This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 |
Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Do you have a list of suitable articles? I know of some FAs, such as Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. and Jean Schmidt, perhaps there are others - they would be suitable as well. Please post your article suggestions here. Cheers, Walkerma 04:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
This has to be the best organized WikiProject I have ever seen!! Congrats to all those WPedians who worked on this! --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Please come discuss policy regarding party political office inclusion in infoboxes, navbox templates, succession boxes and WP:LEADs Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Political_Party_offices.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
It occured to me that we don't have a subpage for Congressional Committees here, talking about the formatting of that. If nobody objects, I'll create one, and link it into that.Dunstvangeet (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the proper place for this, but would screencaps/etc from congressional YouTube videos be in the public domain as they are a work of the Federal Government? --68.56.187.186 (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to remind anyone who may be involved in editing Congressional biographies here to keep an eye out for photo portraits that aren't in the typical style taken by the U.S. Congress photography service. This is especially true for new members, whose websites are using older images taken from their campaigns and are likely copyrighted (though their staffers are negligent and do not mention this fact). People have been uploading these unofficial photos and they are being deleted as replaceable fair use. A public domain portrait would probably look something like the ones to the right, with the U.S. flag and a simple background. If it doesn't, be suspicious and check Google to see if you can find the original source. Thanks! --Tom (talk - email) 02:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Does the project think there is any merit to including new List articles of every member that has ever served on standing House and Senate committees? We already have lists of members for past Congresses, lists of Cabinet Secretaries, etc. Right now, there is a hodgepodge of some committee articles listing past membership rolls. While it would be harder for some of the older Congresses, there is plenty of source material available from the Library of Congress memory project and the official congressional directories to create such a list. What I'm thinking of is started in my sandbox.DCmacnut<> 19:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, how about creating some categories, like Category:Members of the Senate Committee on Appropriations and also one for Chairmen/Ranking members? We could also place a "Committees during this congress" section on the earlier XXth Congress pages. I think this would have some value to readers. As far as the work, adding categories, creating an article, or adding committee memberships to articles all would have the same level of work, in my opinion. My thought was just focusing on current standing committees and their direct predecessor committees. That would avoid having to do much with pre-1946 standing or select committees, which is where the bulk of the headache in gathering information would lie. WP is always a work in progress.DCmacnut<> 22:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm worrying too much. But is it possible, that having the current Senators listed as Senior Senator of... & Junior Senator of... might be mis-leading? Might give the false impression to less familiar readers, that (for example) in California, Feinstein has more Senatorial authority then Boxer (which she doesn't)? GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Party affiliations for Senate president, pro tem, and House speaker are displayed erratically, some Congresses' infoboxes displaying them, others not, and others still providing the parties for some of the leaders but not others. It would be nice to have some consistency across this series of articles. Personally, I'd prefer that the parties be displayed, since that easily shows the majority party in each house, but at a minimum I'd seek consensus on either displaying parties or not for all articles. Qqqqqq (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the to do list item about auditing committee lists. I noted the item should not be removed until after the Minnesota race is done with. From the committee assignment pages of the Senate's Daily Calendar, it is obvious both parties are holding open seats for Franken and Coleman. Once the election is totally, absolutely final, one party will have to rejigger its committee assignments. -Rrius (talk) 08:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if this is the wrong project if it is can you point me in the right place. User:Bluedogtn has mass added flagd and icon too templates here . I think the they shouldn't of been added and would like to remove as per WP:ICONDECORATION . What is this projects opinion Gnevin (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Looks pretty clear-cut at this point. Should we start rolling these back? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't able to inactivate all the templates on the main page of this project. If someone could figure it out, please help!! Thanks. --Funandtrvl (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
This year marks the 100th anniversary of the first Saxbe fix, which became effective on March 4, 1909 and facilitated a March 6, 1909 appointment. I have been trying to get this through the WP:FAC process so that I can propose it at WP:TFAR to be a WP:TFA. Because of its centennary and its membership in an underrepresented category of articles, it would have extremely high priority and almost assuredly be approved for the main page on either the 4th or the 6th if it is promoted to WP:FA. I intend to renominate it at WP:FAC in five to seven days for one final attempt at FA promotion. The article could use any assistance that you may be able to lend in terms of copyediting so that it represents the best of WP. This is your chance to get invovled not only in a FA if we get this cleaned up, but an FA that would surely go to the main page. Please come help clean this up. Also, any details on the Hilda Solis fix that you may be able to find to properly cite that eventuality would also be helpful.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I propose a subcategory to categories such as Category:110th United States Congress for failed legislation so as to not confuse with passed legislation and clutter the main category, such as "Category:Failed legislation of the 110th United States Congress". If another word would work in place of "failed", I'm open to discussion. Thoughts? ~PescoSo say•we all 19:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
