Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Oppose: add comment
→‎Oppose: add comment
Line 170: Line 170:
*
*
====Oppose====
====Oppose====
*'''Strong Oppose''' - Far to narrow in focus for a WikiProject. Recommend a Task Force in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Music|WikiProject Music]]. -- [[User:Absolon|Absolon S. Kent]] ([[User talk:Absolon|talk]]) 14:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
*

====Neutral====
====Neutral====
*
*

Revision as of 14:28, 6 October 2008

Shortcut

Template:WikiProject Council Navigation

This page can be used to gauge support for potential WikiProjects before putting a lot of effort into creating a detailed project page.

Proposing a project
To propose a project, write a brief description (including links to the related Wikipedia articles), and add it along with your name to the list below (in chronological order). Some boilerplate you can use:
 {{SUBST:WikiProject Proposal
 |ProjectName = The Name of the Wikiproject 
 |Description = Your Description of the proposed wikiproject.
 |USER1= ~~~~
  }}
Creating a project
If your project gains support from 5-10 active Wikipedians, it could probably benefit from the organisation boost of having a proper page. Remove it from this list and follow the instructions for creating new projects. If you want to start a page before you have 5-10 active Wikipedians, consider setting up the page on a subpage of your user page until it is active, while leaving the posting here with a link to the user page. You can also promote the newly created WikiProject at {{Announcements/Community bulletin board}}.
Requesting a project
There may be cases where you believe that there is a pronounced need for the creation of a project which does not yet exist which you may not personally feel qualified to join. Some examples might be certain countries, disciplines, etc. In the event you are aware of such a situation, please add the relevant name to the list of projects below and see if there are any individuals interested in creating such a project.
Archive
In the event a given proposal does not receive sufficient support within 4 months of posting here to create a project or task force, it is added to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Archive page.



Projects

Wikiproject Record Charts

Description

A wikiproject which aim is to expand/create articles about Record Charts. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Andre666 (talk) 05:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC) – definitely required.[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  • Not sure if there is enough "meat" for a full WikiProject. You may wish to establish a task force in WikiProject Music or one of it's many subprojects and expand to full project later if interest develops. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Wikiproject House (TV series)

Thank you for your support, the project has been started here; please sign at the participants section and use the userbox.

Description

A wikiproject to support the articles around House, I was thinking of making it a taskforce inside the Television wikiproject, but I think there are too many articles surrounding House (of wich the Lost WikiProject is an example). Article count is between 90-100 articles.

Support

  1. --Music26/11 10:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --I can't say I'd be involved much, but House is currently running it's 5th season (with who knows how many more). I'm sure it could use a wikiproject. Bettyfizzw1 (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Skeletal SLJCOAAATR Soulsor 15:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Oh yes, we do need a wikiproject for House. By the way have you heard his English accent? He sounds so different. I'd probably be involverd more with the character of House, and some disease related articles. Lord of Moria Talk Contribs 17:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --I think this would be a good one, though I doubt I could be too involved myself. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 17:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --it's such a popular show, I'm suprised it doesn't already have a wikiproject--Moonzeppelin (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --The Helpful One Review 18:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --I don't think I could contribute much to the project, though. I've seen every episode, I don't own any of the DVDs, and the only medical stuff I know I learned from House. -- LightSpectra (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. -- I don't have all the DVDs but I'd be willing to pitch in where I can. Skyrocket (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. -- Yes, a House WikiProject sounds like a great idea, I have the first three DVDs and have seen most of the episodes. DWP17 (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --I'm in. Although I probably won't do much besides grammar/spelling edits because I am way too busy with school and various other things. Doin'Huh3.5 (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --Startstop123 (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

  • I do think that there should be a wikiproject house. There are a lot of articles about the series.Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw_talk 17:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  • I'm more of an esoteric, lone-wolf editor, so while I might pop up time to time (and I love the show) I can't say I would be involved with a wikiproject that much. As for the task force idea, it's not really the size that's important, it's the amount of attention; if such a wikiproject is better served as a task force in order to draw on people from the main project, so much the better. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your reply, feel free to pop up every once in a while, but it would be appreciated if you do sign the list above, thanks. --Music26/11 15:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Wikiproject Backlog sorting

Description

A Wikiproject to help sort out backlogs.

