Wikipedia talk:Help Project/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Help Project. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

What do you think we should do first?

One possibility is to survey the whole help system, figure out what's there, and try to map it all out to see how it all links together. --Go for it! 19:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The first task is to get a decent home page for the WikiProject.--:HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Before we ever want to decide on the order (or logical linkage) of things, I think we need to group things by subject/topic. There is considerable overlap, and it can get maximally confusing with everything scattered about. I tried some elementary grouping by topics on Starter toolset (just to illustrate one way of handling it). In the end, a Wikipedia index would not be such a bad idea.

⇒ _normxxx| ^talk ⇒ email 23:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Help namespace versus help pages in Wikipedia namespace

This message used to be at the bottom of Help:Contents:

The Help namespace

The help namespace contains copies of help pages from Meta, with Wikipedia-specific templates (this page is an exception). The wikitext of each is intended to be an exact copy of that of the master page on Meta, while the rendered page is different owing to the templates.

Each help page contains a template with the same name with extra prefix "Ph" (Project-specific help template), e.g Template:Ph:Namespace, with Wikipedia- and subject-specific content. Typically it should at least contain links to pages in the Wikipedia namespace about the same subject. Please help creating those links, as well as links from those pages to the help page on Wikipedia and the master page on Meta.

Some existing pages in the Wikipedia namespace already contain the Wikipedia-specific content and may be simply moved to the template of that page (removing all content that duplicates that of the master page).

List of Wikipedia- and subject-specific Ph templates (including empty ones)

Does anybody know how the above system works, and why it was set up this way? --Go for it! 08:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Would the contributor of the above please

sign it, and
post it (or a link) somewhere that an old-timer will see it and give us an answer? Maybe Village pump (technical)?
copy any answer back onto this page?

This is my #1 to-find-out before I start ~~taking revenge on~~ improving :-) the Help pages, especially w/r/t redlinks. Somebody's regularly copying Meta pages into Wp space; somebody therefore ought to know what's going on.--TJ 12:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I created a template to try and explain the situation. That failed, so I left an explanation on the template's talk page. As for why it was set up this way, I don't know. Gareth Aus 07:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The various projects use the same MediaWiki software; the system of copying Meta pages avoids duplication of editing work and it avoids forking (forking would mean that some improvements are made in one copy, some in another). Yet it allows general and Wikipedia-specific content on the same page. People who just read the help pages need not go to a different project, neither do people who want to edit Wikipedia-specific content. Only for editing common help content one has to go to Meta.--Patrick 10:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Update of the message at the top of the section: Each help page also contains a template with the same name with extra prefix "Phh" (Project-specific help template in the header), e.g Template:Phh:Starting a new page, with Wikipedia- and subject-specific content. --Patrick 11:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thus we have:

List of Wikipedia- and subject-specific Phh templates (including empty ones) included at the top of the help page.
List of Wikipedia- and subject-specific Ph templates (including empty ones) included at the bottom of the help page.

Patrick 12:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The intention of the help namespace was originally that it was site-independent [1], but I see that there are also Wikipedia-specific help pages, such as Help:CatData. This may give name conflicts: when creating a new page on Meta it is hardly possible to check on all sites using MediaWiki whether the name exists already.--Patrick 13:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Tx very, very much to all responders. Also found much very specific info by following the link in the MediaWiki Handbook box to Editorial policy. (See Patrick's link to m:Help, above). Interestingly enough, this does not explain the rationale (per GA, above) or the copying function, or why the Help page itself is protected. The Help page needs (IMHO) a direct link to the Ep under Edit/Organizing/"Modifying Help" or somesuch. The implicit assumption that m:Help is part of the Handbook was not obvious to me.

Now pls excuse me for a while. I've avoided templates, considering that subject the worst smell-hole in the sewer. Clearly I now have no choice. Thanks again.--TJ 14:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Site map

Has a map of the new help system been considered? G Clark 23:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No, but I think that's a great idea. How do you construct one of those?
--Go for it! 19:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a map of the current system:

Looks interesting. Let's go with this and refine as we go.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The new structure

Hi everyone. I would just like to let you know that many of the Boot Camp regulars would like to help with the new system/structure, as the current is chaotic to say the least! We've discussed several suggestions, and personally I'd like to know what you think about a helpsystem in two parts; one aimed at the general users, and one aimed at the newbies? The part aimed at the newbies would contain much of the same as the general help, but with more focus on typical newbie issues, and without cluttering the page(s) with too much information. I'd like to know what you think of this. Bjelleklang - talk 23:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. I guess the first step would be to build an outline of the newbie system. Once the newbie system is completed, it could be copied in its entirety and the copy expanded into a complete help system. Even if we find that it can't be expanded well, the newbie system still seems like the best place to start. Comments? --Go for it! 06:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

