Wikipedia talk:WikiProject University of Connecticut

WT:UCONN

Collaboration

Congratulations on your new WikiProject. Feel free to call upon WikiProject Universities if you have any questions or need any support. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind welcome! –Grondemar 03:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Step one: Article Tagging

I've begun the process of tagging of the University of Connecticut articles with the {{WikiProject University of Connecticut}} banner. After discovering how tedious this is, I was thinking that it would be a good idea to use User:Xenobot Mk V to tag and auto-assess everything under Category:University of Connecticut and its subcategories. My thought insofar as article quality is to simply inherit the rating whatever the majority of other WikiProjects have for the article. If no one objects here I'll post the request in a couple of days. –Grondemar 03:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. What if it's unassessed though? Smartyllama (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should then appear in the "unassessed" category that can be seen in the table on the main project page. We can then work from there. Also when I get a chance I'm going to work on a draft document discussing importance rating that we can reach consensus on. –Grondemar 15:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With no objection, I went ahead and added the request at User talk:Xenobot Mk V/requests#WP:UCONN. –Grondemar 23:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The automatic tagging has been completed; however, there are still 113 articles that are unassesed for quality. I will attempt to evaluate them when I get a chance, but as I'm going to be very busy the next few weeks anybody else should feel free to take a look at them. I also was thinking about writing a guideline on importance tagging, and will do so when I have some more free time. –Grondemar 01:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All articles under WP:UCONN are now assessed for quality; there are still a few hundred Start and Stub-class articles that need to be assessed for importance. –Grondemar 06:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Custom class mask for Template:WikiProject University of Connecticut

I created a custom class mask for {{WikiProject University of Connecticut}} based on the one for WP:WikiProject College football. The only difference is that I dropped the "Needed" class, as I didn't see how that would be useful. You can see the custom class mask here; please feel free to comment if you have any questions or concerns. –Grondemar 03:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed guideline for Quality and Importance tagging

I have created a proposed project guideline for tagging WikiProject University of Connecticut articles for quality and especially importance at Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Connecticut/Assessment. I would appreciate it if people could review and leave feedback here. Thanks. –Grondemar 05:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grondemar! I like it, and offer these for consideration, which are based off of the WikiProject Connecticut/Assessment page.

Top - "Articles of national importance or of critical importance to the University". There will likely be articles that go beyond those 5 already listed which are as important to the University. I would contend that Jonathan the Husky, all of the UConn components such as University of Connecticut School of Law, Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut Health Center etc are all Tops as well, and that there are possibly others out there.
High - As with the Governor of CT to the CT project, every UConn President (ie Philip E. Austin) should be considered to be of High importance automatically as they're basically the face of UConn on an administrative level. Likewise, anything associated as official University mediums like The Daily Campus or WHUS should be High.
Mid - All UConn-State of CT or private business interactions should be considered at least Mid at minimum, such as United States Coast Guard Research & Development Center or General Electric EdgeLab, as these are public facing UConn associations/projects.
NA - There should be room for articles which fall under the scope of the project which are fictional (Guardians of the Flame starts at UConn, though it isn't said by name, similar to Stars Hollow, Connecticut for the CT project)), not yet in existance (future buildings, proposed improvements, etc.), or articles tangentally linked to UConn such as NERAC. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, Markvs88! I agree with some of your suggestions above and disagree with some; see below:

I agree the UConn subschools should be Top importance, and after consideration I agree that Jonathan should be too. However, I'd like to keep the number of Top-importance articles as small as possible to ensure that those articles remain beyond a doubt the most-important articles to the WikiProject.
I'm not sure I agree that all UConn presidents should be automatically High-importance. I agree that the current president should be High-importance, but feel that past presidents should be rated per the general guideline. Unlike the Governor, I don't think university presidents are as a rule well-known outside their immediate university environment.
I agree that major university publications such as The Daily Campus and WHUS should be High-importance, and will figure out where best to fit that in the guideline.
I'm still up in the air regarding the UConn-state and UConn-private sector partnerships; let me think on that one.
I'm not a fan of NA-importance; to me any article which would qualify for a theoretical NA should either be tagged as Low-importance or, if it truly has no significance to the WikiProject, shouldn't be tagged at all. –Grondemar 04:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Grondemar!

