Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Big 12 Conference/Archive 1

Archive 1

Project creation

This project was created on Thanksgiving Day 2009 after eight editors signed this proposal. Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Still to do

I will get to most of these eventually but if anyone wants to jump in and help:

• Any red links on the project page still need to be created, inculding templates. A good idea of how to set some of these up can be found at WikiProject Missouri, which is structured similarly to this project.
• The assessment category tree must still be set up so the bot can do its work. A list of the articles and a how to can be found at Template:WikiProject Big 12.
• Article tagging with the banner mention above inculding all Schools, seasons, teams, athletic programs and sports people must still be completed.Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

My editing will be limited this weekend but I will help out more starting on Monday.—NMajdan•talk 22:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages

Signed us up for Mr.Z-bot's popular pages job. Won't tell us much until early next year, but might as well get it going this month.—NMajdan•talk 22:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that will be nice to have. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Scope

I was about to put up the List of Texas Aggie terms up on the featured list section when I realized, I wasn't sure what the scope of this project. Clearly, including every single article about all 12 Universities would make no sense. Do we want to include University main pages, and all athletics related pages for the Big 12 pages. What about coaches? . . You get the idea. Thoughts? Oldag07 (talk) 05:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just wondering this myself. When I get time, I may check out other athletic conference projects to see how they defined their scope.—NMajdan•talk 05:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The, now defunct, WikiProject Big Ten's scope was: "The scope of this WikiProject is to expand all articles necessary, and make all colleges and rivalries associated with the Big Ten Conference as good as they can be. Note that this WikiProject is not just about Big Ten Athletics, but also about the schools themselves." WikiProject ACC does not currently define a scope. IMO, our scope should include the main school articles, all school athletics articles including the individual sports, teams, coaches, seasons, etc., rivalries involving Big 12 schools and articles pertaining to the conference itself. I do not believe we should include non-athletic articles (excluding the main articles) from the schools (e.g. individual college and departments, building, possibly traditions). --Voltin (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that the project should include improving the school articles themselves, but I think we should stick to the schools and the sports aspects of the schools. We should not try to tag academic divisions, buildings, or non-sports people with our banner. Also we should be careful that we don't include non-big 12 sports, like ice hockey or other club sports. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, we should put together a list (if there isn't one already) of the Big 12 sports, to help make sure we get all of the articles tagged. --Voltin (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Big 12 Handbook which should have that information as well as a lot of other info we could probably use. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Would everyone agree that athletic directors are under the scope of the project?—NMajdan•talk 22:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say so. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have untagged several articles that I believe are outside the scope of the project. Some of these include university presidents that did not reside over the University while it was in the Big 12 and yearly sports team pages when, again, that team was not in the Big 12. Just a reminder, the Big 12 was created in 1996. Unless I am mistaken and these articles are within scope, but I thought we decided to only include those subjects that were apart of the Big 12.—NMajdan•talk 16:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My bad on the 1911-1912 Missouri Basketball tagging, I was experimenting with a new assisted editing program and wasn't thinking clearly. As far as university presidents go, I don't think ANY university presidents should be included. After all the Big 12 is an athletic conference not an academic one. In my opinion the only "academic" articles in the project should be the twelve school pages themselves. Let the individual school projects take care of everything else. Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think I disagree with removing the big 12 project from the 1911-12 Missouri Basketball page. Yes, this is pre-Big 12, but it is still the sports history of a Big 12 school. I think, however, I'm going against consensus here, so I'm willing to concede the point.HornColumbia (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• The way I see it, if a Southwest Conference WikiProject were to get started, it wouldn't include any article about the Red Raiders or Longhorns after 1996. Same with Oklahoma articles about events from 1915-1919 and Oklahoma State about events from 1914-24. Any article that crosses over both conferences (ex. Spike Dykes Texas Tech football coach from 1987-1999) would fall under "both" WikiProjects. NThomas (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• A better example would be a 1995 Big Eight Conference men's basketball tournament article sure it's part of 8 team's history, but it's not part of the Big 12 Conference's history. NThomas (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The other thought concerning scope is this: The first paragraph on the project page says: Our primary goal is to research and provide the most accurate and detailed information about the Big 12 and its history, member institutions, people, places, culture, lore and season. This mission is accomplished in our writing without regard for our personal biases, professing an obedience to neutrality in language, ideas and thoughts while respecting the diversity of opinions on each article subject. Our end is to educate all visitors to this academic and encyclopedic forum. Through the creation of WikiProject Big 12, we aspire to improve and coordinate the efforts of subordinate projects such as WikiProject University of Oklahoma, WikiProject Mizzou (University of Missouri), WikiProject University of Texas at Austin, WikiProject Texas A&M, and WikiProject Texas Tech among others.