We welcome you guys, and are glad to have you here! Be sure to have everyone sign up on the help participants roster on the project page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Help#Participants). That way, everyone will know who everyone else they're working with is. Thanks for joining! --Go for it! 06:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

One thing I've noticed about previous attempts at newbie help pages, including the Welcome messages used by the Wikipedia:Welcoming committee: they tend to provide way too many links, and way too much information. We need to make as short a list as we can of the things a newbie needs to know to no longer be a newbie, without the compulsion to turn them into experts overnight. --Go for it! 06:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I've started a newcomerpage on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Help/Temp_Newbiehelp. Please help if anyone feel like it, especially to shorten the descriptions and to make them more understandable. Bjelleklang - talk 15:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Too Many Clicks / Obscure Navigation

While trying to find certain items within the Help: namespace, I had to keep hitting links. Most of the pages in the namespace are linked to from pages and/or link names that one wouldn't think a particular policy, guideline, or other help topic would be under. I had to click 9 times to find Wikipedia:Notability. Pages such as Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Undeletion policy I had to click 47 and 49 times, respectively. The navigation for this set of pages with policies, guidelines, and other helpful information needs to be redesigned, and the use of obscure link names needs to stop. I'd never have thought to click Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion just to find, almost randomly, somewhere in the text a link to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. (Lady Serena 03:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

If I was given a list of all the help pages, I could probably build a navigation map with logical titles, and logical locations for all the content. It might be a bit of a challenge, but it'd be fun. :3 (Lady Serena 02:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC))

I have a list of all the pages in the Help namespace, but most of the help files are in the Wikipedia namespace. We need to ask someone if there is an easier way to list the pages than the Special pages:All pages menu item. I'm putting a question up on the village pump to see if we get any answers. --Go for it! 04:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Index of Wikipedia namespace pages

I have generated a list of pages in the Wikipedia namespace, from the January 25th enwiki db dump. The total number of pages is 102,574, so I have weeded out duplicate RFA, VFD, POTD, ... pages to a more manageable number. I also sorted the list by # of hits, and have listed the 1,000 most popular pages:

I have begun sorting through these pages, as well as those beyond the 1,000 most popular. This will be useful to better organize the community portal, as well as Help:Contents. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

New Content

Under Browsing Wikipedia, there should be (a link to) Browsing tips/bookmarks/shortcuts. Would someone working on this project put this in an appropriate place? :

I created a shortcut that any wikipedian would probably find helpful: I can now just type, e.g. "en Dark Matter" into my browser and arrive at the Dark Matter Wikipedia article.

Cool, huh?

Could you clarify how you do that?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

How I do what? I already explain how to create and use the bookmark. What gave me the idea, you mean?

Never mind. Hot dang it works! Not a bad idea.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I can get it to work in Firefox (which apparently you got the screenshot from) but it won't work in IE. That wouldn't be helpful for a lot of Wikipedians. -- MatthewDBA 13:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It is available in IE6 and 5.5 for quite a while, but you have to registry hack to get to it. Alternate method is to use the TweakUI powertool which will automatically make the appropriate edits. Google for SearchURL or simply go to the Talk:%s for a minor techie flamewar on the subject. http://www.microsoft.com/mspress/books/sampchap/6232a.asp#148 and http://windows.about.com/library/tips/bltip688.htm CzarB 06:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

What are your views on the help system?

Thanks for joining the help project. I've been preoccupied with the Main Page Redesign Project lately, as we are rapidly approaching an election to replace the Main Page. But the hardest part is done there, so I have more time on my hands.

What are your views on the help system?

--Go for it! 05:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Go for it!.

I started working on the help portal because I couldn't find the help I needed & help contents clearly required a lot of improvement. In short, Wikipedia's help seems to be fairly comprehensive but hard to access (though this has improved with your redesign of help:contents). The main problem is there are just so many links; fitting these all on to one page makes that page long and complex. With the help portal, I created 2 medium length pages. This still requires a lot of "digging" particularly if the link is on the advanced page.

User:Kmf164 said on the help portal talk page: Maybe it would be more *usable* to just list the main help topics and subtopics, with links to more in-depth help pages. Take a look at how Amazon (my pick) does their help page. They have headings (w/links) for "Ordering", "Viewing & Changing Orders", "Shipping & Delivery", etc. Amazon makes it just so easy to find answers on their help pages (though dealing w/ their customer service staff isn't so helpful). Another good example is Ebay, and how they break up their help pages by topic/function (e.g. "New to eBay: Registration | How to buy | How to sell | more...").