""Failed" isn't a good term here because of the POV. You mean Bills that were not enacted, but I don't know a concise word to express that. However, I'm not sure how useful this subcategory would be anyway. —GoldRingChip 22:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I also don't see the utility in such a subcategory. Many bills may not make it in one Congress, but can and are often reintroduced in future congresses. Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 and the District of Columbia Voting Rights Act are just two examples of 110th Congress bills that have been reintroduced in the 111th Congress. There are also House and Senate versions of the same bill, but only one is enacted. Do you count the version not enacted as "failed" even though an identical bill was approved? Finally, there are thousands of bills introduced in each congress, and only a handful ever reach a level of notability to justify their own article. Not even every Public Law gets its own article, particularly annual appropriations bills or bills naming post offices. A discussion of failure or success and legislative history (such as how many times a bill was introduced before being acted upon) can be provided on the act's page.DCmacnut<> 20:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Could an Administrator block IP User 71.208.228.250? The user is adding information to every senator's article regarding the recent recovery bill vote in a blatant viloation of WP:NPOV. He/she is calling the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as the "$787 spend before we think act." Rather than trying to keep up with the editor on reverts, could someone block him to keep him from making these edits inthe first place. Otherwise, could the project members please keep an eye out on the senators pages for this users POV edits. Thanks.DCmacnut<> 22:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Today (UTC) Terrancee moved the article about Bond from Kit Bond to Christopher S. Bond. Which is the better article name? Cassandro (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm clearing out defunct committee redlinks. Many of these redlinked committees already have articles out there, mainly articles that discuss the investigation carried out by the committee rather than the committee itself. I'm wondering how we should handle these? Should the committee name redirect to the investigation or should the investigation redirect to the committee? Some are a grey area, but one obvious one is the Baltic States Investigation by the US House of Representatives. The entire article discusses the committee formation and its investigation, so it should probably be moved to United States House Select Committee on the Baltic States, which is the appropriate title. Anyone have any thoughts? I will cross post this as the main article as well.DCmacnut<> 04:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Should we have a mass-renaming of all articles pertaining to House committees?
and
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The folks at Wikipedia:External links have confirmed a complaint raised by another editor pertaining to my use of Template:FJC Bio, which is modeled on Template:CongBio. In short, I've been told that these templates are not permitted in the "External links" sections of articles, and should be deleted where they exist. I'd like to get this rule changed, as I find the conforming presence of these links to be a positive and confidence-affirming feature of the articles. bd2412 T 07:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
After looking at how the above-linked conversation has progressed, I don't think the links need to be removed; rather, they should be moved from "External links" to "References". --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 16:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm proposing merging Lodge Committee into United States Senate Committee on the Philippines. Please discuss at Talk:Lodge Committee#Merge proposal. The main reason for the merge is because the Lodge Committee was not a separate Senate committee, but rather an investigation carried out by the Committee on the Philippines by its chairman, Henry Cabot Lodge. Adding this information would help improve the Philippines Committee article by including a major event in the committee's history.DCmacnut<> 17:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:47, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
User:Nevermore27 is embarked upon delinking the subcommittees that Congressional members belong to in all the member BLP articles. Examples of these edits are here and here and here and here and dozens more. None of these edits ever have edit summaries either.
Is this change approved by the project? What is the rationale for it? I believe that subcommittees should be linked for the same reason that full committees, elections, legislation passed, and everything else in linked in these articles: to point readers to a more detailed article on a particular subject if they want to learn more. In this talk page post Nevermore27 says the reason for doing this is "because I don't think linking every subcommittee on every individual senators' page is necessary, and it reduces the size of the article." I don't see the logic in the first reason (it could just as easily apply to committee links or anything else; why should we make the reader do a search or go through multiple links just to get to the subcommittee article?) and the size difference for the handful of subcommittees that any member belongs to is trivial. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The links are meaningful and relevant to the work of each senator, therefore of interest to readers seeking information about them. The argument expressed about the length of articles is just silly. The main reason for keeping article size down is for length, not bytes. We are encouraged as a matter of policy to avoid making decisions based on capacity, so I just don't see the point of this. -Rrius (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
On a related note, I've noticed piecemeal changes by the same editor with respect to "ex officio" status of the full committee chairmen and ranking members on individual subcommittee pages. I've always questioned whether we need to include ex officio members of the subcommittee's, since House and Senate rules state that all full committee chair and ranking are to be ex officio on their subcommittees. It's just that some committees explicitly state this on the subcommittee rolls and others do not. Should we come up with a policy regarding this as well?DCmacnut<> 01:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts were that we can't rely on the committee websites to determine who is and who isn't ex officio on a subcommittee. What really brought this to my attention were the House Judiciary Committee subcommittee's. John Conyers is a full member of many of the subcommittees, but Lamar Smith is not. The current format of an article like the subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law is a bit awkward, since Lamar Smith is hanging out there alone. The blank under the Democratic colum looks off to me. Perhaps we should adopt the style of theCommerce subcommittee on Aviation Operations.