Support

  1. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral


Wikiproject Star Academy

Description

Just like Big Brother WikiProject which is produced by Endemol, I guess Star Academy also has the right to have it's own project as it is also a hit to more than 50 countries exclusive of near copies. Here is the link to the main page.

Support

  1. Happy Editing! (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

  • Strong Oppose - Far to narrow in focus for a WikiProject. Recommend a Task Force in appropriate WikiProject. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral


Wikiproject Table Tennis

Description

This project will aim to improve coverage and create articles related to table tennis; much like the other sport wikiprojects.

Support

  1. Nick C (t·c) 20:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral


Wikiproject Muse

Description

A WikiProject for articles about British alternative rock band Muse in the same light as Wikipedia:WikiProject Slipknot.

Support

  1. Andre666 (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Go on then. naerii 22:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sure, why not. Giggy (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral


Wikiproject Template Appeal

Description

This wikiproject would be how you appeal if you where templated.

Support

  1. HereFord 18:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

  • Strong Oppose - Admins responsiblity; not a WikiProject function. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  • What? Gavin Scott (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral leaning on weak oppose same with Absolon it's admin's responsibility but i won't really say no if it has been accepted122.53.94.254 (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Prison Break

Description

A WikiProject for articles about Prison Break There are a number of articles on the subject, including numerous episode article episodes. There is room for much improvement, and hopefully together this project can follow in the footsteps of Lost and clean up articles and make them more encyclopedic.--Shadyaftrmathgunit (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • Strongly agree, but it should be taskforce, not a project. Still, articles about "Prison Break" are much weaker, than articles about "Lost". --Nagasheus (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support It should not be a task force as part of the TV Project, it should have its own Project and I support it all the way. Andre666 (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Strong Oppose Be part of WP:TVHereFord 15:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - Far to narrow in focus for a WikiProject. Would support a Task Force in WikiProject Television. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  • I don't actually oppose the idea, but do you not think it would be better suited to a taskforce of the aforementioned TV Project? Gavin Scott (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Wikiproject Public speaking

Description

A project for the improvement of articles related to public speaking and speechwriting, including debating, speakers clubs, the arts of oratory and rhetoric, as well as famous speeches through history. I haven't been able to find any existing project that includes these topics, nor any where this would fit well as a task force.

Support

  1. coldacid (talk|contrib) 06:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

  • Perhaps you should try it as a task force, instead. AlexanderTG (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've considered the task force angle, but a task force under what? As far as I know, task forces don't exist on their own, but as part of another project. And I can't figure any project that this would already fit within. If task forces can exist on their own, though, then this could work that way, with enough interest from others. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 02:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Oppose

  • Hmm, I'm sorry but I just don't see it working- I would be surprised if you get a dedicated group of editors together who would work on this. Also, it seems to me that it would tread along the same ground as Politicians, History etc. Gavin Scott (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Concur that this is far too narrow in scope for a full project. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

WikiProject Chronology

Description

A project that seeks to improve all chronology related articles. Days, months, years, and millenia all fall under the project's scope. Due to the amount of articles under this projects scope, I doubt that it should be made a taskforce. However, perhaps it could be merged with the now inactive WP:TIMELINE? The project itself is already in effect, as it has already been created and has begun tagging and assessing articles that fall under its scope. See WP:CHRON. J.T Pearson (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support

  1. J.T Pearson (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • The apparatus for this Project does exist, which is a fly in the face for the Project Council rules, however the Project actually exists in other incarnations...namely WP:TIME and WP:DAYS Gavin Scott (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Concur with Gavin Scott. Perhaps you should join forces with one of the projects mentioned above. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • moved from neutral - This new project overlaps too much with other existing projects (WP:TIME, WP:DAYS, WP:YEARS) and those projects already have low member participation. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm moving from neutral to oppose. I don't envision this project getting off the ground and it is not distinct enough. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Wikiproject Federal and Civil Agencies and Organizations

Description

The name of the project is subject to change when a smaller name pops across my mind, but the basic gist is this: This project would be used to catalogue American and allied agencies and organizations that are either civilian or governmental. This would not include agencis that fall under the realm of other projects, such as large-scale law-enforcement or intelligence agencies, such as the FBI and CIA), but rather more overlooked agencies such as the GAO or the ILR, on the Federal side. The ILR is my first article personally, and I am still learning and refining, but I could not find any groups that dealt with these things specifically. The civilian side might include non-profits, free academies, Salvation Army, things of that nature. The majority of the project will be covering the governmental side, however.