I think this is a good idea, though I imagine it will require a similar bureaucratic process to the main page redesign, as many "navigation" pages will have to be created. It is basically a rewrite of the navigation system. Clearly some consensus should be reached before creating a lot of pages an it will need to be discussed further. I also think a "must see" page / section of a page with a small list of the really common / useful pages (but not pages for new users) would be useful for intermediate users (probably the most common type of Wikipedian) and those "graduating" from being new users. Maybe we need some page view statistics?

Another problem (this is common to all Wikipedia not just help) is finding related articles. If using the proposal above, the main help page is the top level page, navigation pages are mid-level pages & the help articles are bottom level pages, then a link to the next level up, at the top of every page might be a good idea. Wikipedia:Links already exists as a mid-level page. One link from the top level page goes to a collection of links on a common topic. So if we look at the first proper page link (not linking to a section), Wikipedia:URLs this should contain a link back to Wikipedia:Links which should then link back to the main help page. This would be much more helpful than the current link to the Category "Wikipedia help" and would be more comprehensive than a "see also" section (though these could be used as well where appropriate).

Finally we come to the issue of meta pages being used here. Some of the meta pages are poor and require work. If Wikipedia wants a good help system, then the meta pages must be improved as well. I have started to rewrite / clean up / add to some meta pages ( check my Contributions on meta to see what I've done) but there are many more that need improvement. This in my opinion should be a top priority, because a help system with good navigation but poor articles is a poor help system.

The way these pages are displayed also need improvement. Using Help:Minor edit as an example, this page includes both meta and Wikipedia specific content. The Wikipedia specific content come from Wikipedia:Minor edit by way of a template. Unfortunately Wikipedia:Minor edit contains no mention that this is intended to be part of a bigger article and that article should be viewed instead. This is a serious source of confusion for new users. Indeed click the "?" next to "This is a minor edit" when editing a page. It links to Wikipedia:Minor edit when it should point to Help:Minor edit - implying this is more widespread problem. Visiting Help:Minor edit also shows that the Wikipedia specific content from Wikipedia:Minor edit repeats much of what has been said higher up the page. If Wikipedia specific content is necessary then it should be just that: Wikipedia specific, and not clash with the page from meta.

I hope this isn't too long and provides some constructive help. Let me know what you think.
P.S. I like Image:Main Page Usability.png. Maybe it could be used as the basis for some kind of graphic navigation system? Gareth Aus 23:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to answer each of your points in order.

Concerning the length and complexity of the help page, perhaps this will help:

The bureaucratic process is great for fine-tuning, but tends to bog down development. Let's just point out problems with the system to each other, and dive in and fix them. Others will follow and adjust what we've done. There's no need to get approval for creating a page, though blasting an already existing fine-tuned page would likely get resistance.

Setting up a help tree (tiered structure of pages with backlinks) would be relatively simple to implement using subpages (which have backlinks automatically provided). Wikibooks are created using this system (take a look). On Wikipedia, subpages are discouraged in the main namespace, since encyclopedic content does not lend itself to easy hierarchical classification. However, subpages are quite alright to use in the Wikipedia namespace. And "help" does break down hierarchically quite well. Such a system could be built without disrupting the current system. There is a caveat, however:

Subpages should be developed under the page they intend to be used under, even if that page isn't ready yet. This is because, if you develop a tree under a temporary name, each page will have to be renamed one-by-one to be a subpage of the intended page. And this would be very tedious if there were more than a couple subpages.

I agree on meta-pages. Since they are part of Wikipedia's help system, we need to treat them just like any other Wikipedia page. But, this kind of puts a crimp on using back links, so perhaps the metapages could be replaced entirely with pages in the Wikipedia namespace.

The metapage system is cludgy, and we'll have to decide whether to work around the problems caused by them being external links, or replace those pages entirely. But if we do keep them, then I agree that the merging of meta and Wikipedia information should be seamless (and not repetitious).

Okay,

Let's get started.

--Go for it! 04:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The contents box is a definite improvement, though I still prefer a help tree. The sub pages idea is interesting - I was thinking about templates (though I don't know too much about them) at the top of the articles. Anyway the reasons I prefer a tree are:

reduction in clutter (not just on the main page but on the sub pages as well)
easier organisation / access - a link to a list of images could be put on the image sub page as well as a list sub page
users can go back from articles and see related articles
topics can be divided into subtopics - the image sub page (see below) is a good example (in a unified page this would be too long and people would complain about double linking). This allows a sub page to be more comprehensive than a unified page, which makes the articles easier to access.