The scope statement says: This WikiProject has a two-fold mission. It primarily aims to provide information on the Big 12 college athletic conference. Its secondary aim is to establish and document community guidelines and naming conventions for all Wikipedia articles dealing with same.

Our stated goals seem to be much wider than our scope. Especially the part about "its history, member institutions, people, places, culture, lore and season". I think we should have a defined scope and stated goals, but we might want to think about tweaking these a bit. Any thoughts on this?HornColumbia (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Big 12 Logo

I have uploaded a version of the Big 12 logo, File:Big12 letters.png without the middle banner that says Big 12 Conference. I believe that this image falls under PD-textlogo. First of all do we feel comfortable using the wordmark for purpose other than articles (e.g. Talk page banner, userboxes, etc.), or at all? Second do we believe this will represents the project? --Voltin (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I really have no opinion on this, I'd say if you want to put it in the banner that would be fine. I'll probably use it to design a Big XII Barnstar. Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The only problem I have with using that logo, is there are so many times (even on wikipedia) when the conference is written as "Big XII" just like the Big Eight is occasionally written as the "Big 8", both written incorrectly based off their logo. What about using the Big 12 logo thats used on the Big 12 Network and Big 12 Championship Game? NThomas (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The only objection I have with this is that the Big 12 identifies it self with the roman numerals. Although they do use the other one for championships and such. See [1]. —Voltin ^(T|C) 17:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Then it should be the roman numeral logo. NThomas (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Importance Ratings

I have marked all the pages, giving them an importance rating. My opinion our pages should be ranked as follows:

• Top: University pages, and their primary athletics pages, and the Big 12 conference page
• High: The sports teams within the universities, rivalries, bowls (For example Cotton Bowl Classic), tournaments (such as Big 12 Men's Basketball Tournament)
• Mid: Yearly Bowls, Yearly Tournaments, (Ex. 2008 Cotton Bowl Classic, or 2008 Big 12 Men's Basketball Tournament), or seasons (example 2009 Texas A&M Aggies football team)
• Low: Coaches, Players, (all must have played or coached in big 12 related sports

Make sure when adding the big 12 template, that you also rate the page too. Thanks. Oldag07 (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we want to include all coaches and players in the project. Ok, I can see a good argument for coaches, but including players I think would bloat the project. I wouldn't be against limiting it to players that have won some Big 12 award like player of the week, player of the year, etc.—NMajdan•talk 15:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC

We should definitely include coaches. We should be careful when adding all of the coaches of say Texas A&M wikiproject. see Category:Texas A&M Aggies football coaches. Not all of the coaches of the schools, like Jackie Sherrill coached in the big 12.

I think we could add players, however, I wouldn't make that a priority. Oldag07 (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should include players, as long as we make sure to only include players that compete in Big 12 sports (See the scope section of this talk page), during the period when their respective schools were apart of the Big 12. Also I don't see Big 12 rivalries and stadiums on that list. Did we want to include them? I also think we should split the Bowls and Tournaments into two groups, the main Bowl/Tournament Article (e.g. Cotton Bowl Classic) and individual yearly games (e.g. 2009 Cotton Bowl Classic). IMO the main articles should be of High importance, while the yearly games should be of Mid importance. --Voltin (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I updated the criteria. Thanks Oldag07 (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Did we want to include stadiums in the list as well such as Jones AT&T Stadium, Frank Erwin Center, etc? --Voltin (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say stadiums for sure. I'll find someway to summarize the scope on the main page. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on the list above, here is what I have come up with for the assessment page:

Status	Template	Meaning of Status
Top	{{Top-Class}}	Main articles of member schools (e.g. Texas Tech University), their primary atheltics pages (e.g. Texas A&M Aggies), and the Big 12 Conference page.
High	{{High-Class}}	The sports teams within the universities (e.g. Nebraska Cornhuskers football), rivalries (e.g. Red River Rivalry), bowls in which the Big 12 is affliated with on a yearly basis (e.g. Alamo Bowl) , tournaments (e.g. Big 12 Men's Basketball Tournament)
Mid	{{Mid-Class}}	Yearly Bowls (e.g. 2008 Cotton Bowl Classic), Yearly Tournaments (e.g. 2008 Big 12 Men's Basketball Tournament), or seasons (e.g. 2005 Texas Longhorns football team)
Low	{{Low-Class}}	Coaches (e.g. Bob Knight), Players (e.g. Sam Bradford), and member school sporting venues (e.g. Frank Erwin Center). Note: Only players and coaches that competed in Big 12 Sports (see The Big 12 Handbook ) when their school was apart of the Big 12 conference should be included.
None	None	This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed.

