be the April Fools Day FAC, but for reasons unclear it's dropped out of the running. I've made the bold claim that we could get it Featured by then, as I believe we could (article isn't far from FA already, the FAC process itself need only take a day or two if expedited). Perhaps you'd take a look and chip in?

Failing that - and given our recent front page appearance - we might want to bat for next year instead. --kingboyk 13:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can go along with getting The K Foundation burn a million quid up to FA status as our next priority. --Vinoir 18:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I argued that we could do it, but really I think next year's April 1st would be better to bat for, having just been on the front page... --kingboyk 18:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I feel similarly about the prospect of two K articles so near to each other on the front page. I'm also not particularly keen on April Fool's Day as a proposed date for it either.  --Vinoir 19:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The idea of the April Fool's Day FA is that it's an article which seems to be ridiculous but is actually true (like the British Rail flying saucer)... I think this would fit quite well, but I also suspect we have at least a year to argue about it :) --kingboyk 20:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Kalevala
A one-line mention of Drummond and Manning's Kalevala Records project might be in order? --kingboyk 12:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The Orb
The Orb - the earliest incarnation of which featured KLF member Jimmy Cauty - is now a Featured Article thanks to the work of User:Wickethewok. The nomination can be read here. --kingboyk 10:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

One featured article per quarter
One featured article per quarter is a drive whereby Wikipedians promise to try and write one FA per quarter. Apparently, at the current rate of promotion, it will take 3 centuries to reach 100,000 Featured Articles! --kingboyk 10:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That fact doesn't bode too well on Wikipedia's success does it? LuciferMorgan 15:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No. --kingboyk 15:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The statistic sounds a shocker, but I'd hope the current rate of promotion would rise over time: the quality of an article improves with age, and so the average quality of all articles will also improve (especially once the new article rate slows right down); that should increase the promotion rate. Also, at the moment, the percentage of users who are producing FA standard articles is small.  As article quality increases, it'll take less effort to take articles to and through FA, and more people will feel able to be involved. --Vinoir 20:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquote
I noticed that several bands and musicians have pages at Wikiquote with lyrics, interview snippets, critical commentary and so on. I'm sure there's plenty of juicy quotes that would make for some nice pages on KLF, JAMs, Drummond, Cauty, and even Ford Timelord :) --kingboyk 11:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record...
Just for the record! :-) Carcharoth 01:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol, thanks :) --kingboyk 20:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone nominated the Slayer Project too - perhaps the nominators should write an FA or two sometime. :) LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Images
Did you ask to use it? please remove this pictures and make your own scans. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.179.44.203 (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

this message is for kingboyk: please remove this pictures!


 * Under fair use, permission does not need to be asked (assuming that the work actually makes valid fair use claims, which I'm sure these images do). See the Wikipedia policy page on fair use: WP:FU and the article on fair use.  Who scans the images is irrelevant, as taking a non-creative photo/copy of album cover art does not make this photo/copy/scan a new original work.  The cover art is still copyright of the publisher/label/whoever regardless - I believe it is the case that the person making the copy/scan has no unique rights to the image, though I could be mistaken.  You could go here for a fair use review, but these images will not be removed as almost certainly fall under fair use.  Wickethewok (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wickethewok is correct. I guess somebody's just sore because I removed a "KLF-communications" Youtube link from the article... Anyway: The website in question doesn't own the scans, and any attempt to remove them for malicious reasons will result in a block in order to protect the integrity of this and related articles. (And already has, in fact). It's strange, btw, that he should remove a link to his site as most folks like the free publicity! Doesn't strike me as a true KLF fan either, if he wants to vandalise the best article about them on the web... --kingboyk (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you did not understand, the problem is not that you use the pictures, the problem is kind you are do it.The "wikipedia fair use policy" is for wikipedia user, for you and not for me. We spend our time and money to create this websides, and we do not like it when somebody copies pictures from our websides, does not ask for it and creates no info what the source is of this pictures. Other websides also use our pictures, but the did ask for it and the makes notes where they get the pictures. But you did not do it and this was not only one picture, you copied twentyeight pictures. We noticed this a long time ago but we ignored it. But we did also noticed a other thing, everytime when we add a link to the wikipedia you removed it. We add links to our subsides or to friendly sides or to free download releases and you remove it. The point when we want to set a sign was when you remove the link to the X-Mas video on the KLF Television subside. Did you think that you are the only one that can decide which information is good for a KLF fan and which is it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.179.38.193 (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What makes you think the images came from you in the first place? I'm not saying they didn't, but how can you say this with certainty?
 * You have absolutely no legal rights to the images just because you scanned them. None. Zero. Nada.
 * You get a "free" link to your website, which is more than most websites get.... but by rights you don't "get" anything in return; whether or not the scans came from you does not give you priveledges to add extra external links to Wikipedia articles.
 * Considering that all the work we do here is free, i.e. other people can republish it without charge, that you then moan about the use of a few scans which you may have done is extremely mean spirited. The writers here don't even own all these releases.
 * As one of the main writers of this article and as a Wikipedia admin it's my job to protect the integrity of the KLF articles. This means ensuring no violations of WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a directory of downloads, it's not a Youtube directory; it's an encyclopedia) and WP:EL.
 * "Did you think that you are the only one that can decide which information is good for a KLF fan and which is it not?" No, but if you want to be involved in that process too, get an account, learn our policies, start editing articles, take part in dialogue, just do anything that doesn't involve posting spam weblinks and being a whinging kunt!!! --kingboyk (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC) (PS Much of this is academic now as many of the images will be deleted due to their removal from KLF Communications, a process which - unconnected to this debate - I've decided to stop fighting against; see Talk:KLF_Communications.)

