This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Hampshire This page is within the scope of WikiProject Hampshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hampshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HampshireWikipedia:WikiProject HampshireTemplate:WikiProject HampshireHampshire

Archives

Index 1

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 Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) ~~~~~ MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts? I'm always up for trying something new (Flow being a prime example, and I think it's working really well for us). I think our main project page could do with an overhaul and maybe WPX will give us some good ideas for that. WaggersTALK 20:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since there have been no other contributions to this thread I've taken the executive decision to sign us up, both as a pilot project and to the newsletter. If nothing else it'll be interesting to see how the newsletter and WP:FLOW get on! WaggersTALK 09:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's an interesting glitch at the intersection of MassMessage, Flow, and Notifications. Essentially, if you use MassMessage to deliver a newsletter, instead of coming from your account it comes from "MediaWiki message delivery," so you have to code your signature by hand. Except then you get told by the notification center "MediaWiki message delivery tagged you in a post" ... and it's just you signing your name on your own post. It's actually what happened for the first post in this thread; that's how I figured out which WikiProjects had Flow and which didn't! Harej (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When assessing importance we've only really used {{Importance legend}} as a guideline before now, but that's still pretty subjective and our importance rankings aren't terribly consistent. So I've added some "rules of thumb" to the main project page. These are purely off the top of my head so I'm completely open to change (but let's discuss changes here rather than in edit summaries!) WaggersTALK 13:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone locate (by giving precise coordinates) or photograph the Royal Society of Chemistry blue plaque at Southampton University, as mentioned in List_of_blue_plaques_erected_by_the_Royal_Society_of_Chemistry#England, please? ~~~~ Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a picture of the plaque being unveiled in this press release which we could potentially use under Fair Use if we can't find an image of the plaque in situ. Obviously a free-licence image would be preferable though. WaggersTALK 10:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For this month's issue...

Making sense of a lot of data.

Work on our prototype will begin imminently. In the meantime, we have to understand what exactly we're working with. To this end, we generated a list of 71 WikiProjects, based on those brought up on our Stories page and those who had signed up for pilot testing. For those projects where people told stories, we coded statements within those stories to figure out what trends there were in these stories. This approach allowed us to figure out what Wikipedians thought of WikiProjects in a very organic way, with very little by way of a structure. (Compare this to a structured interview, where specific questions are asked and answered.) This analysis was done on 29 stories. Codes were generally classified as "benefits" (positive contributions made by a WikiProject to the editing experience) and "obstacles" (issues posed by WikiProjects, broadly speaking). Codes were generated as I went along, ensuring that codes were as close to the original data as possible. Duplicate appearances of a code for a given WikiProject were removed.

We found 52 "benefit" statements encoded and 34 "obstacle" statements. The most common benefit statement referring to the project's active discussion and participation, followed by statements referring to a project's capacity to guide editor activity, while the most common obstacles made reference to low participation and significant burdens on the part of the project maintainers and leaders. This gives us a sense of WikiProjects' big strength: they bring people together, and can be frustrating to editors when they fail to do so. Meanwhile, it is indeed very difficult to bring editors together on a common interest; in the absence of a highly motivated core of organizers, the technical infrastructure simply isn't there.

We wanted to pair this qualitative study with quantitative analysis of a WikiProject and its "universe" of pages, discussions, templates, and categories. To this end I wrote a script called ProjAnalysis which will, for a given WikiProject page (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek) and WikiProject talk-page tag (e.g. Template:WikiProject Star Trek), will give you a list of usernames of people who edited within the WikiProject's space (the project page itself, its talk page, and subpages), and within the WikiProject's scope (the pages tagged by that WikiProject, excluding the WikiProject space pages). The output is an exhaustive list of usernames. We ran the script to analyze our test batch of WikiProjects for edits between March 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015, and we subjected them to further analysis to only include those who made 10+ edits to pages in the projects' scope, those who made 4+ edits to the projects' space, and those who made 10+ edits to pages in scope but not 4+ edits to pages in the projects' space. This latter metric gives us an idea of who is active in a certain subject area of Wikipedia, yet who isn't actively engaging on the WikiProject's pages. This information will help us prioritize WikiProjects for pilot testing, and the ProjAnalysis script in general may have future life as an application that can be used by Wikipedians to learn about who is in their community.

Complementing the above two studies are a design analysis, which summarizes the structure of the different WikiProject spaces in our test batch, and the comprehensive census of bots and tools used to maintain WikiProjects, which will be finished soon. With all of this information, we will have a game plan in place! We hope to begin working with specific WikiProjects soon.

As a couple of asides...

• Database Reports has existed for several years on Wikipedia to the satisfaction of many, but many of the reports stopped running when the Toolserver was shut off in 2014. However, there is good news: the weekly New WikiProjects and WikiProjects by Changes reports are back, with potential future reports in the future.
• WikiProject X has an outpost on Wikidata! Check it out. It's not widely publicized, but we are interested in using Wikidata as a potential repository for metadata about WikiProjects, especially for WikiProjects that exist on multiple Wikimedia projects and language editions.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing! If you have any questions or comments, please share them with us.