Yes, I agree... of course Top should be a rather small number of articles. At WikiProject Connecticut/Assessment, it's 1.35%. I'd imagine it wouldn't be too different here, and right now UCONN is at 0.89%, so I think the project is on the right track.
For Presidents, the trouble with current/past is that one has to keep changing the rating every time the chair changes... and that while it is possible to move a particular one higher or lower as necessary per their contributions, I think that it would be very hard to quantify why one or another is at a particular level and another is not. After all, they were all at the University's highest administrative post. It doesn't matter (IMO!) as much if they're known as to what their importance is TO the University. After all, a university has (like a sports team or a state), a certain life and history of its own. Also, in general the past suffers under such a system: is Susan Herbst a High while Albert N. Jorgensen would be a Mid? Or even Low?
Thanks re: media.
For partnerships, of course! No need to decide immediately, and it's all subjective, anyway. I would think that anything that UConn partnered on would be a tag higher than (say) an article on a particular intramural sport (Low).
I felt that way about "NA" for a long time myself, but then I encountered that Stars Hollow, Connecticut article and the "future" train line articles. I just couldn't rank them as being as important to the state of CT as (say) Frank Pepe Pizzeria Napoletana or Stratford (Metro-North station), since they were about things that didn't exist. You can go either way, there really is no particular ground rule. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the basic criteria are fine for most things. But some we don't have criteria for are: sports venues, famous alumni who people have heard of nationally but probably not in connection to the University, (such as Meg Ryan), etc. For instance, I'm sure someone in California with no ties to UConn has heard of Meg Ryan, but they probably wouldn't know she has a UConn connection. Smartyllama (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As above... the way I've done WPCT is that everything is an automatic Low unless it's as important as the Lt. Governor. Then it's a Mid. If it's as important as the Governor to the state, it's a High, and if it's of national importance or state-wide importance beyond the ken of a Governor, it's a Top. So Harry A. Gampel Pavilion is a high, but the Hawley Armory would be a Low. A Mid should be the Mark Edward Freitas Ice Forum, as it is more than just a club-sport venue. Likewise, famous alumni should be no different... unless the alum has done something specifc to draw attention to UConn, they should be a Low. I'd say Shea Ralph would get a Medium or High. I'm not sure who would rate a Top, but there must be a few out there... Thoughts? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I like it. Smartyllama (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like in general, although I do think we should keep intact the special categories that are already defined on the page. I've also though about your earlier comment on the university presidents, and have come around to the idea that they should be rated higher, perhaps at least "High" for each. –Grondemar 04:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds good to me... do you want to update Wikipedia:WikiProject_University_of_Connecticut/Assessment and then we can all scratch our heads and see if we can come up with any other things to change/note/update? Cool! I liked the CT Governors being Highs so that there was still a level above them (so that some particular thing could be more important to the state than (say) Jodi Rell or Dannell Malloy), but that they were all equally important to keep down partisan bickering and reassessments. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll dig into this the week after Christmas. –Grondemar 02:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't gotten to this yet; maybe in the next week or so. –Grondemar 22:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got around to making some updates to the proposed guideline; let me know what you think. –Grondemar 22:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great start! Here are my thoughts, in no particular order.

I'd group Coaches, Bowl games, etc under a common "Athletics" header. Personally, I don't give a (hoot) about Husky sports, and the page feels a little stilted towards those articles. Break out "Facilities" or something like that too? "Partnerships"? "Projects"?... Or do we go with a ratings-based directory like at WPCT with Top/High/Medium and descriptors there? (Either way works, I have no preference).
Thanks for the High for all Univ. Presidents! I know you were on the fence about it.
I'd edit Officials to "People" and add Medium (Teachers & students of exceptional notablity - Olympic medalists, popular authors, state politicians... (such as James Scully (poet) )) and Low (Teachers & students of local notability (such as C. L. Max Nikias)) or something like that. It's also add to High to include (Teachers & students of national importance... (such as Samuel F. Pickering, Jr.)).

Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the stadiums, I'd clarify what you mean by "sports not at the highest level". For instance, baseball and soccer both play at "the highest level" - Division I. So do basketball and football. Perhaps change it to "sports with a national following, such as basketball and softball". Also, where do stadiums that have hosted UConn games in the past but are mainly used for other purposes (like Dodd Stadium) figure in? Should they be tagged, and if so, how? I'd say they should be lowered one leve. In other words, basketball/football venues which have hosted UConn "home" games in the past but which are not generally associated with the school - like the Springfield arena which hosted games when the XL roof collapsed - would be a Mid. And off-campus sites which have hosted baseball games (like Dodd or New Britain Stadium) would be a low. Smartyllama (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunity to double our project's Featured content

Today WikiProject UConn has one featured article, 2009 International Bowl, and one featured list, List of Connecticut Huskies bowl games, in its scope. If people are interested, there is another article and another list that could quickly be upgraded to featured quality, thus doubling the project's amount of featured content.

