Wikipedia talk:WikiProject River Thames

Tasks to be completed before project can "go live"

• create Template:Thames-stub  Done nancy ^talk 11:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• create Category:Thames stubs  Done nancy ^talk 11:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Stub templates deleted - use {{WPThames}} with the |class=stub qualifier instead. nancy ^talk 06:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• create Template:WPThames for article talk page  Done nancy ^talk 13:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• create article class categories (Start-class, B-class, GA-class or A-class articles)  Done and linked in to Template:WPThames nancy ^talk 14:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• create project member userbox(es) (not done yet but gone live anyway)

WikiProject UK Waterways

You may also want to engage in dialogue with the people at the well-established Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Waterways...Paulbrock (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Article tagging progress

Have made good headway with tagging article talk pages with {{WPThames}} & it also seems to have served as a mini-recruitment drive. Have found that using AWB to run through by category speeds the process slightly, especially if you configure it to skip talk pages that are already tagged. Categories completed so far are: Category:Islands in the River Thames, Category:Bridges across the River Thames, Category:River Thames and Category:Locks on the River Thames.

Looking at the sub cats of River Thames there are few obvious ones still to do including Category:Ports and harbours of the Thames Estuary, Category:Thames Path, Category:Tributaries of the River Thames, Category:London River Services. nancy ^(talk) 07:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Islands

I think we are just about there with Islands in the River Thames. However there are a few queries I have.

Is Nickcroft Ait the same as Lion island? (Thacker has it at about the same place)

Dumsey Eyot and Truss's Island are both minor promentaries and probably not worth inclusion

I may be confused with the photos between Holm Hollyhock and Church Island.

I missed Firework Ait - perhaps it was too small or perhaps I confused it with Deadwater.

There are one or two unidentified islands not included - one between Rod and Henley Bridge, one below Mapledurham Lock, and a few from Goring to Wallingford.

Regards Motmit (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither of my maps (both quite recent) show Nickcroft Ait at all so I think the possibility that it is an alternative name is quite strong. Motmit, do you have a map with Nickcroft marked? nancy ^(talk) 12:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Only Thacker p 375 where "Nickcroft Ait" is written along the top of the old navigation behind Ham Island. The nearest island (or possibly two) looks to be about the point of your Lion as shown on OS. Regards Motmit (talk) 12:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

PS Hope you like the boat slide Motmit (talk) 12:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say remove Nickcroft from the Islands lists for now and if we find some more evidence consider adding it to Lion Island as an alternative name and creating Nickcroft Ait as a redirect.

Yes, loved the boat slide picture. And the beautiful boat in the shot - is she yours? nancy ^(talk) 13:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It does need references

There is always a danger with such lists that they are deleted for lack of referencing, so I added a segment to hold them when I added in Benn's Island. I can't find s huge amount that isn't in the Hampton Sailing Club website, but it has leased the spot since 1945.

We can't rely on the contents being bluelinks as a defence against a deletion nomination. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Thames

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 before December 2008, 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 16:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not absolutely clear but I think that the articles concerned are River Thames, Palace of Westminster, Tower Bridge and Kingston upon Thames. There may be more. nancy ^(talk) 17:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ait merge proposal

An editor has proposed merging Ait with Inland island (a redirect to List of islands in lakes). No rationale for the merge has been put forward but I have started a discussion on Talk:Ait. Nancy ^talk 11:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Life is too short. No consensus for merge, so I have removed tags. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Jolly good. A positive outcome for one of the first WP:THAMES collaborations (minor though it may have been) - may there be many others.... Nancy ^talk 14:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we do have to take a draconian view sometimes. To me the proposal was "silly" and also imperfect apart from that! So I was bold. Pretty much always boldness pays off.

We have had a second co-operation, but by serendipty! Look at Benn's Island. I created it and two of us managed to work in it by luck at the same time and with no edit conflicts that affected me, at least! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Environment Agency

The Environment Agency has to be one of the most important articles relating to the Thames, given both flooding and navigation responsibilities. I have been working on trying to improve the article which was as amorphous as the body itself, but have encountered a few difficulties. Could other members keep an eye on it and help develop it, as it still has some way to go as an informative neutral article. Regards Motmit (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

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

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

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

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the 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} 09:46, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

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

Rating Thames articles

A couple of us have been working through the Thames articles to rate importance and quality. This generates the useful matrix on the Project page which highlights articles that need work eg "Important articles that are still stubs". However we now have a large number of items in the low category many of which are peripheral - eg pubs, docks adjacent public parks etc. Meanwhile the High importance group has only about 35 articles. I have suggested moving everything that is Thames specific up a notch so that there is a more even spread, and so that for example small islands, footbridges and trib streams are not lost with the odds and end in "low". I attach Nancy's response to my suggestion and wonder what others think.