Harej (talk) ~~~~~ MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Topic:Sdxauohvvrq5i7fy&topic_showPostId=sdxauolwv85fzk1a#flow-post-sdxauolwv85fzk1a

Almost was at the Issue. ~~~~

@Jimbo "Wales" Reverto, III:

Goose 2602:306:396F:F4B0:F48E:D369:CCAA:FE82 (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Investigation is ongoing into a data-loss that was reported yesterday (phab:T95580), which seems to have been caused by a maintenance script updating the database. This affects all topic titles and post contents on this board prior to 11 February 2015. The Operations team is currently assisting with data-recovery from backups. We'll post more information here when we have it. We apologize for not having full information for you right now. Post here if you have any questions; we'll keep this Topic updated when we know more. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The developers have a plan for recovery. They're going to talk to a few more members of the Operations team, to confirm the exact details, and various options, before proceeding. That is estimated to be Monday at this point, due to various people being away for the weekend. For the current discussions, please continue as normal! I'll update this topic again, when we have more information. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yowza. MZMcBride (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm happy to say that all of the data has been restored, so all of the old conversations on this page are back where they belong. We've fixed the problem that allowed the data loss to happen, so it won't happen again. Thanks for your patience, and let me know if you have any questions! DannyH (WMF) (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! For this month's issue...

We have demos!

After a lengthy research and design process, we decided for WikiProject X to focus on two things:

• A WikiProject workflow that focuses on action items: discussions you can participate in and tasks you can perform to improve the encyclopedia; and
• An automatically updating WikiProject directory that gives you lists of users participating in the WikiProject and editing in that subject area.

We have a live demonstration of the new WikiProject workflow at WikiProject Women in Technology, a brand new WikiProject that was set up as an adjunct to a related edit-a-thon in Washington, DC. The goal is to surface action items for editors, and we intend on doing that through automatically updated working lists. We are looking into using SuggestBot to generate lists of outstanding tasks, and we are looking into additional options for automatic worklist generation. This takes the burden off of WikiProject editors to generate these worklists, though there is also a "requests" section for Wikipedians to make individual requests. (As of writing, these automated lists are not yet live, so you will see a blank space under "edit articles" on the demo WikiProject. Sorry about that!) I invite you to check out the WikiProject and leave feedback on WikiProject X's talk page.

Once the demo is sufficiently developed, we will be working on a limited deployment on our pilot WikiProjects. We have selected five for the first round of testing based on the highest potential for impact and will scale up from there.

While a re-designed WikiProject experience is much needed, that alone isn't enough. A WikiProject isn't any good if people have no way of discovering it. This is why we are also developing an automatically updated WikiProject directory. This directory will surface project-related metrics, including a count of active WikiProject participants and of active editors in that project's subject area. The purpose of these metrics is to highlight how active the WikiProject is at the given point of time, but also to highlight that project's potential for success. The directory is not yet live but there is a demonstration featuring a sampling of WikiProjects.

Each directory entry will link to a WikiProject description page which automatically list the active WikiProject participants and subject-area article editors. This allows Wikipedians to find each other based on the areas they are interested in, and this information can be used to revive a WikiProject, start a new one, or even for some other purpose. These description pages are not online yet, but they will use this template, if you want to get a feel of what they will look like.

We need volunteers!

WikiProject X is a huge undertaking, and we need volunteers to support our efforts, including testers and coders. Check out our volunteer portal and see what you can do to help us!

As an aside...

Wouldn't it be cool if lists of requested articles could not only be integrated directly with WikiProjects, but also shared between WikiProjects? Well, we got the crazy idea of having experimental software feature Flow deployed (on a totally experimental basis) on the new Article Request Workshop, which seeks to be a place where editors can "workshop" article ideas before they get created. It uses Flow because Flow allows, essentially, section-level categorization, and in the future will allow "sections" (known as "topics" within Flow) to be included across different pages. What this means is that you have a recommendation for a new article tagged by multiple WikiProjects, allowing for the recommendation to appear on lists for each WikiProject. This will facilitate inter-WikiProject collaboration and will help to reduce duplicated work. The Article Request Workshop is not entirely ready yet due to some bugs with Flow, but we hope to integrate it into our pilot WikiProjects at some point.

Harej (talk) ~~~~~ MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Topic:Sfptvodwoeocxkx1 MZMcBride (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MediaWiki message delivery: Hmm. MZMcBride (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

• What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
• When? June 2015
• How can you help?