Sure, some of these can be achieved on one page but I think they work better in a tree system.

I started creating a draft of this system a little while ago and it is now in a reasonable condition. Have a look here User:Gareth Aus/main help page. As you will see, there are only a few sub pages, and the "linking" link points to a pre-existing sub page. The sub pages I've created have been styled in a format similar to disambiguation pages (see Mercury). The back links are manually added to the top of the page and these pages have the (navigation) suffix. This reminded me of another issue with the help system - naming. Some standards need to be set eg. singular or plural, Wikipedia or Help namespaces. A help "Manual of Style" might no go astray either. Gareth Aus 04:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I need a list of all pages in the Wikipedia namespace - How is this done?

The Help Project is considering taking on the clean-up of Wikpedia namespace. We'd like to build a site-map, and in order to do this, we need a list of all pages in Wikipedia namespace...

I looked at Special:Allpages, but that only lists the pages one screen at a time, and without brackets. Is there a way to get a list of all of the pages in one step, and with brackets? I'd settle for getting a list in one step, with or without brackets. --Go for it! 04:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you try Special:Prefixindex? And didn't we have already not one, but two sitemaps of the Wikipedia namespace, both out of date? --cesarb 04:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

And won't this map be out-of-date even before it is started? :-) Seriously, I think a site-wide map of Wikipedia would be a great idea. I've been wanting something like that for a long time. The closest I've got so far is using Category:Wikipedia to drill up and down through categories, but that relies on everything being categorised. Oops. Looks like it's been reorganised. I meant Category:Wikipedia_administration, though that looks different. I was probably thinking of another category... Carcharoth 10:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not necessary to use Special:Prefixindex. Special:Allpages is designed for such purposes, and has the list available. Superm401 - Talk 04:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you use a the database dumps? A little out of date but has the info you need. --Salix alba (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

When the next dump is complete I can make the list, it will probably be in a few days. Martin 23:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The site map is so that we can see what we've got to work with. The goal, hopefully an achievable one, is the clean-up of the Wikipedia namespace. Currently it is a morass of misnamed, misplaced, disorganized, and repititious pages. --Go for it!

Is there a way to get Special:Allpages to list all the pages in a specific namespace all on one page? I would like a continuous list, without the need to cut and paste the thing one page at a time. Some of the answers above seem to imply that this is possible, but I went there and cannot figure out how to do it. Please help. --Go for it!

I have the January 25 db dump loaded on my computer, so should be able to help. I'm running the query now, but it's taking a while. Must be a really long list of pages. --Aude (talk | contribs) 00:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The number of pages in the Wikipedia namespace is really huge — 102,572. Though, this includes every WP:RFC, WP:RFA, WP:POTD, WP:VFD, etc. Thus, we can narrow the number of pages in the list, and sort it by popularity (hits). --Aude (talk | contribs) 00:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going through the list now, weeding out the duplicate pages (e.g. WP:VFD, WP:POTD, ...), as well as redirect pages, and formatting the list. Right now, I have it down to 14,000 pages — still too many for any site map. --Aude (talk | contribs) 04:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Index of Wikipedia namespace pages

copied from community portal draft talk page

I have generated a list of pages in the Wikipedia namespace, from the January 25th enwiki db dump. The total number of pages is 102,574, so I have weeded out duplicate RFA, VFD, POTD, ... pages to a more manageable number. I also sorted the list by # of hits, and have listed the 1,000 most popular pages:

I have begun sorting through these pages, as well as those beyond the 1,000 most popular. This will be useful to better organize the community portal, as well as Help:Contents. --Aude (talk | contribs) 16:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Way to go Kmf! --Go for it!

Please coordinate this effort with that to improve the Community portal. Some links might not need to be in both places. I have started going through the list of links at User:Kmf164/Index. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Help page proofreading patrol

Many of the help pages are seriously out of date, or in need of cleaning up. When you have a few spare minutes, please just go to the help page tree and click down to a page that catches your eye and proofread it.

Glad to, but I need a link to the "tree" (and would appreciate a signature above).--TJ 12:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Help Project orphan hunt

We need to find all the help pages in the Help namespace and Wikipedia namespace that are not currently linked to from the Help Page tree / Help Page site map. When you come across one, hook it in, or leave a note here, and someone else on the project will do it. --Go for it! 13:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Need placing in the help system:

Wikipedia:WikiLove

Tip of the day project is being resurrected

This is a good place to jump in for working on the help system because writing tips provides a fun context in which to expose us to the problems of the help system. In writing tips I've found that I need to refer to the help system in order to see what is there on a given tip's topic. And while doing so, I discover how easy or hard it is to find the information. When I come across problems, I fix them, write the tip, and move on to the next one. Come check out the project...