I thought the very same thing this morning; I was going through mopping up all the unrated (think I've cleared them - will know for sure when the bot runs tonight) and noticed that we were a bit "bottom heavy". I absolutely agree with your rationale re. Thames specific stuff being moved up a notch or two. I noticed that there were quite a few low importance bridges for example which should at least be mid & some - particularly the London ones - could arguably be high. Agree also that locks should at a minimum be mid with some exceptions - e.g. I would put Teddington as high.

Any further thoughts on rating quality and importance welcome. Motmit (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up Motmit. As of last night the distribution of project articles by importance is: 6 x Top (of which 4 are lists), 32 High, 242 Mid and 365 Low which does suggest that we've been too modest in our ratings. Perhaps the way forward is to come up with some loose guidelines for default importance ratings? As a starting point for the discussion what are your opinions on the following which is roughly based on Motmit's concept of things being "Thames specific" vs peripheral.

1. Bridges - minimum/default importance = High (road) Mid (foot). There are currently around 40 bridges rated as Low
2. Locks - minimum/default importance = High. They are currently all rated Mid with the exception of Teddington
3. Islands, aits & eyots - minimum/default importance = Mid. Over 70 are currently rated Low
4. Tributaries & backwaters - minimum/default importance = Mid. There are about 30 categorised as Low at the moment

Other specific categories we might want to consider include docks/ports/marinas/piers/wharves, boating clubs/races/regattas and canals. Best, Nancy ^talk 07:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that there shouldn't be any low-importance bridges, but would quite strongly disagree that all road bridges should be considered high-importance; treating Tadpole Bridge and Chelsea Bridge as being of equal importance would be just as perverse as the current setup in which Hampton Ferry is rated as higher-importance than Hammerton's Ferry. The current high/mid/low ratio seems fairly similar to that at the comparable WikiProject London Transport/Assessment. There's always going to be an issue, as what seems "high importance" to someone in Tilbury is never going to seem the same as to someone in Cricklade. I do agree that there should be no low-importance islands or tributaries, though. – iridescent 15:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Valid point regarding the road bridges. Perhaps revise default to "mid" for all fixed crossings. Nancy ^talk 17:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems we are in general agreement on the main components. One important area is the riverside settlements which would perhaps be high or medium, with riverside parks etc as low. Canals probably high. Motmit (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Might it be worthwhile getting the bot to generate a list similar to that at WikiProject London Transport/Favourite pages, to give some idea of what pages are getting the most traffic? Obviously, London, Oxford, River Thames, The Boat Race and London Bridge will dominate, but there will almost certainly be surprises if the London Transport list is anything to go by.

My gut reaction would be:

• Top importance for River Thames, Thames Gateway, Thames Estuary, London, London Bridge, Tower Bridge, List of crossings of the River Thames, Tributaries of the River Thames, Islands in the River Thames, Thames Path, Port of London and maybe Thames Head even though there's little to be said about it;
• High importance for all counties through which the river flows;
• All river crossings (bridges, tunnels and ferries) a minimum of mid importance, with all road bridges and tunnels between the estuary and Reading as a minimum of high importance;
• All docks and wharves a minimum of mid-importance, with all excavated docks past or present (Port of Tilbury, Surrey Commercial Docks, Brentford Dock etc) as high-importance;
• All islands a minimum of mid-importance;
• The Lea and the Medway as high importance, all other tributaries as mid-importance;
• Towns and villages at a minimum of mid importance;
• All railway stations, except those built specifically because of the river such as Tilbury Riverside railway station and Brentford Dock railway station (why is that a redlink?), to be low-importance—even London Bridge station itself;
• Miscellaneous riverside stuff—pubs, buildings, rowing clubs etc—judged on its relationship to the river. If it wouldn't exist without the river, a minimum of mid importance, otherwise, low importance. Canary Wharf or Fulham Palace, for instance, are undoubtedly highly important, but were the Thames to dry up tomorrow it wouldn't affect them in the least, and thus they aren't important as regards this project. Jesus College Boat Club (Oxford) is completely insignificant in the broad scheme of things, but is intimately connected with the Thames, and thus of a higher degree of importance in this particular context. – iridescent 14:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks sound to me. Also I have put in a request for a list of popular pages to be generated[1] which we'll be able to see when this link Wikipedia:WikiProject Thames/Popular pages turns blue - may not be until the start of next month. Nancy ^talk 15:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Shipbuilding on the Thames