  1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

  2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

  3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, [:commons:Commons:LGBT Free Media Collective Wikimedia Commons], [:wikivoyage: Wikivoyage:LGBT Expedition Wikivoyage], [:meta: Wikimedia LGBT/Interwiki etc].)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the [:meta:Wikimedia LGBT/Portal Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group], an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC) (Edited by Quiddity (WMF) (talk))[reply]

Something had gone wrong with the formatting of the above message - basically it's appearing to me as code rather than text. ~~~~ PamD 15:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And for my next question ... how do I edit a comment of my own, eg to correct "had" to "has" - Flow doesn't seem to offer anything. ~~~~ PamD 15:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am noticing the problem as well and trying to fix my original post. Sorry! This is the first time I am using Flow. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: mouseover the "..." icon at right, to get a dropdown menu with "Edit" in it. (Also, no signatures are needed in Flow :)

@Another Believer: The default for Flow posts is now to use VisualEditor mode, but if you click the "</>" icon at bottom-right (whilst editing), then you'll switch to wikitext mode (and if you save in wikitext mode, then it will save that as your sticky preference for next time). Hope that helps. [Fixed, out of wikignome compulsion ;) ] Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Quiddity (WMF): And this is supposed to be an improvement? Unimpressed as yet. Two confused editors so far, clearly. Important options hidden under a trio of dots. Thank heaven I'm not trying to do this in mobile, I dread to think how difficult it would be on my small not-very-smart phone.

Why no indentation - it seems impossible to see what any input is replying to. Or is this thread a poor example?

Is there, or will there be, a Beginner's Guide to Flow? Of course there shouldn't need to be, if its aim is to provide a good user-friendly interface, but for experienced editors converting from what they're used to it might be helpful to offer some pointers. PamD 22:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indentation was much discussed back when Flow was first being developed. Personally I find the "three dots" menu intuitive as it's exactly what's used on a lot of other sites. BUT per the banner message, this isn't the place for discussing Flow.

That said it's great to see some new features appearing :) WaggersTALK 22:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikiProject Hampshire!

On the recommendation of Waggers, I am happy to announce that this WikiProject has been selected for the first round of WikiProject X pilot testing! Pilot testing candidates were selected on the basis for potential success of the WikiProject.

The goal of WikiProject X is to improve the WikiProject experience through research, design, and experimentation. On that basis, we've prepared a new WikiProject design template based around modules. These modules include features you are already familiar with, such as article alerts, but also new features such as automated work lists, a feed of discussions taking place on the 2,690 talk pages tagged by WikiProject Cannabis, and a new member profile system with opt-in notifications. The new design is available for your review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Hampshire/New. Please let me know what you think. (Note that some of the modules depend on output from other bots, meaning there will be some visual inconsistencies for now. I hope to resolve this in the long term.)

The next steps:

1. If you are all satisfied with the design, I will implement it on the WikiProject page. Unless there are major points of contention, I hope to get this done by Friday, July 10.
2. Using information from Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Hampshire, I will work on recruiting new members for the WikiProject. I will also reach out to your current listed members.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Harej Harej (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure WikiProject Cannabis is great, but I don't know why you think WikiProject Hampshire editors can help ;) I guess there is a typo, and we will get to hear about Hampshire talk pages, not cannabis ones ! Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant the 2,690 talk pages tagged by WikiProject *Hampshire*. Harej (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, after walking along the Test at the Cleeves last week one could be forgiven for assuming that WikiProject Cannabis was relevant. Keri (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks Harej. This is very exciting.

My initial impression of the new page is that the design is very clean and clear - looks-wise, it's certainly an improvement on our current project page. Some of those new tools (new to me, at least) are going to be incredibly useful. You can probably see that we've never really managed to keep our tasks/things to do template up to date so having tasks suggested automatically is a big win.

I was worried that the "how to write an article about X" guidelines were missing but I see they're further down the page in the resources section. The way the new page is ordered makes a lot more sense - essentially putting the information that's most relevant to visitors to the project page towards the top, with resources for veteran project members further down.

I can only see one slightly negative thing, which is actually related to the "Related WikiProjects" tool rather than the page design but I'll mention it here. WikiProject Hampshire has a number of sister projects for the counties around us. Because our boundaries don't overlap we don't have (m)any articles in common, so the Related WikiProjects tool doesn't recognise that relationship. Although we operate more or less in isolation as WikiProjects, we do have a few things that we work on communally (for example all the portals for South East England counties use the same framework and together populate Portal:South East England itself).

That's not a showstopper by any means. In my view the new page is vastly superior to the existing one both in terms of layout and content. WaggersTALK 14:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback, Waggers.

Regarding the sister WikiProjects, is there a list somewhere that I can use? It would be good to adapt it into either a standalone section or as an adjunct to the related WikiProjects list. Harej (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've realised we don't currently list sister projects on the existing page, so I think I was getting confused! Portal:Hampshire uses the template {{SEERelatedPortals}} to list sister portals, but we don't have an equivalent on the project page - perhaps we don't need one. I suggest we go live with the prototype as it stands, and we can discuss the inclusion of sister projects later.

(We'd probably have to discuss whether to include all our fellow South East England projects, or all counties that share a border with Hampshire, or some other combination - not a conversation we need to have right now). WaggersTALK 07:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all - just gauging interest. Would a Southampton/Hampshire Wikipedia:Meetup interest anyone here? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 21:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was one in Portsmouth recently - not sure how successful it was, does anyone that was there have a view? WaggersTALK 13:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Vadne (ferry) article has been nominated for deletion. ~~~~ Mjroots (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I love the new project page layout and the idea of automatically updated content thanks to WikiProject X and Reports Bot. But so much of the content Reports Bot provides is completely irrelevant to this project, or in some cases just not working.