Support

  1.  JAGUITAR  (Contact me) 09:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Title is too vague, from definition assume it refers to US, but there are other federated countries, so needs US in title

Neutral

WikiProject Greater Glasgow

Description

wikiproject focusing on articles to do with Greater Glasgow and Glasgow city.

Support

  1. Andrew22k (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

  • This project appears to have a rather narrow scope don't you think? However, that is not to say its without merit. I note you have posted your proposal on the Wikiproject:Scotland talk page also, the future of this proposal really depends on how many people sign up- so that was a good move- however i remain unconvinced so won't be supporting or opposing this proposal until we can see how many people wish to take part. Gavin Scott (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur that is may be too narrow in scope for a full project. Perhaps you should start as a Task Force in WikiProject Scotland and expand to a full project later if additional interest develops. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dont think it is too narrow there is plenty articles such as all the towns in the urban area and things to do with them and people from there. There are 48 localities in the area.Andrew22k (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just a wee bit worried about the exact scope of this project. Would we be applying "Greater Glasgow" loosely, or tightly - as in the official Greater Glasgow? Where would our focus lie exactly? That's not a challenge, or opposition (I support this in principal), I'm just worried about the organisation and potentially upsetting townsfolk who feel opposed to being part of a "Glasgow-centric" project. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it sould loosely be based on Greater Glasgow but focus mainly on Glasgow and the big towns such as East Kilbride, Paisley etc. Andrew22k (talk) 09:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You realise, of course, that large American cities have WikiProjects. Why should Scotland be different? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't commit myself to participating in anything on Wikipedia, given as I am to not editing for weeks or months at a time, so I would feel uneasy about supporting because that would imply my participation. I do however fully support this from the bylines, though the question of inclusion would have to be answered. As Shoemaker's Holiday says, several American cities have their own projects, and Greater Glasgow comprises a huge proportion of Scotland's population so I think it would be justified from that perspective. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Gil Scott-Heron

Description

Influential soul musician, poet and writer whose early work, as a solo artist and with collaborator Brian Jackson, has helped give birth to hip hop and neo-soul music.

Support

  1. Dan56 (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Wikiproject Association Football variants

Description

The fast growing popularity of many association football variants (especially beach soccer) makes it a nice project to have. A list of association football variants can be found in this category.

Support

  1. RaLo18 21:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Shmuliko (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Guntherman (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Friejose (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Wikiproject Auditing Standards for Wikipedia Content

Description

To investigate the effect on the Liaison Psychiatry article of having a set of Published Auditing Standards as a pilot for generalising this process to other articles. The Saragossa Criteria were presented at the 11th Annual Scientific Meeting of the European Association for Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry in Saragossa, 2008 [1]. The article has already been revised and I will complete a monthly audit of the article using these standards. Further work can be conducted to improve the standards themselves.

1. Marley, J. Wikipedia representation of Liaison Psychiatry: Assessment and Recommendations. XI Annual Scientific Meeting of the European Association for Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry and Psychosomatics (EACLPP) and the XXVII European Conference on Psychosomatic Research (ECPR). 25-28th June 2008. Saragossa.

Support

  1. Justinmarley (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

  • Vanity project from a new editor whose only work was to reformat the single article noted, badly, requiring much clean up. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I find your remark about this being a vanity project quite offensive. You clearly have no understanding of the principles I am espousing. In my opinion, your edits of the Liaison article have made a hash of things. May I recommend that you focus on your areas of expertise - namely the children's cartoon series Tokyo Mew Mew. Justinmarley (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to ask you to remember WP:AGF, he made a point concerning your proposal-there is no need for the personal attack on what he does and does not edit. This behavior however does make me question whether or not you are ready to start a Wikiproject.
  • Oppose - I am not confident that Justinmarley has set up a clear enough proposal for what this project would actually do. Especially considering the article which I believe he intends to form the basis of his project has not been created yet. Gavin Scott (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -too vague and narrow in scope The Bald One White cat 12:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Wikipedia:WikiProject Layout