I'd started to work on various articles exploring Shipbuilding on the River Thames, giving references for every item and not doing any original research. I've tried to use the facts and not just the text from my sources, but I'm not a writer. Also I had begun to think that if I wanted to see these articles on Wikipedia I'd have to write all of them, as nobody else seems to be doing any. Then today, instead of correcting and contributing to them, Nancy is ripping apart and deleting my articles on the grounds of copyright violation. This saddens me, but at this point I feel it would be easier for me to let go of this project than to go back to the beginning and start revising it all on my own, let alone to attempt further articles that I'd been intending to contribute. --Robkam (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Nancy explained the situation pretty clearly on your talk page. " You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or in this case, whole paragraphs/sections. "

If there are parts of that which you don't understand after reading WP:COPYVIO, please feel free to ask. Nobody wants to discourage you from contributing to the encyclopaedia, but we must all follow the policies and the copyright law. David Biddulph (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Motorway Traffic/Bridges

I recently edited a couple of arictles referring to the number of bridges carrying motorway traffic over the Thames after noticing an 'error' whilst using Google Earth. I've had it editted back pretty quickly by members of this Project.

I contend there are not four bridges carrying motorway traffic over the Thames. If you define motorway traffic as that on a motorway then there are three. If you include those where traffic would be directed to go from motorway to motorway as an expected part of a reasonable signposted journey then there are more which would include the QE2 bridge, the A404 Bypass Bridge near Marlow and at least one smaller bridge on the A419 near Cricklade and possibly one on the A34 near Wolvercote. 62.56.62.42 (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Dartford Crossing, Runnymede Bridge, the M3 at Chertsey and the M4 at Maidenhead. Four. Five if you count Runnymede as two separate bridges, but that's being really pedantic. – iridescent 21:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the point the IP is trying to make is that technically the QEII/Dartford Bridge is not a motorway bridge, I've only crossed it a couple of times, but I'm pretty sure there are end of motorway signs as you approach it, and start of motorway signs as you leave it. This allows prohibited traffic to cross the Thames without having to go way upstream. David Underdown (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly - it is to address this point, which has been raised before, that the articles refer to motorway traffic rather than bridges. But we dont want to go on a pedantic expedition to complicate things even more Motmit (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

In which case it would make sense to change it to motorway bridges, because as soon as you include the A282 as carrying motorway traffic you've opened the floodgates as it were. Certainly some of my examples are increasingly tenuous, but the A404 example isn't. If you were to count the former, what is the case for not including the latter (a key link between the M40 and M4/A404(M) 62.56.62.42 (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Tributaries of the River Thames

Tributaries of the River Thames does not seem to include the Mardyke (which joins the Thames at Purfleet). Is there a reaon for this, or has it simply been missed? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Think it's just been missed—it's certainly a "genuine" tributary. It may just be that when Motmit set this up the intention was only to list tributaries that had their own Wikipedia articles. – iridescent 07:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ta. I'll do an article and add it in. I couldn't spot the order that tributaries are lited - is it geographic? (BTW, does Bill Meroy Creek qualify? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like they're ordered sea-to-source, which would put the Mardyke between the Darent and the Ingrebourne. – iridescent 08:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ta. I've added it to the list, but I don't know what goes in the various boxes. Can anyone help? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Confluence = Name of the place where it joins the Thames (presumably Purfleet in this case)

Average Discharge (m3/s) = Flow rate at the confluence (that is, how much it pumps into the Thames each second); the Environment Agency probably has a figure for this

Source = Where it starts (sometimes harder to find than you'd think)

Length = Likewise, often harder to find than you'd think

Tributaries = I doubt it has any

Catchment = Don't worry about this, the figures don't exist for most minor rivers; it's the area from which rainwater ultimately flows into this river, rather than directly into the Thames. Landscaping and drainage has rendered most of these figures meaningless, anyway. – iridescent 17:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Irid for very accurate response. The list was created from the tribs I knew about at the time - mainly those with articles. Please anyone add more if you know of any - even with redlinks - there are one or two backwaters I know of missing as well. As for the technical stuff, most of this was added originally to the articles by Mertbiol who seems know how to get at it. Part of the impetus to creating this was a persistent bore who kept insisting that the Wey was the largest tributary - which it clearly is not on any measure. Regards Motmit (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added flow rate and catchment area. These are from the guaging station at Stifford (slightly up stream of the place it meets the Thames). Does this matter? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Thames to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Thames/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 22:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thames articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