Discussions: currently I can see 4 listings, all of which are identical (a link to the "Dream Factory" discussion on Talk:Television Centre, Southampton). Aside from the annoying repetition, there are more recent discussions on other talk pages that are tagged with our WikiProject banner, yet these aren't showing up (examples include Shirley Parish Church, Farnborough, Hampshire, Mims Davies to name just a few). Hitting the Refresh button doesn't seem to have any effect.

Assess for quality / not tagged by the WikiProject seem to be ok.

All the other Tasks sections are populated mainly with articles that are not tagged by this WikiProject so shouldn't be showing up on our project page. Examples that I can see on the front page right now include:

• Modern immigration to the United Kingdom (Expand)
• Honda CBR900RR (Unencyclopaedic)
• Powers of the police in England and Wales (Merge)
• Guildford College (Merge)
• Canon PowerShot G5 X (Wikify)
• Asylet, Oslo (Orphan)
• Sinai Synagogue, Leeds (Stub)
• Finchley Reform Synagogue (Stub)

Mentioning @Harej: as he operates Reports Bot and is involved in WikiProject X.

If these can't be easily/quickly fixed we'll need to decide what to do. Updating all these sections routinely by hand doesn't seem viable as we don't have enough active editors to manage that, but displaying incorrect information on our front page doesn't make us look too clever. WaggersTALK 09:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback, Waggers.

The discussions list bug you point out is a known issue. We hope to figure out the cause of it soon.

The other sections are based on SuggestBot. Nettrom should have some insight as to why irrelevant content is being recommended. Harej (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Waggers: and @Harej:! Sorry about the late response to this, it's been a busy week.

If I understand you correctly, the problem here is that the suggestions include articles that are not a part of WikiProject Hampshire? This is something I've anticipated might be a problem, but I wanted to send out a round of suggestions and see if it actually came up before doing anything about it. The thing is, solving it might not be straightforward, but as I don't run a project I'm happy to hear thoughts on this.

The articles that SuggestBot suggests are all from "task categories" (documented here) because otherwise it will suggest articles that aren't in need of improvement. Due to this restriction, it sometimes suggests articles that are not clearly similar to its input set (in our case, articles assessed by the project). It will also not suggest the same article twice, which in turn means it sometimes have to pick an article at random from a task category.

I went through our logs and checked the articles Waggers listed, and they're either weakly related to the project, or randomly selected (which might be obvious, but it's good to know what went on behind the scenes).

One way to solve this is to only suggest articles from the project that are also in specific task categories. This has the benefit that it'll never suggest wrong articles. A couple of drawbacks are that it'll require the project to tag articles (e.g. if it needs more sources use {{Refimprove}}), as otherwise the bot has no articles to choose from. It'll also never identify articles that might be within the scope of the project, but which the project hasn't tagged yet, although IIRC, Harej has a program that looks for those already?

Curious to hear your thoughts on this. Nettrom (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I would like to express my appreciation for WikiProject Hampshire for testing the new WikiProject interface and tools. Thank you.

WikiProject X is up for renewal at the Wikimedia Foundation. We would like to continue working to make our existing tools better: to make them easier to use, and to integrate them with other Wikimedia projects, including Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. Please review our [m:Grants:IEG/WikiProject X/Renewal renewal proposal] and leave feedback.

As always, if you have any questions or feedback, please let me know on this talk page or the WikiProject X talk page.

Thank you again, Harej. Harej (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up that there's a new requested move for this article. This time I find myself on the other side of the fence to last time! WaggersTALK 09:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To let everyone know, I will be making a change to the {{Load WikiProject Modules}} Lua module, used on this project to render the different sections. This change involves, among other things, moving the different section headers out of the subpages and onto the main WikiProject page. This change will make the WikiProject easier to use and maintain. During this change, there may be a brief time window where the WikiProject page looks broken. Once the changes are finished, everything should be restored to normal. If not, purge your cache and it will work. If there are any bugs, please let me know promptly on my talk page. Thank you. Harej (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This work should now be done. Please let me know if there are any bugs. Harej (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good :) -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 08:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good one all! -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to call to enable user talks' Flow function in English Wikipedia as early as possible, thank you. Shwangtianyuan Talk Here 03:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Village Pump (proposals) would be the page for running that RFC. Actually is a Flow RFC currently being drafted by a few editors. A series of Flow pages have received consensus-to-delete, one page got consensus to end the Flow trial and convert back to Talk. The only two remaining Flow pages on EnWiki are this one, and the Flow Testing page. The current draft RFC is a proposal to completely *disable* Flow on EnWiki.

You're certainly welcome to initiate an RFC proposing broad activation of Flow, but I expected it would get SNOWed with Opposes. Alsee (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shwangtianyuan, I don't think this is the right place to discuss it. A more proper venue might be Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Also a fair warning: Flow is a fairly contentious topic, so you will need to make a very persuasive argument. Harej (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This month:

Development of the extension for setting up WikiProjects, as described in the last issue of this newsletter, is currently underway. No terribly exciting news on this front.