Description

The name is tentative. I'm thinking of have a project, with a like minded people, where if we run out of articles, we can have a to-do list. Ok, so how the project works is that a lot of articles are double spaced, or headlines are not well named, or data in the article can be made into tables, and thus more readable and professional and like statiscal government publications you can find in a university library. Other examples include forming a how-to-format section, such as pages that teach how to caption a picture, and for different pictures, say an artwork, how to format differently and what data to include differently. For example, we can work on articles that violate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Headings#Section_headings; another example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Udmurtia&diff=220755053&oldid=220671073.68.148.164.166 (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested wikipedians
  1. ElectricalExperiment 22:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I'm not exactly sure what this is, but at first glance my main concern is, "too vague?" the first part I don't see developing much, would be very hard to have a to do list etc, unless you're proposing going through all articles by some sort of system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conningcris (talk • contribs) 09:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject: Construction

Description

This group will fill the gap left by engineering and architecture for people interested in improving Wikipedia topics related to the construction/built environment field. The scope might include: construction materials, notable people & companies, specific projects, construction methods, construction management, safety, and equipment. Mr. Welsh (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Mr. Welsh (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Timurite (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • Oppose - Project would be too narrow in focus. Recommend a Task Force in WikiProject Business and Economics or WikiProject Employment]] if it is approved (see below). It may be expanded to a full WikiProject later, if interest develops. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you consider placing construction under "Business and Economics?" I fail to see how construction materials, methods, and practices could logically be placed in that category. A glance at academia revels that there are schools of construction all over the world. They don't teach construction in business school, and the valuable construction professionals that I hope will join this group would not logically look for construction buried underneath such broad topics as economics or employment. Mr. Welsh (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rochester Institute of Technology

Description

This project will create and update Rochester Institute of Technology-related articles. Maintaining articles for RIT's colleges, individuals, list of alumni, and any related content. See Category:Rochester Institute of Technology for current articles. Dan LeveilleTALK 09:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Dan LeveilleTALK 09:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. DanielPenfield (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Powers T 13:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Anatoly.Bourov T 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
  • I signed as interested but I don't think it's really necessary yet. We don't even have a Rochester WikiProject yet, and the New York WikiProject is nearly barren. Powers T 13:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's only 70 odd articles in total for this, should be a task force of another project. Nowhere near enough scope for a full project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caissa's DeathAngel (talk • contribs) 08:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Project would be too narrow in focus. Recommend a Task Force in WikiProject Universities or WikiProject New York and can be expanded to a full WikiProject if interest develops. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps LtPowers' suggestion - We could have a Rochester Wikiproject instead, which could also encompass RIT and it's articles. I think that's perhaps a better idea. --Dan LeveilleTALK 20:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Way too narrow. In New York State there are wp:SYR and wp:HVNY. I'm one of just 3 occasionally active participants in the first one, one of whom has done a lot on Syracuse University stuff. But mostly it is just a disappointment to anyone who comes and joins. Wish it had been defined to be much larger. And, in fact, the wp:NY state-wide one is pretty dead. doncram (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So here's my understanding of the debate thus far:
  1. Creation of a Wikiproject is out, given an anticipated lack of sustained interest.
  2. Creation of a task force, say Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Rochester Institute of Technology, is out because it would require gaining the consensus of Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.
  3. People are reluctant to set up a informal user-space "to do" page (for example at User:Danlev/RIT), perhaps populated with Template:Task force.
Are there other solutions that we can consider? Perhaps we should take the effort to http://www.rocwiki.org/ instead?
-- DanielPenfield (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think creation of a task force is necessarily out; if we have enough demonstrated interest, WP Universities might be willing, even if just to get some of us on their roster. =) RocWiki is fine for what it is, but it's more of a travel guide than an encyclopedia. I guess my suggestion would be to try to repopulate WikiProject New York and get it more active; it's in a sad state right now, and NYS articles could use the work. Powers T 14:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

Description

This project will aim to keep Wikipedia articles on The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, of a high and encyclopedic quality. The project will aim to cover the characters in more detail, cleanup and maintain the film series article, well as promoting the individual film articles, promote the series, while still maintaining the essence of an encyclopedia. --EclipseSSD (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. EclipseSSD (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • Oppose Should be a task force at best, and I question that there are enough articles even for that. I'm also concerned by your talk of promoting the series, this is entirely contradictory to the notion of maintaining the essence of an encyclopedia. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Project would be too narrow in focus. Recommend a Task Force in WikiProject Films or WikiProject Horror and can be expanded to a full WikiProject later, if interest develops. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I recommend a task force in WikiProject Films for this.
    Da'jhan 21:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dajhan (talk • contribs)
  • Strong oppose -not valid enough to evne have its own WP:Films taskforce. The Bald One White cat 12:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject:Chicago Area Public Transportation

Description

This is a proposed project to better organize information in articles dealing with Mass transit in Chicago and surrounding areas. This page and its subpages contain the suggestions and opinions of interested contributors; it is hoped that this project will help to focus and coordinate the efforts of all.

