If want to go down that path need to apply at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals--Golden Wattle ^talk 00:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A general Riverina stub may be useful. I am not sure we want to break down the {{NewSouthWales-geo-stub}} to regions although I see

{{FarNorthQueensland-geo-stub}} exists. I like the proposed design on the project page.--Mattinbgn/ ^talk 07:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

We have a talk page parameter - ie {{WP Australia|Riverina=yes}} which links to this project and places articles in Category:Wikipedia:WikiProject Riverina articles--Golden Wattle ^talk 21:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Cool - will use. --VS ^{talk...images} 21:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Should Riverina towns' talk pages be tagged with both Australian places and Riverina tags. See User talk:VirtualSteve#Riverina tags here for some earlier discussion.--Mattinbgn/ ^talk 12:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached on tagging talk pages with all relevant WP Australia projects.--Mattinbgn/ ^talk 02:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A couple of Riverina towns have double names, for example Beggan Beggan or Grong Grong. A category that includes these towns, Category:Double-named places in Australia is up for deletion at Categories for discussion and / or merger in the related discussion above which also suggests renaming.--Golden Wattle ^talk 20:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

G'day. Here, have a pretty map. I've recently been working on articles on biogeographic regions of Western Australia; see for example Esperance Plains. I needed to create maps for these articles, so for the sake of consistency I created maps for every IBRA region; see Commons:IBRA. Do you folks know that there is an IBRA region named "Riverina", defined as

An ancient riverine plain and alluvial fans composed of unconsolidated sediments with evidence of former stream channels. The Murray and Murrumbidgee Rivers and their major tributaries, the Lachlan and Goulburn Rivers flow westwards across this plain. Vegetation consists of river red gum and black box forests, box woodlands, saltbush shrublands, extensive grasslands and swamp communities.

Hesperian 12:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey - that is a pretty map. Of course the damn bit of squiggly red line to the left of the main mass (along the Murray River I assume) might throw some of what we have done askew (except that we have debated the question to a final stage already) - especially because it encompasses an area which is also referred to as Sunraysia &/or Mallee and moves into South Australia. Seriously though - if you don't mind me being a bit critical of these maps in general (not just yours) I always find them so hard to work with when you want to pinpoint locations (towns, places, communities etc) on the edges - simply because there is nothing in them to easily identify exactly where all the edges stop and start. Rhetorically - the question seems always to be that I can take a look at the map and make a pretty good guess that Albury is in the middle bottom of the big red mass but for example is Bookham on the right hand edge or isn't it? --VS ^talk 12:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback, VS. Can you suggest how the maps could be improved, without losing the sense of being a simple location map rather than a detail map? Hesperian 11:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Pleasure Hesperian - I was being a bit rhetorical as I so boldly stated but if I was to properly ask and answer the question I would probably commence by suggesting that any and all of these maps would work better if they allowed a static two step zooming in process (a little like you can with Google Earth but with only two steps) and then on the edges of the area being zoomed in a sort of hybrid map that included the major towns or roads or rivers etc appeared so one could actually put the image into a greater context than just noting that the area is somewhere in the middle of NSW. Having said all of that - I can fully understand how much more work this would be. However the reason I said the above and then this bit is because when we (the editors working on Riverina) attempt to deliberate an area such as the Riverina we invariably have to make guesstimates which would be assisted greatly by your IBRA map if it gave us pinpointed edges. I note that my fellow editors may have different opinions. (PS I am also working on Template:Sunraysia and we strike has the same sort of problems there.) --VS ^talk 12:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the IBRA information needs to be factored into the Riverina article. We already have a section on the bioregion from the NSW perspective - can't check yet if this coincides - assume so and we just need ot add reference ...--Golden Wattle ^talk 20:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, didn't notice that; yep, they are the same, except that your link defines the region in terms of IBRA Version 5.1, whereas mine is IBRA Version 6.1. Hesperian 11:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up that the anon editor is banned. Reference Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors. The decision was The anonymous Gundagai editor is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year. That means revert on sight. She basically tried to introduce unsubstantiated facts in a very disruptive way.--Golden Wattle ^talk 20:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Riverina is now rated as GA class. Well done to all involved.--Mattinbgn/ ^talk 09:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I note that some of the other Australian WikiProjects have ranked their articles in terms of their importance to the sub project rather than to WP Australia as a whole. Do we want to head down that path and if so, what would we rank as Top, High, Mid and Low. Riverina would be classed as Top but what else? --Mattinbgn/ ^talk 05:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As I am involved (and indeed assessing) in some other projects - eg: Wikipedia:WikiProject Townsville I can concur with Matt's overview of other projects. To be frank I initially started assessing the Townsville project in relationship to WP Australia as a whole and was then asked (and agreed) to consider my rankings in relationship to the sub-project. Whilst this does provide the situation (quite often) of two different importance gradings for the same page (but only terms of the importance not in terms of class) I can understand the point of the members of that sub-project that they wish to draw attention to certain articles within the sub-project and thereby gain all of the benefits of that attention. However there may be a relatively big difference between WP Townsville and WP Riverina (with due respect to the Townsville group) and that is that Riverina has at least 320 articles and Townsville has only 129 - with the fact appearing to be that size of area and thus number of potential articles in my view is likely to be considerably larger for Riverina (indeed there will probably be hundreds of pages already on wiki which could and should be claimed as Riverina articles already). To conclude therefore I do not mind which way the consensus shifts here - although it will mean re-grading all of our articles, and if that occurs, yes Riverina would be top importance, and so would Wagga Wagga, Albury, Griffith, the various rivers, etc, as might be for example Tim Fischer etc (who is not even claimed as WP Riverina at this stage but should be). I'd be happy to further discuss.--VS ^talk 06:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above comment I have just gone through and assessed the last 17 Riverina articles that remained unassessed at today's date. Having done that I note (interestingly) that in fact none of the Riverina articles are assessed for Riverina importance at all. This becomes obvious when you look at the table on project page - So we are left with this question of Matt's which is really quite important - do we grade according to the value we place on an article in terms of the Riverina or in terms of the value of important for WP Australia? For my vote it must be the former - that is grading with regards the value of the article to the Riverina - otherwise why the heck does the current project have an automatic categorisation of Unknown-importance Riverina articles. I would like to begin work on this soon because if we don't we will be constantly chasing the tail of more and more articles. Thoughts please?--VS ^talk 08:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but can't we have two ratings: see Talk:Riverina. I have left that as Mid rating for WP:Australia and made it Top rating for Riverina. It doesn't show on the tag but it appears on the Riverina category as Top.--Mattinbgn/ ^talk 10:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry Matt - I obviously should have made my point clearer - thank you for making yours so. I agree completely with your conclusion - we can and should have two ratings - just like Riverina (and like I have done for about 70 or so WP Townsville articles). I will start to do the same as you have done - some of our ratings will no doubt be worth further discussion but for the majority I think we will be closely aligned. That said I wonder if we could use the following code for Riverina articles because I know from experience that this will allow scripts to work without one grade change affecting the other (by this I mean that some of the automatic grade systems in place will adjust the wikiproject specific importance rating if the Wiki Australia rating is changes unless we use this code):
  