In the meantime, we are working on a prototype for a new service we hope to announce soon. The problem: there are requests scattered all across Wikipedia, including requests for new articles and requests for improvements to existing articles. We Wikipedians are very good at coming up with lists of things to do. But once we write these lists, where do they end up? How can we make them useful for all editors—even those who do not browse the missing articles lists, or the particular WikiProjects that have lists?

Introducing Wikipedia Requests, a new tool to centralize the various lists of requests around Wikipedia. Requests will be tagged by category and WikiProject, making it easier to find requests based on what your interests are. Accompanying this service will be a bot that will let you generate reports from this database on any wiki page, including WikiProjects. This means that once a request is filed centrally, it can syndicated all throughout Wikipedia, and once it is fulfilled, it will be marked as "complete" throughout Wikipedia. The idea for this service came about when I saw that it was easy to put together to-do lists based on database queries, but it was harder to do this for human-generated requests when those requests are scattered throughout the wiki, siloed throughout several pages. This should especially be useful for WikiProjects that have overlapping interests.

The newsletter this month is fairly brief; not a lot of news, just checking in to say that we are hard at work and hope to have more for you soon.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hampshire Hub Partnership has released aerial photography of the entire county under the Open Government License. This is available to download via ftp://www.hants.gov.uk/ . The image to the right is a typical example.

This may be useful to Hampshire editors! Nilfanion (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's hugely exciting, thanks for the heads-up. I'm off to explore right now! WaggersTALK 11:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a slightly easier way of navigating it: http://hampshire.geodata.soton.ac.uk/#/globe/layers/aerial WaggersTALK 11:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that link is certainly easier to navigate. However I'd recommend using the FTP to obtain the final file for upload. Comparing File:Hurst Castle from the air.png to this, the uploaded file has obvious noise compared to the cleaner file on the ftp. Nilfanion (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've used that to create File:Overhead view of Hurst Castle.jpg. I'll mark the png version for deletion as a lower quality duplicate. WaggersTALK 09:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the FTP site is now offline. The link I shared is still operational but as stated above, the quality isn't as good when downloading from there. WaggersTALK 13:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This month:

In the last issue of the WikiProject X Newsletter, I discussed the upcoming Wikipedia Requests system: a central database for outstanding work on Wikipedia. I am pleased to announce Wikipedia Requests is live! Its purpose is to supplement automatically generated lists, such as those from SuggestBot, Reports bot, or Wikidata. It is currently being demonstrated on WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health (which I work on as part of my NIOSH duties) and WikiProject Women scientists.

Adding a request is as simple as filling out a form. Just go to the Add form to add your request. Adding sources will help ensure that your request is fulfilled more quickly. And when a request is fulfilled, simply click "mark as complete" and it will be removed from all the lists it's on. All at the click of a button! (If anyone is concerned, all actions are logged.)

With this new service is a template to transclude these requests: {{Wikipedia Requests}}. It's simple to use: add the template to a page, specifying article=, category=, or wikiproject=, and the list will be transcluded. For example, for requests having to do with all living people, just do {{Wikipedia Requests|category=Living people}}. Use these lists on WikiProjects but also for edit-a-thons where you want a convenient list of things to do on hand. Give it a shot!

The value of Wikipedia Requests comes from being a centralized database. The long work to migrating individual lists into this combined list is slowly underway. As of writing, we have 883 open tasks logged in Wikipedia Requests. We need your help building this list.

If you know of a list of missing articles, or of outstanding tasks for existing articles, that you would like to migrate to this new system, head on over to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Requests#Transition project and help out. Doing this will help put your list in front of more eyes—more than just your own WikiProject.

WikiProject X maintains a database that associates article talk pages (and draft talk pages) with WikiProjects. This database powers many of the reports that Reports bot generates. However, until very recently, this database was not made available to others who might find its data useful. It's only common sense to open up the database and let others build tools with it.

And indeed: Citation Hunt, the game to add citations to Wikipedia, now lets you filter by WikiProject, using the data from our database.

Are you a tool developer interested in using this? Here are some details: the database resides on Tool Labs with the name s52475__wpx_p. The table that associates WikiProjects with articles and drafts is called projectindex. Pages are stored by talk page title but in the future this should change. Have fun!

• The work on the CollaborationKit extension continues. The extension will initially focus on reducing template and Lua bloat on WikiProjects (especially our WPX UI demonstration projects), and will from there create custom interfaces for creating and maintaining WikiProjects.
• The [meta:WikiCite 2016 WikiCite] meeting will be in Berlin in May. The goal of the meeting is to figure out how to build a bibliographic database for use on the Wikimedia projects. This fits in quite nicely with WikiProject X's work: we want to make it easier for people to find things to work on, and with a powerful, open bibliographic database, we can build recommendations for sources. This feature was requested by the Wikipedia Library back in September, and this meeting is a major next step. We look forward to seeing what comes out of this meeting.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very surprised that the lists of requests aren't being automatically pulled from existing maintenance categories and tags - there must be hundreds of thousands of articles with such "requests" already on them and it wouldn't be hard to pull those kind of lists from the Wikipedia API, but will take years to do manually.