--Voltin (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks great to me, I've added it to the assessment page. Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

While reassessing articles I came across a mascot that had been tagged for the project. Did we want to include mascots in the scope? --Voltin (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I added some mascots. Since they are mascots of BIg 12 athletic teams I'd say they should be included. Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:WikiProjectBannerShell

Just as a reminder to editors, when tagging an article with the Big 12 WikiProject banner, please go ahead and add the Banner Shell template above (alternatively, you can use the shorter alias {{WPBS}}), especially if there are already two or more banners on the talk page.—NMajdan•talk 13:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Big 12 Conference page

I'm probably getting a little ahead of myself here but... once we get everything settled here and all the pages tagged, how would you guys feel about collaborating on getting the Big 12 Conference page to FA status? with three or four editors to should take a huge amount of effort. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. I'll help when I can. However, we should probably wait until the off-season. Thoughts?—NMajdan•talk 22:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am down to help, I will be able to devote more time in a few weeks or so. --Voltin (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it might be best for us to participate in the collaboration below while we have the help of additional parties (if it wins the nomination).—NMajdan•talk 13:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. the off-season would be the perfect time to push Big 12 to FA. Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Universities COTM

It's good to see a new WikiProject starting up. Good luck to you!

FYI, one of the Big 12 schools, the University of Texas at Austin, has been nominated to be next month's WikiProject Universities Collaboration of the Month but it needs votes before that can happen. The COTM might be a good opportunity for your project to gain some visibility and, if COTM provides an influx of editors who help promote UT's article to GA or FA status, it could help your WikiProject get its first big accomplishment.

-Mabeenot (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Featured Topic

Another project I planned on tackling...over time...slowly...was creating lists of all the Big 12 head football coaches and getting them up to Featured List status. I've got the Oklahoma list up to FL and the Oklahoma State list is ready to be submitted. This is probably a lower priority than some of the other articles, but oh well. Any help would be appreciated.

Head football coaches of the Big 12 Conference, Lists of

12 articles

Baylor

Kansas

Nebraska

Texas

Colorado

Kansas State

Oklahoma

Texas A&M

Iowa State

Missouri

Oklahoma State

Texas Tech

I've started the Texas Tech list offline. I'm basing it on the Oklahoma State list that's in FLC. This could be an "easy" Featured Topic since the lists' information is easy to find on the internets. NThomas (talk) 07:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, NThomas, for helping out. The Oklahoma & Oklahoma State lists are now featured. The Texas & Texas Tech lists are currently nominated. The Nebraska list is ready to be nominated (I usually wait two weeks after submitted one FLC before submitting another). I just started the Missouri list. Someone else has been working on the Iowa State list and it looks about ready as well (although it hasn't been touched since mid-December, so I may work on that one soon as well). So, we could very well have 7 of the 12 finished by the end of the quarter!—NMajdan•talk 21:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ran into an interesting problem with the Missouri list. I cannot find anywhere a list of their conference records. Now, getting that from the schedules for the Big 12 is easy. But I admit, I'm not too familiar with the conference members of the Missouri Valley conference, Big 6 and 7. Big 8 I'm sure I could find somewhere. Besides, the idea of going through every season and tallying these myself isn't that appealing. Any help would be appreciated.—NMajdan•talk 19:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There's two places to look for all Big Eight and SWC records, [2] found here on a link called: "Historical Standings for Big 12 Members - prior to 1996-97 (PDF)". Since all the Big 12 teams' websites are CBS Sports sites, they'll all have the same layout for media guides. On any Big 12 team's website here's the usually order to find the media guide: Team website ([www.mutigers.com]) --> Sports (on the tabs) --> Men's (on the pull down) --> football --> On the side theres a scroll box at the bottom, theres a link called "Tiger History".The only problem is both places only take care of Mizzou from 1907–1996 but the team played in a conference called the "Western Interstate University Football Association" and won some conference championships according to this. That's the best I can do NThomas (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'll take a look at that and see if I can get a useful list out of it.—NMajdan•talk 15:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated the Iowa State list for FLC.—NMajdan•talk 15:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• As of 2/25/10, Texas was promoted, Iowa State remains in FLC, and Texas Tech failed via no consensus. I will be renominating Texas Tech's list on February 2nd as there were several reviews and those comments were addressed but no support was given. I can't stress how important it is in my opinion that WP:Big 12 members make some time to review any Big 12 articles. The Texas Tech list could have easily passed with a few more reviews and they only take a small amount of time to look over. It's really disapointing to have to waste time on renominating this one when I could have focused on creating/expanding another Big 12 article. NThomas (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Texas A&M list has been nominated. As NThomas pointed out, there's been some issues recently with lack of reviewers at FLC, so if anybody could take a look and offer any suggestions for the list, it would be appreciated.—NMajdan•talk 22:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Iowa State has been promoted to FL and I have renominated the Texas Tech list. Again, reviewing FLCs doesn't take much time and as a WP:Big 12 member, it would be very helpful for someone familiar with the content to help in the review process. NThomas (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Missouri list nominated.—NMajdan•talk 18:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