With respect to who serves ex officio, many committees, like the Senate Commerce Committee explicitely state the chair and ranking as ex officio, but only in the press release annoucing the subcommittees. Others do not, but that does not prevent the chair or ranking member from sitting on the subcommittee ex officio from time to time if they choose pursuant to tradition and committee rules. Moreover, the individual subcommittee pages do not list the chair and ranking.
Another example is the House Intelligence Committee. House Rule 11 states "the Speaker and Minority Leader shall be ex officio members of the select committee" (emphasis added), but the Intelligence committee website does not list them nor do we have them listed as members in the committee article.
In general, Senate Rule 25 says any chairman or ranking member may serve ex officio on any subcommittee under their committee. House Rule 5 does not include similar language, but mentions ex officio service on a subcommittee as not counting against the total limitation on number of subcommittee assignments each member is allowed. House members can't serve on more than 2 standing committees and no more than 4 total standing subcommittees. Again, it is the perogative of the chair and ranking member to serve ex officio if they choose. I just think we need a better effort to figure out just how to display these and just when the chair and ranking are ex officio.DCmacnut<> 15:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I see your point as well. The Intelligence Committee's are unique, in that they are the only committees that have ex officio members from outside the regular committee. That's the main reason I thought the Senate Intelligence should have a separate line, because it lists the ex officio's titles as well. Perhaps we can amend that article to simplify it by removing the titles for those ex officio members. With respect to Conyers, a ref could be added, but perhaps next to his name than a stand alone line.DCmacnut<> 23:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Template:NYRepresentatives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is listed at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_6#Template:NYRepresentatives.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
subst'd for posterity --William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:47, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
Hi - don't know if this is the best talk page to ask at, but I'll try - having no response at Talk:United States congressional delegations from Illinois....
I found a Find-A-Grave bio for a representative that appears to be missing from this page, and from Wikipedia: CARLSON, Cliffard Dale (rep 1972 - 1973; filled the vacancy after Charlotte Reid stepped down) - his bioguide is at [1], his Find-A-Grave entry is at [2]. I'm under the impression that some bot is creating the skeleton entries for the representatives - could someone perhaps get the job done for this guy? --Alvestrand (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
-Rrius (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Stilltim has been writing a lot of these; I just wanted to check (before I did anything) whether it is part of a wider wikiproject-based activity? Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a small point, but I wonder if anyone would object to my tweaking the way committee chairman and ranking members are listed in the membership lists at each congressional committee and subcommittee page. I would like to change them so that the terms "chairman" and "ranking member" appear after the state. Also, I'd like to bold "chairman" and "ranking member". Here's what I mean:
Majority | Minority |
---|---|
|
|
Please advise. -Rrius (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we should have a discussion about the layout of the ordinal Congress articles, e.g., 111th United States Congress. I see a number of problems:
I am sure there are other areas needing improvement, so please add any you can think of. Hopefully, together, we can make these articles even better than they are. -Rrius (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I created a project subpage to discuss this. Here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Congress/Ordinal_congresses.—GoldRingChip 21:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hillary Rodham Clinton has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I've thrown together a List of people who have served in both the United States Congress and the United States Supreme Court. I culled information from existing bios on the Justices, but am concerned that it does not seem to match up with the general numbers put out in recent media reports and other sources. Review would be appreciated. bd2412 T 00:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Usher L. Burdick has a problem, but I don't know what it is exactly or how to fix it. Шизомби (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I've developed a draft template for committees. It's basically cobbled together from how many of the current articles are formated, with a few additional suggestions on how to deal with defunct commmittees. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress/Committees and provide comment, edits, or other suggestions.DCmacnut<> 21:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The Geraldine Ferraro article has been nominated for Featured Article status. Support/opposition/comments welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geraldine Ferraro/archive1. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