Article: 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl

This article, currently a Good Article, has now twice been to WP:FAC and twice has failed, the first time due primarily to copyediting concerns and the second time due to a lack of reviews. I believe it is very close to featured article quality, and just needs another copyedit or two to push it over the line. If someone from the project would be willing to look the article over and make improvements, I would greatly appreciate it.

List: Huskies of Honor

This was I believe the first significant new article I created for Wikipedia. It is a list of all of the individuals and teams that are part of the Huskies of Honor program. There are only a few pieces of data that I haven't been able to find that would, when incorporated, bring this list very close to featured list quality. They are:

Birthdates for:

Deathdate for:

Hugh Greer

Additionally, there are five redlinks currently in the list; it would help to create at least stubs for these:

Thanks for your attention. –Grondemar 21:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could help on the list, though that really does look almost done. I might take a shot on fixing up UConn's MLB players. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to point out that the one article would be titled 1999–2000 Connecticut Huskies women's basketball team. Also, I added Quimby's DOB. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I fixed the link in the list. Thanks also for adding Quimby's DOB, but could you also add a source for it? –Grondemar 23:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No because it's on SSDI. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - {{SSDI rootsweb}} is a great reference template for the Social Security Death Index. See http://ssdi.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ for the database. --GrapedApe (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Weekeeproajce for me????

I wanna jon cuz i am uconn and i am awesome thankx omg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uconnjoseph (talk • contribs) 17:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women' basketball coaches

Given the prominence of the women's program (I guess the men's team ain't so bad either...) I was wondering if anyone at WP:UConn would be interested in creating the three previous head coaches prior to Geno Auriemma? Here's the coach template: {{Connecticut Huskies women's basketball coach navbox}}. If not, no big deal, but this is one of the most historically significant programs in women's college basketball history, so I thought I'd at least throw it out there. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not replying earlier. It certainly should and eventually should be done, but I wouldn't place it as a very high priority since women's basketball at UConn only became significant after Geno was hired. For UConn women's basketball, I'd prioritize creation of articles for all of the national championship seasons prior to working on the previous coaches. –Grondemar 06:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morrone Stadium

Currently, the Morrone Stadium article says the stadium opened in 1994, but an attendance record was set in 1982. And the latter has a source (the 2004 media guide) while the former doesn't, so I'm going to go ahead and believe it (although I'm the one who sourced it). So could we find out what year exactly Morrone Stadium/Connecticut Soccer Stadium opened. Also, did they really play at Memorial Stadium before moving there? That should be sourced or removed (although I seem to recall hearing it was true, but it's possible the person who told me was mistaken). Smartyllama (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes and category

Userboxes indicating participation in WikiProject University of Connecticut can be found here on the main page of the WikiProject. The userboxes automatically add users to Category:WikiProject University of Connecticut participants. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 11:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks R.K! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ramnapping Trophy is up for deletion

I've added some sources, but the AfD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramnapping Trophy. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ramnapping_Trophy was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant talk 21:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Member List

I tried to add myself to the member list by clicking on the click here but it didn't work. What shall I do? Cowback23451 (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem fixed. Try it again. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UConn Alumni Association is up for deletion

Please comment on the AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UConn_Alumni_Association. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well... Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cowback23451

He is vandalizing articles about UConn as well as other articles. I have reported him to WP:AIV and hopefully he is blocked soon. Smartyllama (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asssessments

We still haven't assessed most starts and stubs. Is that intentional? Also, what are the critera for sporting venues. Gampel and XL are High, but Rentschler, Morrone, JOC, and Freitas are unassessed, and JOC and Freitas weren't even tagged until I just did. Smartyllama (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I only tag for WikiProject UConn if I'm already tagging something for WikiProject Connecticut. This is partly because of the Proposed guideline for Quality and Importance tagging thread above, which wasn't really ever finished (IMO). I'm not sure if Sphilbrick, Grondemar or one of the other editors is doing anything else in regards of assessments for this project. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should finish it. It seems pretty decent on its own, it just needs to be expanded a bit. Smartyllama (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the spring and earlier I did many assessments but haven't been very active recently. I'm intending to be more active in the next few months. I fully support expanding the assessment criteria and welcome any and all feedback, since to my knowledge only myself and Markvs88 ever really worked on it. –Grondemar 22:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back over five years later, I've decided to incorporate the last of the feedback left on this talk page and to remove the {{proposed}} tag. I plan to go through and assess all of the articles that never got assessed. If anyone is still watching this and has any objections, feel free to revert and we can discuss. –Grondemar 05:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion discussion