I'm also surprised how "manual" the process of adding a request is - it involves quite a bit of typing. It needs to be as easy, if not easier, to add a request as it is to tag an article using Twinkle or add a category using HotCat. As things stand there isn't even a link to add a request when viewing an article, or a script or Gadget to add such a link to the Tools menu.

Without those things in place I don't see this catching on. Arguably we already have a centralised list of requests at Category:Wikipedia maintenance and its subcategories, which could be cross-referenced by WikiProject using CatScan or similar. I thought the purpose of Wikipedia Requests was to make that process easier, not to create a whole new industry (which incidentally seems to sit off-wiki). WaggersTALK 08:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikiProject Hampshire! Just checking in. How has your work on Wikipedia been going? Have the tools and reports on the WikiProject been useful? Running into challenges using or maintaining the WikiProject? Anything you would like to see changed? Harej (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harej, thanks for checking in. Overall I think the tools and reports are positive - it's certainly a relief to not have to manually update the project page. There are a few issues with the reports that I think have been mentioned previously, such as:

• "Discussions" currently says it was last updated 5 months ago by you; when I click on [Refresh] that doesn't change, and nor does the report update. At present all four items in that report relate to the same article (George Bell (bishop)) and the discussions in question were last edited at least three months ago, yet looking through my own contributions I can see there are more recent discussions at:
  • Talk:Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital
  • Talk:Hurst Castle
  • Talk:All Saints' Church, Southampton - although that's actually a transcluded GA review so it's understandable that this one didn't come up.
• Articles listed under the SuggestBot categories (Add sources, Cleanup, etc) aren't always in scope of the project but tend to be from "related WikiProjects". Since our top "related WikiProject" is WikiProject UK Geography that means the articles SuggestBot comes up with could be from anywhere in the UK rather than specific to Hampshire.

In terms of project membership, many who had "joined" the project previously have not taken the opportunity to rejoin since the implementation of WikiProject X, but we have seen some new members signing up. We don't tend to coordinate our activities as a project very well so it's hard to tell how active the other members of the project are, and it can seem that we're not very active - but actually we've seen several articles climbing up the quality rankings - over the last year we've gone from 9 FAs and 23 GAs to 10 FAs and 31 GAs for example. So it's hard to gauge the effect on involvement.

Now that the Requests feature is up and running we have a bit of work to do to start using it properly, and we need to do better at updating the Announcements section, but those things are down to us.

WP Hampshire was never the most active project and I'm not sure that WP X has changed that significantly (yet), but WPX certainly lowers the amount of maintenance needed to keep the project running and the reports have potential (but would be more useful if the couple of issues mentioned above could be resolved). WaggersTALK 07:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to hear that it's made maintenance easier; that was certainly the overall intent. As for the discussions feed, it's been broken for the past several months (unfortunately). We should be getting around to fixing it as soon as we're done with the overall refactor of Reports bot. Likewise with SuggestBot, Nettrom has been working on making the recommendations more project-specific.

I am excited to see you're using the new Wikipedia Requests feature. Let me know if you run into any issues using it; it's quite new and has a lot of rough edges.

Let me know if you need help with anything else. Harej (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see that the discussions feed seems to be up and running again. That's definitely a useful feature - good work! WaggersTALK 11:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, featuring the first screenshot of our new CollaborationKit software!

Harej (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This month, we discuss the new CollaborationKit extension. Here's an image as a teaser:

23:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

An editor has made some pretty drastic changes to Template:Buildings_in_Southampton which I think need some further discussion. Please join in at the link above. WaggersTALK 10:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, with plans to renew work with a followup grant proposal to support finalising the deployment of CollaborationKit!

-— Isarra ༆ 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been working on recommending new members for your project for a while, and have sent some lists to Waggers who was willing to help invite those recommended editors. I wonder if you mind me sending invitations directly for WikiProject Hampshire on your behalf to save time and efforts of yours? Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobo.03: Hi Bobo, thanks for your work on this. Unfortunately I've been pretty busy lately so haven't been able to send any invitations myself, so if you're happy to do that I'd have absolutely no objections. WaggersTALK 09:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Waggers: Will do! Yeah, whenever you have a chance, please feel free to invite editors on the list, and let me know when you want to see more lists. I will also help invite some (but definitely not too many)! Bobo.03 (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a shame that the main article Hampshire relating to this WikiProject is not a Good Article (any more). Should it not be top priority? Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my previous comment, I've put a review of Hampshire on Talk:Hampshire. Comments very welcome. Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We may as well remove these outdated reports from the WikiProject page. – Craig Davison (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Davisonio: Agreed.  Done WaggersTALK 09:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This month: WikiProject X: The resumption

Work has resumed on WikiProject X and CollaborationKit, backed by a successfully funded Project Grant. For more information on the current status and planned work, please see this month's issue of the newsletter!

-— Isarra ༆ 22:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This month: A general update.