Scope

Using Wikipedia:NYCPT as a model, this WikiProject aims primarily to coordinate, organize, and develop all Wikipedia activities concerning all public transportation in the Chicago metropolitan area. This includes various operations overseen by the Regional Transportation Authority and Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District:

It would also include various ferries and other connecting services, as well as historic services. The talk pages of articles that are part of this WikiProject would be categorized in Category:Chicago area public transportation articles by quality and Category:Chicago area public transportation articles by importance, as well as a separate assessment department, image department, etcetera.

The parents of this WikiProject would be WikiProject Chicago, WikiProject Illinois, WikiProject Indiana, WikiProject Wisconsin, WikiProject Trains, and WikiProject buses. ----DanTD (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians
  1. --DanTD (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Same as WP:LT ElectricalVandilize Me 02:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
-- GregManninLB (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose As the WP:CHICAGO Director, I have not seen a flood of transport articles at WP:CHIGA or WP:CHIFC. I think I am dubious of the prospect for success of such a project. I would like to see some clear results showing that this is a project that will be getting things done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose I have doubts on the success it would have too, but there is undoubtedly a lot the project could cover, particularly if its editors mainly work on articles in this area in Chicago. I wouod suggest it remains as part of WP:Chicago until there is a clear amount of editors who can work on them or set aside a work page for it rather than a full blown project or task force The Bald One White cat 12:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil Wikiproject

Description
This project would maintain Resident Evil Wikipedia articles.

Also so that this group can add new Resident evil articles. It will also bring everyone that loves this game together. UltimateCyborgNinja (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians
  1. UltimateCyborgNinja (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Monkeyjunk (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • Oppose - Recommend establish as a task force in WikiProject Games or one of it's many subprojects and expand to full project later if interest develops. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • strongly agree - If final fantasy can get a wikiprject a great game like this should too.

Monkeyjunk (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - The scope is too small to be a sole project, I recommend a task force from other game wikiprojects and expand to full project later if the need becomes eminent.
    Da'jhan 21:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dajhan (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose - The scope is far too small for an entire project. Possibly as a task force, although I advise going to WT:VG and proposing such a thing there. --.:Alex:. 10:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose -as above. Fan cruft porject at best. I'd reocmmend setting aside a Wp:Videogames work page for it only. The Bald One White cat 12:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Literature

Description
I believe that we should make a project related to the many various fantasy genre writers out there, I was looking through and I noticed there are a lot of projects relating to the many various series and/or authors of fantasy books. I suggest we try and make something devoted to connecting these articles, because this would allow readers to look at different authors, compare, and of course it would help organize the information on this site related to fantasy. I realize there would be problems as in who qualifies but I'm sure this idea can work. I haven't been working with Wikipedia very long and this would be my first major involvement in a project/taskforce so I would need help. I'd like to see how much interest this gathers.
Interested Wikipedians
  1. Conningcris
  2. ElectricalVandilize Me
  3. Debate dude (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 63.241.168.62 (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Da'jhan 23:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dajhan (talk • contribs)
Discussion
  • Interested Comment Yeah, i'm definitely interested, but I agree that there are too many projects, so this would be better as a taskforce. But if you do that, I'm 100% with you. ---G.T.N. (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why just books? What about short stories and poems? Wrad (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree that this group would probably function best as a subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels, which deals with all fiction. If it were to do so, I think it would make sense to cover fantasy short stories, and possibly poems?, as well. John Carter (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see making this into a taskforce instead, and would be happy with that. And the reason I wouldn't want to make this include short stories and poems is my idea for this was a project/taskforce focused on very common, well selling, and popular books. conningcris 21:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been with wikipedia very long, and I don't know how much help I can be, but I am willing to help out in any way I can. This makes a perfect wikiproject, and it shouldn't be just a taskforce. Also, I don't think the project should cover poems and short stories. I am a big fantasy fan, and would love to see this proposal become a project. Debate dude (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there does seem to be a fair amount of interest (be it project or taskforce, leaning towards taskforce) just wondering because I don't know a lot about wikipedia, how do I actually Start it? (lol) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conningcris (talk • contribs) 08:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Already covered - as Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Fantasy task force see you there :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiSafety

Description
This wikiproject is not just another wikiproject. This wikiproject sole Purpose is to keep Wikipedia Safe. It will tell wikipedians if thier userpage gives out any personal infomation that may end up being harmful to them. S.T.H. ( P/T/C ) 22:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look at User:Save the humans/Wikisafety
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. S.T.H. ( P/T/C )
Discussion

Isn't it up to the user themselves what information they want to include on their userpage? I'm pretty sure that any Wikipedian would know the dangers of giving out personal information on Wikipedia (and the internet in general). It's not for us to tell a user that saying something on their userpage can be harmful. It's their personal choice. And besides, anything you say on your userpage about yourself could be used against you. So we'd have alot of Wikipedians to warn. But thats just what I think. You're still welcome to start up the project. Joelster (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said "Wikipedian would know the dangers of giving out personal information on Wikipedia" Well As agent K of Men in black said "people as a whole are stupid." S.T.H. ( P/T/C ) 22:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you spell "safety" correctly if the project ever gets going. --Eustress (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opps. Srry lol. I changed it S.T.H. ( P/T/C ) 23:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really like this idea, like the above poster said, if people are dumb enough to post things that you believe would be harmful then a. it's their choice, b. they should know the dangers, and c. if they put it here, I'm sure there are bigger or equal threats to these people across the web, I oppose conningcris 05:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Posturology

Description

Wikipedian goal of this project is to fulfull the lack of knowledge concerning posture by providing.....CUT
Full description is centralized here: User:Paoloplatania/Posturology#description
--Paoloplatania (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Page

Initally at User:Paoloplatania/Posturology hoping to get it approved.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

Hans Albert Quistorff, LMP Antalgic Posture Pain Specialist hquistorff@gmail.com http://hansmassage.blogspot.com/index.html Articles on reflex posturology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HansMassage (talk • contribs) 04:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Defence a project is built to develop a concept, in this particular case the concept is meant to be developed at the highest scientific level possible, the reason you oppose allow to suspect that you did'nt read posturology article and anyway witness that posture is unexplored, commonly mistaken for something else and urgent to be developed. The reason why I don't entrust it's developmente to a task force of other aknowledged scientific projects is because of multidisciplinary feature of posturology, and thus, impossible to be developed by people with a single discipline approach, rather, it is meant to be carried-out by multidisciplinary authors often in partnership with most of the existing physiology-related projects —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paoloplatania (talk • contribs) 06:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Trolleybuses

Summary
WikiProject Trolleybuses will be for everything to do with the vehicles. There seems to be a shortage at the moment of Trolleybus related things, so this will also help to do that. BG7 16:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (sign using 3 tildes (~~~))
  1. BG7
  2. Arsenikk (talk)
Discussion
Project Page

Initally at User:Bluegoblin7/Trolleybuses until we get it approved.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Buses is pretty dead, so I'd recommend reviving it, as trolleybuses are buses. --NE2 21:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional support -I'd strongly recommend either reviving WP:Buses as a general project or having it as a task force of WP:Transport. The Bald One White cat 12:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Police Academy

Description
This project will be dedicated to the Police Academy franchise, which includes maintaining the main article, as well as editing and cleaning up articles on the characters, the seperate films, and the television shows, perhaps providing more detail and removing unecessary information. I believe the franchise is big enough for its own project, and I'll be maintaining these articles regularly and hopefully we canget some of the articles to become Good or Featured Article candidates.EclipseSSD (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. EclipseSSD (talk)
Discussion