Relevant deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_December_30#File:UConnHuskies.png.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it looks like the underlying helmet drawing for all of these football helmet designs is copyrighted; I agree that a free helmet drawing could replace the non-free one (although it will take a lot of work and is going to set back a lot of college football articles for a while). –Grondemar 22:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lambda Lambda Lambda

If I didn't read it myself... Lambda Lambda Lambda! Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Could [[File:JO Christian Field, March 2012.jpg]] and [[Image:Morrone-Stadium-Twilight.jpg]] please be deleted as they are currently been replaced by better images in their respective articles? Thanks. Smartyllama (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 06:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

College basketball navigation templates

Please join the discussion at the College Basketball Wikiproject for forming a consensus on the creation of a basic navigation template for college basketball teams. CrazyPaco (talk) 09:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

New logos?

Does anyone else agree with me that the new WikiProject Userboxes should utilize the updated university and athletic logos? Here they are in case anyone didn't know. I highly suggest using the academic logo, which just reads "UCONN" straight out with a strong typeface, as well as the new Husky logo for the athletic department, a picture of Jonathan XIV, and both the universal university seal and the seal specifically made for UConn Health. If we can do that, that would be awesome and would not make us look outdated. LaPorting4Duty 20:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaPorting4Duty (talk • contribs)

I think this is worth looking into, although I have to admit I have a certain fondness for the older logos. I'll look into changing the logos after completing assessing articles. –Grondemar 05:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut → UConn naming convention change

I've proposed that the naming convention for Connecticut Huskies athletics pages be changed to UConn. See Talk:Connecticut Huskies#Requested move 29 March 2019 Ostealthy (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 May 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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved back to unabbreviated version. This is also easier because all the sub-pages were still here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject UCONN → Wikipedia:WikiProject UConn – This page was recently moved and stylized incorrectly. I'm not entirely sure it should have even been moved in the first place because the recent related article moves only applied to select agreed upon sport teams, but if it is kept as UConn, only the U and C should be capatilized when written per https://brand.uconn.edu/resources/editorial-guidelines/ Mjs32193 (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjs32193: As the recent mover, I would support this move request. The only reason I didn't originally move this to Wikipedia:WikiProject UConn was because of the pre-existing redirect (I don't have pagemover rights and figured the request would be burdensome). I was unaware of the recent consensus for UConn Huskies and didn't think anyone would notice this inactive wikiproject being moved. Before Ostealthy posted here, this talk page was dead since 2016. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the page should have been moved in the first place. There was a consensus to change the naming convention for sports teams, not the university itself. There is precedent to name WikiProjects for universities with their full name rather than the widely accepted sport team acronyms. See WP:UCF, WP:UMASS, WP:BYU. —Ostealthy (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we keep the university's name abbreviated, then support move. Would also support reverting back to the full name, as it's unclear whether the move should have taken place. Paging MJL for an explanation. ONR (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Old Naval Rooftops: As previously stated, the WikiProject was 2-3 years inactive minus a few hints of activity here and there. I first marked it inactive 22 December 2017, and there has been no comment on that action since then. A year and a half later, I made the false assumption that there would be no controversy if I made this move. My justification for it in the first place was that in all my years as a Connecticut resident, I almost always refer to this school as "UConn" or "UCONN." Most people in the field of higher education refer to it as that, and if this project ever became active again this would be the name they most likely use. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation. O.N.R. ^(talk) 01:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the move was made in good faith, but I'd advocate that we return back to the full name. Other universities that are known by an acronym or stylized name are still titled with their full name (see UCLA, Mizzou, UMass, LSU, etc). The athletic teams reflect the most common name, as UConn's now does. If we maintain the acronym, my second choice would be to move to UConn. Billcasey905 (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Birmingham up for deletion

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Robert L. Birmingham (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Long time law professor. Many influential articles. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources

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)[reply]

Merge of inactive higher education wikiprojects

I'm proposing to merge this and other inactive higher education-related wikiprojects to WikiProject Higher education. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education#Merge of inactive higher education wikiprojects. – Joe (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for UConn Huskies women's basketball

UConn Huskies women's basketball 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) 02:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]