The current status of the project is as follows:

• Progress of the project has been generally delayed since September due to development issues (more bitrot than expected, some of the code just being genuinely confusing, etc) and personal injury (I suffered a concussion in October and was out of commission for almost two months as a result).
• I currently expect to be putting out a proper call for CollaborationKit pilots in January/February, with estimated deployment in February/March if things don't go horribly wrong (they will, though, don't worry). As a part of that, I will properly update the page and send out announcement and reach out to all projects already signed up as pilots for WikiProject X in general, at which point those (still) interested can volunteer specifically to test the CollaborationKit extension.
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Pilots was originally created for the first WikiProject X prototype, and given this is where the project has since gone, it's only logical to continue to use it. While I haven't yet updated the page to properly reflect this:
  • If you want to add your project to this page now, feel free. Just bear in mind that more information what to actually expect will be added later/included in the announcement, because by then I will have a much better idea myself.
• Until then, you can find me in my corner working on making the CollaborationKit code do what we want and not just what we told it, per the workboard.

Until next time,

-— Isarra ༆ 22:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updates: I've been focusing largely on the development side of things, so we are a lot closer now to being ready to actually start discussing deploying it and testing it out here.

There's just a few things left that need to be resolved:

• A bunch of language support issues in particular, plus some other release blockers, such as the fact that currently there's no good way to find any hubs people do create.
• We also probably need some proper documentation and examples up to even reference if we want a meaningful discussion. We have the extension documentation and some test projects, but we probably need a bit more. Also I need to be able to even find the test projects! How can I possibly write reports about this stuff if I can't find any of it?!

Some other stuff that's happened in the meantime:

• Midpoint report is out for this round of the project, if you want to read in too much detail about all the problems I've been running into.
• WikiProject Molecular Biology have successfully set up using the old module system that CollaborationKit is intended to replace (eventually), and it even seems to work, so go them. Based on the issues they ran into, it looks like the members signup thing on that system has some of the same problems as we've been unable to resolve in CK, though, which is... interesting. (Need to change the content model to the right thing for the formwizard config to take. Ugh, content models.)

Until next time,

-— Isarra ༆ 21:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to delete all portals

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A final update, for now:

The third grant-funded round of WikiProject X has been completed. Unfortunately, while this round has not resulted in a deployed product, I am not planning to resume working on the project for the foreseeable future. Please see the final report for more information.

Regards,

-— Isarra ༆ 19:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Is there anyone with a Hampshire library card that may be able to assist in searching local newspapers for an obituary? Sammy the Shunter is up for deletion, and the general consensus is that the info would be best contained in an article on Eileen Gibb (currently a redirect to Sammy), who wrote the books. Gibb (married name Holder) died in 2003, as far as is known in Hampshire. I'm hoping an obituary was published on one of the local/regional newspapers. Mjroots (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the British Newspaper Archive, but that doesn't seem to have digitized any Hampshire newspapers later than 1959. Sorry not much help there. Tony Holkham (Talk) 18:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, there's nothing in The Times. Mjroots (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further FWIW there IS something in the Times Digital Archive under Holder-Eileen December31 2003 [1]. It gives her date of death as 25 Dec 2003 age 92 and some family and funeral details in Lymington.SovalValtos (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a Hampshire Library Card (Except I probably lost it with my Wallet last week). I may visit the Parkie Library on Thursday for some Ooh La La to get a new card but I'm not sure I'll get to lymington. If I may venture the nostalgia guy for the Pompey evening news is a Train enthusiastic, but it depends if he is positive towards Sammy or not ... and of that I am unsure. @SovalValtos I don;t have access to that document but if even the date of death can be cited in a Template:Cite news that is of value to the article. The article has been saved but the closer terms are very specific : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sammy the Shunter is closed as a Reframe ( a new one on me ). If not reframed it may be re-nomed for deletion. I personally am dubious if we have quite enough for a reframe as it is but I think there's a WP:THREE to keep sammy as sammy. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an article for Whiteley village/SBP off M27/J9 or am I misspelling or not finding the obvious. Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark The article is Whiteley simple. It is mentioned in Swanwick, Hampshire and Burridge.SovalValtos (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SovalValtos. If all else fails I should read the top line of the dab page and not look at every other line. WP:TROUT me*2. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bit appalled to set a "Shopping" in the Portsmouth article with a Template:Main article pointing to Gunwharf Keys. Probably there's an undeveloped Landport (incl Commercial Road) article but with Cascades Shopping Centre merged in but I'd have to check the boundries carefully first. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC) Okay Landport doesn't really work as perhaps only covers the north part of Commercial Road. A Commercial Road, Portsmouth article is likely the only pragmatic solution, albeit it needs to cover a little beyond the core road itself and more of some of the attached streets. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC) Okay, have started a draft: Draft:Commercial Road, Portsmouth.  Done Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm deleting the draft and the NPP jockies are interferring with it. I was yo-yo-ing between that and Landports for development but as I'm being interfered with I;'ll towl it in for the moment.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alert to Hampshire users (I do not live in this region - live in Shropshire - but have visited it in 1991 and 1993). Omitted from the article but ripe for inclusion is the statue of Nelson on or near Southsea Common which could be looked up, as to its sculptor, date of unveiling and donors and possibly also pictured, and added to the article. It depicts him in uniform, its plinth has a plaque with the text of the prayer he wrote for the Battle of Trafalgar. It was in Pembroke Gardens, Southsea but from a page I have been sent I learn it was moved to the Grand Parade in 2005 as part of the Trafalgar Bicentenary.Cloptonson (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Historic England article here. I don't know Portsea that well - is the monument in Southsea, or in Portsmouth? Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that matches I can write this into the article with the page as citation. Pleased to see it is listed. As to its location, Southsea is part of Portsmouth municipally, it has clearly been moved more centrally into Portsmouth proper.Cloptonson (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a project for missing civil parishes at User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes. The missing parishes in Hampshire are:

• Candovers, now a redirect
• Corhampton and Meonstoke
• Fair Oak and Horton Heath
• Melchet Park and Plaitford
• Michelmersh and Timsbury
• Nursling and Rownhams
• Old Basing and Lychpit
• Southwick and Widley
• Wootton St. Lawrence with Ramsdell

And these exists as a redirect only but should have separate articles:

• Ashurst and Colbury
• Bramshott and Liphook
• Colemore and Priors Dean
• Froxfield and Privett
• Hythe and Dibden
• Mapledurwell and Up Nately

A total of 15, see User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes (2)#Hampshire. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll get to work on these. WaggersTALK 11:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants to get more input @A.S. Brown, BryceIII, Davisonio, Harej, Jack1956, Jaguar, Lewis Hulbert, Murgatroyd49, Subtlemammoth, Tacyarg, Tony Holkham, Waggers, British Mapping, Henryrothery, KieranTribe, Keri, LoudLizard, SophAdders, SkymasterUK, Theitkid, Urshankov, and VJ~en-gbwiki:. I've struck the created one and noted one that is now a redirect but should be an article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this completely fell off of my radar. Thanks for the reminder. WaggersTALK 14:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would be great to get involved helping set up more parishes pages. I'm planning on prioritizing doing the 2022 local elections in Hants this weekend, but then could make a start on helping with Parishes. I think most districts also have navboxes of parishes and/or towns and villages, which'll help for those already existing but needing expanding --BryceIII (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being late, I didn't see this. I'll see what I find. Best wishes and cheers! --A.S. Brown (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basingstoke has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:South East Hampshire Bus Rapid Transit#Requested move 15 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 17:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to delete {{hants}}. Such phrase is not widely known, and I haven't seen that any WikiProject have special template for templates related to Foo topic. Any constructive counter-argument? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estopedist1 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Firstly, Hants is a very commonly used shorthand for Hampshire so it's very widely known among anyone with an interest in the county. Secondly it's just a redirect, not a template, and redirects are cheap. Thirdly but related to both of those is that it's very handy shorthand to be able to type {{hants}} instead of {{WikiProject Hampshire}} every time we want to use it. Fourthly, you're wrong, there are several other wikiprojects that use similar redirects for their project banners - for example, {{WPKENT}} for WikiProject Kent, {{WPENG}} for WikiProject Engineering... in fact I'm not aware of any wikiprojects that don't have a shorthand redirect for their banner.

Arguably ours should be {{WPHANTS}} instead of {{hants}} but moving it now would be unnecessarily disruptive and it does no harm where it is. WaggersTALK 12:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Waggers: nowadays we are using copy-pasting, so it takes microsecond to use transparent/self-explaining phrase "WikiProject Hampshire". But I also agree that there are many bad redirects to WPs, like {{WPENG}}, which definitely should be deleted, like is happening at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_6#Template:WPCOUNTRY Estopedist1 (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. They don't need to be deleted, and they are not bad redirects. There are lots of ways of using project banners - personally I use the Rater script most often nowadays - but these long established shortcuts serve a useful purpose and are cheap in terms of resources and space. What exactly is your problem with them existing? WaggersTALK 10:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:RNAS Lee-on-Solent (HMS Daedalus)#Requested move 11 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is ongoing at Template talk:Infobox English county#Proposal: remove the ethnicity section which is likely of interest to this project. The original proposal is for straight removal of the ethnicity field from the template; the population field would remain. This and a modified proposal would have the same effect on Hampshire. A result of the change, if consented to, is the restriction of demographics, other than population to the local authority administrative sections of the county infoboxes. It has no effect on editors placing reliably sourced statistics in the body of the article. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Mary 2 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Entry for Gore End has 2 errors Kathy clarke 109 (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at Portsmouth Independents Party and assessing it per WP:NORG? It was just created directly in the mainspace the other day by a relatively new account and doesn't appear to ever been assessed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The irony of independents creating a party is that they're by definition no longer independents. Anyway, taking a look :) WaggersTALK 10:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a few minutes of searching, I found this and a few other local news articles. I think together they just about satisfy GNG. But certainly the article itself needs some improvement. WaggersTALK 10:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Waggers. I only stumbled upon the article via c:COM:HD#Uploading logo of political party and then only added WikiProject banners to the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jutish#Requested move 18 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. PK2 (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]