Tip of the day...

Watching for changes

Clicking the "Recent changes" link in the interaction menu on every page will give you a list of all edits in the last few minutes. If you just want to watch for changes to articles you have edited, use your Watchlist. You can add articles to your Watchlist by clicking "Watch this page" tab (starred) at the top of any article (the talk page will be auto-watched, too). You can click "Related changes" in the toolbox menu on any page to see changes made to the pages linked from the one you are viewing. And finally, you can click the "My contributions" link to view a log of your edits; if yours is no longer the edit marked with "top", then someone else has edited the page.

Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip

Guides to improving articles

5 articles about similar topics seems like overkill. I feel these should be merged into ~~a single article,~~ or a smaller number of articles - each with a distinct purpose. I was wondering what you all felt about naming, the number of articles and what content should be included? Gareth Aus 07:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles was condensed from many other articles. They are listed at Wikipedia:Selected editorial guidance. Maurreen 18:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a view about the rest, either for or against, but I feel WP:PERFECT is still useful on its own. It's rather different from the rest. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's overkill. Not sure what to suggest at the moment, but I thought you might be interested in the related Wikipedia_talk:Citing sources#Appendices and their order. --J. J. 21:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've created a side-by-side comparison of "Guide to layout..." and "Guide to writing..." in order to improve the appendices order. If there are no objections, I'm going to try to work on it pretty quickly so I don't miss any important edits on either page. I'm not ready to merge them quite yet! User:RockOfVictory/Appendices_order_draft --J. J. 17:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Finished the appendices merge from WP:1SP to WP:GTL. --J. J. 20:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have merged Wikipedia:Guide to improving articles & Wikipedia:How to write a great article as Wikipedia:Article development - though I may put Wikipedia:How to write a great article into Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles instead, and put Wikipedia:The perfect article into article development. I'll see. A number of the articles have a place but need more descriptive names. -- Gareth Aus 08:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent stuff. Good luck with the rest :) -Quiddity 19:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Created template {{Writing guides}} to explain the different pages and cleaned up layout section of Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles. May be better to be merged with the Manual of Style. I'll have to think and compare the two. - Gareth Aus 08:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Activity?

Is this project still active and moving forward with a set of targets and goals? I only ask because the help front page used to look nice and clean and professional, it now looks a bit like a mishmash of random bits and bobs that neither fit into one definite style or with a clear goal (the harassment policy link at the top of the page for no apparent reason being a good example).

I am keen to help out and get a nice efficient help system, as I would say that one of WP's biggest problems is its "editing side" appearance to new users - both from the pov of the technical aspects (all the various editing shortcuts) and from the policies and guidelines side (a lot of new users simply don't know the do's and don’ts, and finding them (even for me) is a 10 minute process of hunting through the help pages. Are there clear targets here (like the main page redesign project) or are the goals just to "fix typo's and grammar" type things. SFC9394 20:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Right now, focus has been on the Community Portal. I think we will come back to working on the help pages. Your help in this would definitely be welcome. I agree that it's quite difficult to find things on help, with the way it is now. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for the update, hopefully in time the help pages will get a full sort and clean done on them - in the meantime I will have a browse by the Community Portal Redesign and see if I can add anything helpful! SFC9394 17:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: Could you merge/move this page/project across to Help talk:Contents/Redesign? That would establish a good consistant trend alongside the Community Portal/Redesign example, and keep all the conversation nearer the central location.

Also, I've made a sampler box of old designs at Help talk:Contents/Draft, that could perhaps be moved to Help:Contents/Redesign along with this project's current mainpage. Just some thoughts :) --Quiddity 08:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Merging various Revert help pages

We have a screwed up documentation on reverting. There's Help:Reverting, which consists of content copied from meta, with a template Template:Ph:Reverting included at the bottom. It's currently the most-widely linked page on Reverting. But we also have Wikipedia:Reverting which is an entirely differnt page. These obviously need to be merged. Also there's the question of how, or where, to put the material we have that is a type of guideline/policy on Reverting. The material is there, more or less, but it's quite disorderd. I'm mainly mentioning this here so I (or someone else) will remember it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, Template:Phh:Edit summary had a {{guideline}} tag on it, which is wrong. We probably should have a guideline on edit summaries (heck, I'm sure we do) but that page ain't it. This needs to be straightend out somehow. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the 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 that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. 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 13:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

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 18:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)