"What makes you think the images came from you in the first place?" The pictures are still in our database and you did not change the pictures, you did only rename it. So it is easy to see where the pictures come from. Every picture on our webside of a real existing record is scaned by us, because we have the records.

So forget it, you can use every picture from us, but make a notice where they come from. Other websides do this the same way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.179.38.193 (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The KLF discography
is up for it's second Featured List Candidacy. If you would like to review the nomination please see Featured list candidates/The KLF discography. --kingboyk (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured Topics
See Featured topic criteria. The Slayer guys have one for Christ Illusion - an FA on the album, and 2 FAs on the singles it spawned. I was thinking that our body of work might similarly lend itself to a number of legitimate, smaller potential featured topics, such as:
 * JAMs. The KLF + discography? + all albums and singles. Will list with grades in a moment.
 * K Foundation: K Foundation (current FAC), K Foundation art award (GA), K Foundation Burn a Million Quid (a strong B-class), K Cera Cera (Start class; problematic because of material, but might be able to beef and polish up to GA or get a dispensation). Drummond & Cauty's bios probably aren't needed but if they are they're only B and need a lot of work.
 * The White Room album. Such an important topic this, and yet the articles are mostly crap. The White Room (Start), "What Time Is Love?" (GA), "3 a.m. Eternal" (B), "Last Train to Trancentral" (GA), "Justified and Ancient" (GA).
 * The White Room (expanded topic), as above plus "Kylie Said to Jason" (Start) and The White Room (film) ( a redirect).

The most realistic of these is K Foundation, which needs the eponymous article to pass FAC and one more to go through (both the Turner prize and burning articles are well within reach of FAC), and K Cera to either get beefed up as sources allow or given dispensation.

The JAMs is possible but they might not allow it because there's no eponymous article. I'll ask.

As for The KLF themselves, of course not all articles within this project would go into the topic (K Foundation is seperate, Cauty solo work is seperate, etc; JAMs would probably be replaced by KLF and include Timelords). I'll have to reread the rules, but for now I think:
 * these apply and comply:
 * KLF, 1987, All You Need Is Love, Fuck the Millennium (FA); Whitney, Doctorin', Grim Up North, Justified & Ancient, Last Train, WTIL?, Burn the Bastards, Down Town, Shag Times, The Magnificent (GA). Disco 2000? (GA). -- probably, with Space, this is KLF Comms not KLF...
 * the following articles would need to become GA or better:
 * Bill Drummond, Chill Out, Jimmy Cauty, 3am, Who Killed The JAMs, The "What Time Is Love?" Story, The Manual, Kylie Said to Jason, KLF films
 * So, not in scope for KLF:
 * K Foundation, art award, burning million quid, K Cera Cera;?? Blacksmoke, Brilliant, Space, The Man, Gimpo... actually all mid and low importance except Kylie Said to Jason and KLF films
 * Don't know:
 * Black Room, List of The KLF's creative associates

--kingboyk (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"JAMs albums" and "JAMs singles" would fail "The topic has an introductory and summary lead article." I'll ask tommorow whether "JAMs" would be successful, as it has The KLF as "an introductory and summary lead article". Probably flogging a dead horse, however. --kingboyk (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has said anything on this page in 1 year. Can I go ahead and nominate some topics within the scope of this project? Nergaal (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  21:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

New article
The17 is now an article. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for The KLF
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements
I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:18, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment for Justified and Ancient
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Justified and Ancient/GA1. I have placed the article on hold for one week to allow for these issues to be fixed. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment for Shag Times
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Shag Times/GA1. I have placed the article on hold for one week to allow for these issues to be fixed. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people
Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
 * 1) supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
 * 2) opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
 * List of cleanup articles for your project

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
 * Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
 * Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

Ikip 05:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The KLF articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the The KLF articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (&diams;) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

New TFA nomination
I've nominated the article 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) for consideration as a candidate for WP:Today's Featured Article, please see Today's featured article/requests, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

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) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)