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

We would like to ask you to review the Thames 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 23:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

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) 20:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Lea RM

Oh and see Talk:River Lee (England) for the main move request. The previous discussion was never concluded. Simply south...... 16:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not the end of the Lea moves. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 2#Category:Weirs of the River Lee. Simply south...... 23:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Templates coloured: River Island and Confluence

I've added the colours to two widely-used wikipedia templates, which have remained for almost a year, I hope you approve, it was the Thames that inspired me.

If anyone is a pro at coding then I'd thank you for looking at the lack of middle-alignment of the confluence one.- Adam37 Talk 19:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Please help get the Thames area ready for the start of the Wiki Loves Monuments competition on 1st September

In September the UK is taking part for the first time in the international photography competition Wiki Loves Monuments. Participants will be invited to submit pictures of listed buildings of significant importance (grades I or grade II*), as recorded by English Heritage. The main external website for competitors can be found here, and you can leave a message there if you have queries about competing. Do please join in, and let people in your local area know of this excellent way in which both existing and new Wiki users can help improve the encyclopaedia by contributing photographs of local listed structures. What about organizing a local Wikimeet to attract new people?

In preparation for the start of the competition on 1st September there is still quite a lot of work to do, and we would like to ask for the help of members of this wikiproject. Your local and expert knowledge will be invaluable in ensuring that the lists of eligible buildings are up to date and correctly formatted. If you look at Listed buildings in the United Kingdom you will see how many structures are included. If you then follow the link to Listed buildings in England, you can get to the detailed lists for your area. Alternatively have a look at the WLM planning table. Can you help to ensure that the lists for your area are up to date and well presented?

Some of the lists have been semi-automatically generated from data provided by English Heritage. These use pre formatted templates (eg EH header) which will make it much easier for competition participants to upload their photographs to Commons as an automated process. Please don't change the template structure, as we need to ensure that the templates are properly compatible with the WLM standards that are in use worldwide. The format will allow a bot automatically to collect the information and to put it into the international Monuments Database.

The data still needs the attention of local editors:

• The "title" may need wikilinking to a suitable article name (whether we currently have that article or not). If there are several buildings in one street all of the wikilinks point at an article about the street; however each entry has a separate line in the list.
• The "location" column looks and sorts better if just the parish or town is included (& wikilinked).
• The "date completed" column sometimes has eg "C19" for 19th century, and "C1850" for c. 1850 when the date is uncertain - these need to be corrected manually.
• The "grid ref & lat & long" (which is occasionally missing) may be given to 8 characters — only 6 (grid ref) or 5 (lat & long) are really needed.
• Clicking on the "list entry number" should take you to the data sheet for that entry on the English Heritage database which can be checked if needed for details.
• The image column should have a picture added if we already have a suitable image on Commons. (N.B. if you are going to be taking photos yourself for inclusion in the competition don't upload them until September)
• References may be added according to normal WP practice.

For further information, please see Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United Kingdom.

If you have any queries, please post them not below but on the Organizers' help page on Commons.

Anything you can do to help improve these lists will be much appreciated. The final deadline for cleaning up is 31st August.

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

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

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Battersea Power Station

I have proposed to split this. Please see Talk:Battersea Power Station#The area. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 20:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject River Thames/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject River Thames.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject River Thames, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Thames Valley

The article Thames Valley has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Page is not notable. The area is synonymous with part of the M4 Corridor, listed on the disambiguation page. As a precedent, similar areas do not have their own articles. Once deleted, Thames Valley (disambiguation) should be moved here instead.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dissidentplasterer (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 10 April 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure)  samee  converse  21:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:WikiProject Thames → Wikipedia:WikiProject River Thames – For the same reason as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Isle of Wight#Requested move 16 March 2019 the main article is at River Thames and that's its name. I renamed Commons:Category:Thames to Commons:Category:River Thames. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Support, assuming the members are OK with the change. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

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

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

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

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)

Good article reassessment for City of London School

City of London School 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) 07:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)