{{WP Australia|class=|importance=<!-- Wikiproject specific tags --> |Riverina=yes|Riverina-importance=}}
I have adjusted Talk:Riverina as an example. --VS ^talk 12:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha, cool. Sorry I am a little slow on the uptake today. --Mattinbgn/ ^talk 12:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done Riverina Class B's (11 as of today) assessed. (I note for the record that if a town/location has a relatively stable population that I am assessing at least at Mid Level importance for Riverina.)--VS ^talk 13:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but I would have places such as Mairjimmy, New South Wales, Coree, New South Wales and Barnes, New South Wales at Low. I assume that is what you mean by stable population. I agree with the assessments to date and good work on the assessment so far.--Mattinbgn/ ^talk

1.  Done All but Bs Cs Ds Ms and Ts for Riverina Class Start pages.--VS ^talk 14:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
2.  Done Set up assessment template to include importance ratings and assessed Bot's auto-compilation - all seems to be in working order.--VS ^talk 14:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
3.  Done All stub-class articles rated for Riverina-importance. --Mattinbgn/ ^talk 02:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Great job Matt - I think we working in unison just now  Done and I think that's all of them. I will run the Bot through to get a newest count on the template.--VS ^talk 06:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Steve. The updated table looks good and to my mind seems to show we have made a lot of headway since we started unofficially on the Riverina project as weel as guidance on what to do next. On another point, going through this has given me a chance to think about the Riverina article again. It may be worth taking it to peer review to set it up for an attempt at WP:FAC. It would be great for the project to have a featured article. What do you think? --Mattinbgn/ ^talk 08:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with your comments Matt. Have also claimed 31 additional articles to Riverina this afternoon so the table jumps from 318 to 349.
• Would be most happy to support an attempt at FA - and the kudos for WP:Riverina would be brilliant.
• In that same vein, would be happy to work with you directly over the next month or two - on getting other articles to GA - specifically that we tackle in order the cities of Wagga, then Albury, then Griffith? Interested?--VS ^talk 08:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, sounds like a plan. It shouldn't be too difficult to find high-quality sources on these places to get them up to speed fairly quickly. --Mattinbgn/ ^talk 09:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Pending assessment of Wagga Wagga, suggestions are:
  • Albury, New South Wales
  • Griffith, New South Wales
  • Gundagai, New South Wales
    • Gundagai seems to me to be almost at GA standard now and could be done very quickly. Some details on the climate, on governance via Gundagai Shire Council, demographics from 2001 census figures, transport links and in my opinion that's about all it needs prior to listing. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area

--Golden Wattle ^talk 02:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Hay, New South Wales - Reasonably strong on geography and history, but needs some work on sections such as culture and industry. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I have been working through suburbs of Blacktown using PeterJeremy's suggested Suburb Skeleton.