All, I put together a checklist that I use when I create on of these lists. Maybe others will get some use out of it as well.—NMajdan•talk 15:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The TAMU & Mizzou lists were promoted within the past couple of days. The Nebraska list has been nominated and the TTU list still needs reviews. Any help would be appreciated! We're almost there!—NMajdan•talk 21:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't much but I created Category:Lists of college football head coaches. If you read the featured topic requirements, a category linking the pages is necessary. Oldag07 (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I'm sure I would have realized that when I started investigating FT requirements.—NMajdan•talk 00:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As for a template linking the various pages, we could modify this template {{Big 12 football coaches}} Oldag07 (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Baylor & Nebraska lists promoted, Kansas list nominated. I've been slacking recently. The Colorado list has been created but it not yet FL quality and I haven't created the Kansas State list. But the end is definitely in sight.—NMajdan•talk 00:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There are now three lists currently nominated at WP:FLC. If they get approved, then I will begin the Featured Topic process. Any comments would be appreciated.—NMajdan•talk 17:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

To meet a certain criterion for FT, I have nominated List of current NCAA Division I FBS football coaches for peer review. Any comments would be appreciated.»NMajdan·talk 23:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Nebraska rivalries

There is some interesting debate going on at Talk:Nebraska Cornhuskers football and Talk:Missouri–Nebraska football rivalry. Just thought the Big 12 editors could voice some experienced opinions. Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Where do these articles fall on WP:Big12's importance scale?

I'm trying to figure out if these articles are mid or low on WP:Big12's importance scale:

• List of Oklahoma Sooners football seasons
• List of Texas Tech Red Raiders football seasons
• List of Texas A&M Aggies football seasons

• See above: mid range. Oldag07 (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. NThomas (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Big 12 Conference 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 Big 12 Conference/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 06:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That popular pages list is pretty cool. Thanks for getting that up and running! NThomas (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball seasons

After working on List of Texas Tech Red Raiders football seasons and going through the process to get WP:Texas Tech its first Featured list, I'm hoping lightning will strike twice with...

...List of Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball seasons.

I've already nominated it for Featured List status. Please leave your comments and critiques on this new list's nomination page. NThomas (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2010 (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) 03:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Directory entry added

I've added an entry for this WikiProject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/History and society#Colleges and universities please review and correct any errors I've made. I'll also archive the initial project proposal shortly. -Optigan13 (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coaches/archive1

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coaches/archive1. NThomas (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

DOES ANYONE READ THESE? Here's my second Big 12 list that's failed FLC after only one real review. This Wikiproject is a joke. I guess I'll have to canvass every WP:Big 12 member's talk page for a review. I'm getting sick and tired of wasting time on these. Thanks for the help everybody. NThomas (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand your frustration NThomas. I really have been super busy myself with RL stuff. You should see how inactive WP:TAMU is at the moment. However, to address your point, while you haven't done it yet, to be sure to read WP:CANVASS. This is a partisan wikiproject, and therefore it isn't a good place to ask for reviews for big 12 stuff. Oldag07 (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

We need a Big 12 Network article

Wouldn't be too hard to get to Big 12 Network article going right? It's basicly the same as the SEC Network article. I'd do it but I don't have the time right now. NThomas (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

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 Big 12 Conference/Archive 1/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

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

Thank you. Okip 02:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Next group of Featured Lists...

I think that because we have just about finished with the Football Head Coaches topic, it might be time to start another group of lists.

Lists of Big 12 head basketball coaches

• Baylor
• Colorado
• Iowa State
• Kansas
• Kansas State
• Missouri
• Nebraska
• Oklahoma
• Oklahoma State
• Texas
• Texas A&M
• Texas Tech (There is currently a List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coaches, but it would be easy to add the women's head coaches and rename the list, then renominate it for FL.)