CRS Reports used to redirect to Congressional Research Service, until yesterday I changed that to Congressional_Research_Service#CRS_Products. Nevertheless, I think it should be a high priority to write a standalone CRS Reports article, since there is growing interest among Wikipedians (myself included) to incorporate massive amounts of these reports in Wikipedia (a-la-Britannica 11th edition), and some people (myself included) need a better understanding of the caveats of doing so. (Specifically, I've created this template ((refideas)) which essentially is designed for distributing CRS reports to articles, and I'd like to know if I should have myself shot for doing so.) Of course, I can commit time to this, I'd just like some help. Agradman talk/contribs 14:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, out of personal curiosity: I'm a big fan of List of United States federal legislation, and I'm wondering if there's a movement afoot to create a comprehensive list of federal legislation (like WP:SCOTUS has done with Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume. Agradman talk/contribs 14:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow, you guys run a professional operation here. I'm planning on starting a Wikiproject of my own this fall ("1L curriculum") and I think I'll stick around here for a while and learn how it's done. Agradman talk/contribs 14:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The House Rules Committee has been kind enough to aggregate approximately eighty Congressional Research Service reports dealing with Congressional procedure, history, etc. Of course, they're in the public domain, so all you have to do is copy-paste-cite. Cheers. Agradman talk/contribs 02:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey all. I think I have enough on Elijah Boardman's life outside of the Senate, but I can't seem to find much information on what he actually did during his political career. Are there any sources I haven't yet found that could be of help? Regards, SGGH ping! 11:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Why is the need for that? (Is there an urgency?, considering each article reflects the original text?) Does it promote American "self-centrism"? I mean, how about other countries' constitution? Why this needs to be in separate articles? Why not merge them into the whole US Constitution article? Why does they have their own article, especially that they are repeating on every mother articles, or why is there a need to explain each section, each article of the US Constitution?--JL 09Talk to me! 09:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Currently, House special elections for a given Congress are handled in two articles: "United States House of Representatives special elections, [odd year]" and "United States House of Representatives elections, [even year]". I see two problems resulting from this set up. First, the elections for a single two-year Congress are divided between two articles. Second, the even-year-election articles end up with a section of special elections that disrupts the flow of the article. I propose combining all special elections to a Congress in a single article with one of the following names (using the current Congress):
The first would include Senate specials not occurring on the same day as the regular November election. Examples include the 1996 Oregon special, the upcoming 2010 Massachusetts special, and the anticipated 2010 Texas special. Either of the others would exclude those elections. That name has two benefits: it is short, and gives the article sufficient flexibility to take in the Senate special elections. On the negative side, there are not that many special elections for Senate that don't occur at the normal November election, which weakens adding Senate specials as a justification. Using this name is my weak preference at this point because there is currently nowhere to put odd-year elections if more than one occurs in year, and putting the even-year elections in "United States Senate elections, [even year]" has the same problem as I mentioned for House articles. As between the other two, the first is more accurate, but the second one conforms to other election articles better. -Rrius (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to get Abraham Lincoln up to FA, and his article is within the scope of your wikiproject. It's a big job, but the article is in pretty good shape. Anyone want to help? Drop by the talk page if you're interested. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Please add your comments at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Appointed U.S. Senators. I have proposed adding some parameters that would allow us to provide the appointment and anticipated oath dates to the infobox to avoid some of the trouble we seem to have every time a new senator is appointed. -Rrius (talk) 05:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The article talks about November 2nd elections in 2010 I think it is on a Tuesday November 3rd 2010 can anyone verify and correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.76.124.170 (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Editors here may be interested in a discussion about moving Gordon Smith to Gordon Smith (politician) or as I have suggested Gordon H. Smith. The discussion is at Talk:Gordon Smith#Requested move -Rrius (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to find a Congressional resolution from September 1961 which states that Samuel Wilson is declared the progenitor of Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam has this quote: "Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives that the Congress salutes Uncle Sam Wilson of Troy, New York, as the progenitor of America's National symbol of Uncle Sam." When you google it, Wikipedia is the top hit. I have an NRHP nomination that confirms this information (page 12), but it doesn't cite its source (and it's not a good enough sorce for my taste to make such a bold statement). Is there a place online that would host Congressional resolutions from the 1960s where I can find this quote? upstateNYer 02:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:47, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)