An example of an article fleshed out fully from online reference to government websites is Blackett, New South Wales. Any comments regarding using the same "template" for "Suburbs of Wagga"? Garrie 05:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The suburb skeleton should work well with the Wagga suburbs. The indigenous heritage is likely to be similar for suburbs and notable residents would be difficult but otherwise it would be good. - Mattinbgn/ ^talk 08:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess for notable residents it would only come up if someone has a particular house/building that is well known, otherwise they are all just "from Wagga". I know that there are significant (heritage listed) properties around Gurwood Street, but if any of them are closely associated with (wikipedia-)notable people I don't know.

Sorry, have been a bit meatworld-busy lately and haven't contributed as much as I would like.Garrie 23:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there still interest in a stub types for locations in the Riverina? I'm not quite clear how well-defined or "official" a region it is, but it seems to be the best-categorised of the NSW regions, of whatever sort. As the parent is over-sized, I think I'll float this over at WP:WSS/P... Alai 20:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I must admit, my knowledge of the intricacies of stub-sorting is fairly minimal and I am not sure what creating a Riverina stub will do over and above categorisation of articles in Category:Stub-Class Riverina articles. That said, I am certainly not opposed to a new stub type. The region is entirely un-official although a number of State government authorities covering some or all of the area traditionally known as the Riverina use the term. Consensus amongst editors on the boundaries of the region took some time to get, but this has now been stable for some time. If you are looking for some official boundaries, then perhaps using the boundaries of the LGAs in Category:Local Government Areas of the Riverina, New South Wales will define a stable area. Hope this helps and good luck.-- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 22:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, the intricacies of this are fairly minimal, if not to say, not very intricate. :) Basically I was just thinking in terms of following whatever scope the permcat Category:Riverina uses, without worrying too much what that actually is. I'm not sure there will be any huge pay-off from this if the 1.0 flavour category is consistently up to date, but it is possible that there's some that are tagged with {{NewSouthWales-geo-stub}} (which as I say, is currently a little large for stub-sorter tastes) that'd be picked up from the Riverina category, or that its existance will prompt people to retag them as they find them. (Someone explain to me again slowly why we have these by-topic and by-wikiproject systems running in (sometime) parallel...) Alai 23:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated Riverina for FA status. Discussion can be found here. I hope this is not premature. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Riverina is now a featured article, this project's first. :-) -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Prompted by the comments on the FA discussion and also by the task list, I have started an article on the Wemba-Wemba. I noticed Mattinbgn had started the article on the Nari-Nari recently. A heap more to do in this area including pulling it together and making sense of it.--Golden Wattle ^talk 00:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

For your information Gundagai, New South Wales has been nominated by User:Roister for Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight. All has been quiet for some time on the editing front for this article and it would be good to develop it to the next level. The 75th birthday of the Dog on the Tuckerbox even passed without event :-) --Matilda ^talk 04:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hey Matilda - I was thinking exactly the same thing when I saw the celebrations on television.--VS ^talk 07:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys. I got fed up when she came back in August and so I just blocked her two primary IP ranges for the term of the arbitration ban, so we should be reasonably safe (fingers crossed). Sarah 14:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• the collaboration is ACOTF at the moment for those who weren't aware. I am feeling a bit stuck - it is no where near where I want it to be - especially the history section which is bitsy. :-( Help would be very much appreciated --Matilda ^talk 04:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

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

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

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

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

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

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• The bot page is interesting - why is Margaret Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) getting so many hits - have I missed something? --Matilda ^talk 23:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 22:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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 06:26, 28 February 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 {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:37, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Riverina/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Riverina/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 23:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The clear omission in this list is Wagga Wagga. I have requested it be added Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8#Wikipedia:WikiProject Riverina - List of articles. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles within Category:LGBT in Oceania may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Our first Australian conference for Wikipedians/Wikimedians will be held 3-5 October 2015. Organised by Wikimedia Australia, there will be a 2-day conference (Saturday 3 October and Sunday 4 October) with an optional 3rd day (Monday 5 October) for specialist topics (unconference discussions, training sessions, etc). The venue is the State Library of Queensland in Brisbane. So put those dates in your diary! Note: Monday is a public holiday is some states but not others. Read about it here: WikiConference Australia 2015

As part of that page, there are now sections for you to:

• indicate your interest in possibly attending the conference (this is not a binding commitment, of course)
• add suggestions for topics to include in the conference: what you would like to hear/discuss (again, there is no commit to you presenting/organising that topic, although it’s great if you are willing to do so), or indicate your enthusiasm for any existing topic on the list by adding a note of support underneath it

It would really help our planning if you could let us know about possible attendance and the kind of topics that would make you want to come. If you don’t want to express your views on-wiki, please email me at [email protected] or [email protected]

We are hoping to have travel subsidies available to assist active Australasian Wikipedians to attend the conference, although we are not currently in a position to provide details, but be assured we are doing everything we can to make it possible for active Australian Wikipedians to come to the conference. Kerry (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Folks, just letting you know we will not be proceeding with Wikiconference Australia 2015 originally proposed for 3-5 October 2015. Thanks to those of you who expressed your support. You are free to watch the football finals instead :-) Kerry (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

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) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)