Let me know what you guys think! we already have one FL group done...it shouldn't be too difficult to get another hammered out. DUKyleXY (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Nmajdan ran into a problem with the FT criteria where the topic needs a "main" FL/FA in addition to the coaches. That would mean for these to be a FT, a list with all ~300 men's coaches and all ~300 women's coaches, most who don't have articles, would also have to be created. Also, the Baylor list would actually be "List of Baylor Bears and Lady Bears head basketball coaches" Same with Oklahoma State and Texas Tech. I didn't include the Lady Raiders coaches in the Texas Tech list because I felt it was inappropriate to combine the two. The lead would have been twice as long and it's since it's not large enough for its own article, like the rest of the women's basketball coaches lists, they can be included in the main article where as most, if not all, of the men's coaches lists would be too large for the main article. If there is a school that has enough for a seperate list, it should have to be combined with the men's list to begin with. I think about it as if I was going to create a softball and baseball coaches list. Even though both are almost identical, they're still different teams even if they're at the same school. NThomas (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Realignment and WikiProject Big 12

I just wanted to check to see what the course of action will be if the conference realignments happen as is rumored. Will the WikiProject be shut down and the teams merely transferred to their respective new conferences or will this remain active as an archive of sorts? Just thought we should probably put some thought into the plans for this project. ThanksDUKyleXY (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If Texas Tech is part of the "6-Pac" that merges with the Pac-10, I'll be be leaving too. At least until the conference disbands, the WikiProject should still be kept alive. NThomas (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Big 12 Conference 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 Big 12 Conference 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 22:03, 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) 20:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join the College Football Hall of Fame Cleanup Drive

Hello! The Wikipedia College Football Project invites you to participate in the 2011 College Football Hall of Fame cleanup drive. We are seeking to improve the quality of articles related to the College Football Hall of Fame and ask for assistance from not only sports enthusiasts, but also anyone interested in academics, biographies, and history (to simply name a few). Working together, we can make Wikipedia even better! (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

DRIVE COMPLETED Thank you, the cleanup drive is completed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC) --Paul McDonald (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Farewell

My school left the Big 12 today. I guess I need to join a new wikiproject. Thanks for all the hard work you have put in to our page and other pages. Oldag07 (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Alas, you will be missed. Don't forget that anything that happened historically under the Big 12 will still be in the projects scope. I sure wish Texas would have allowed the Big 12 to survive intact.

Grey Wanderer (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on consolidating inactive and semi-active university WikiProjects

This project may be affected by a proposed consolidation of inactive and semi-active WikiProjects covering universities. The proposed consolidation is being discussed on the talk page of WikiProject Universities. We are seeking feedback from the projects that may be impacted before we decide on a course of action. Please drop by to participate in the discussion. Thanks! –Mabeenot (talk) 06:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Softball project notice

Hello, everyone. I've recently started the College softball task force, working to help expand Wikipedia's college softball coverage. I thought I'd post a notice around at some of the other college sports projects to give everyone a heads up. If you have an interest in the sport, please consider visiting the project. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 08:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

College basketball team navboxes

Please join discussion at the College Basketball Wikiproject for forming a consensus on the creation of a basic navbox for college basketball teams. CrazyPaco (talk) 05:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Haloooo?

Is this project still alive??--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else but I'm here.--Dcheagle | ^{Join the Fight!} 07:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Just discovered the project, been wondering the same thing. WikiProjects are wayyy less user-friendly than editing simple Wikipedia articles so far. I feel like first order might be removing any references to Texas A&M? Cottletj (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Why would we want to do that Just because there not members of the conference dosen't negate the fact that they were members of the conference from 1996 to 2011 and those apart of its history.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 21:02, 8 January 2014 (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) 04:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Big 12 Conference at Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 13:56, 27 June 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) 22:47, 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) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Big 12 Conference/Archive 1 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

RFC on sports notability

An RFC has recently been started regarding a potential change to the notability guidelines for sportspeople. Please join in the conversation. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2017 (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 Big 12 Conference/Archive 1/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Big 12 Conference.

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 Big 12 Conference, 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)

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)

Consensus needed for inclusion of college athlete parent categories

There is a consensus discussion underway about whether or not to include a parent category (in this case Category:College men's soccer players in the United States) in addition to the specific school category (for example Category:Akron Zips men's soccer players). One school of thought is that college athletics category structures should be similar, but another is that individual sport projects should be free to chart their own paths on the matter. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Use of parent category in addition to sub-category - consensus requested to join the discussion if you are so inclined. Rikster2 (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

GAR for WVU football

West Virginia Mountaineers football, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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. Hog Farm _Talk 06:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Texas Tech University Featured article review

I have nominated Texas Tech University for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Texas A&M Featured article review

User:HAL333 has nominated Texas A&M University for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 31 October 2021 (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) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)