English Law

Description

A Wikiproject to improve articles on English law, disinct from law article per se. Is anyone interested? Francium12 (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Francium12 (talk)
  2. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SimpsonsFan08 talk contribs 21:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC) (Sounds Great!)[reply]
  4. Conningcris
  5. Lamberhurst
  6. Wflack
  7. HughCharlesParker
Discussion
  • Comment It is a pity, I feel, that law generally seems to be a neglected topic within Wikipedia; sure there are many articles, but precious few Good Articles and a mere handful of Featured articles. Given that English law provided the basis of the Common Law now used in USA and Australia, it arguably deserves better treatment, if only for historical reasons. However, the idea of a task force seems attractive, and I will raise it there. --Rodhullandemu 01:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - As per User:SimpsonsFan08, if Australia and Canada can have their own projects, why not English law which is currently in a total mess? Keeping it as a branch/task force of the current Law wikiproject means that it's never going to attract sufficient contributors since most of the articles are written from a US perspective. Further, if you look up and down this page, most projects start off with 5 or so members. Let's give this project a chance. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Why not? Because you don't want to drown yourselves in the administrative overhead of setting up a formal project if you can avoid it. A task force typically has many of the advantages of a "real" project (a talk page, for example) and fewer of the disadvantages. Wouldn't you rather be editing those articles instead of debating what image to put on a WikiProject banner, or whether you're participating in the WP:1.0 team's assessment work? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to comment: This argument could be used for practically every single wikiproject that has ever been proposed, including for example the US Supreme Court Wikiproject. The question of the actual administration of the project is a non-issue, given that the Australian law wikiproject can act as a template, and what remains to be set up would serve to enhance a neglected area of Wikipedia. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - I would like to get involved in the project or task force. I am an English solicitor. I would like to see much more English legal resources on Wikipedia. I am very new to Wikipedia so apologies for any format problems etc with this message. Wflack--Wflack (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although I'm tempted to propose creation of a single "common law" project. bd2412 T 23:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support -I;d recommend it as a task force of WP:Law though The Bald One White cat 12:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeontology/Paleontology

Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology is running so can be deleted.

Description

To cover the academic field as their are many articles on this Wiki. To improve articles about Palaeontologists and their works, extinct species articles, and those articles that correlate with Geology, Life science, Botany etc. Their is already Projects on Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs, Mammals, Geology, Extinction but not a united one on this topic. If no interests, then I will scrap it.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

Enlil Ninlil (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lurai (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion
  • Support I'm not interested as I have no knowledge in the field, but I'd like to say that I think it's a good idea. The DominatorTalkEdits 04:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Big Support - I can't believe this doesn't already exist. – ClockworkSoul 01:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Big Support - I would love this wikiproject.
  • Support Da'jhan 23:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support -surprised it didn't exist The Bald One White cat 12:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superheroes

Description
Some people like me want to know alot more about superheroes. To make it a smaller search I want to create a projet that has alot of info about superheroes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiim456 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Tiim456 (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Wouldn't most if not all of this content already be covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics? John Carter (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I am unsure how this would make a "smaller search" - if people want more information on superheroes then they can always start here and work out: Superhero and Category:Superheroes. There is actually a discussion here and as I say there I don't see the need for a vaguely defined group that doesn't seem to bring anything extra to the table that isn't already being done by the Comics Project (and other relevant Projects). (Emperor (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Earth

Description
Wikiproject Earth will over look the following articles. Wikiproject Earth will look over the physical parts of earth becuase well if all the humans go "Poof" politics dont matter. Unless the politics effect the phisical earth. And roads well they dont matter ethier if we go pood. :) IwilledituTalk :)Contributions 21:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. --IwilledituTalk :)Contributions 15:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sushant gupta (talk) 07:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • Far too broad and the list of articles seems rather off-balance (strongly weighted toward climatology). Why not just Category:Climatology and Category:Meteorology along with the geology category? Or rename it Project climatology and narrow the focus to a more manageable size (and to reflect your apparent interest). But, there exists Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment - which seems to make this redundant as formulated. Vsmith (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No point to this proposal as topics are already covered by Wikipedia:Wikiproject Environment which only started last year after merging from other related projects that weren't very busy. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why wouldnt economy, skyscrappers, health, national frontiers, roads and so on be part of a project called "Earth"? --Childhood's End (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same reason Earth Day has nothing to do with those things. But agree with Shiftchange above -- there's already an environment project to handle these kinds of articles. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:41, 31 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • So because some people decided to call their environmental thing "Earth Day", the Earth is now to be environment-related only? --Childhood's End (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your project description is too brief and doesn't mention a goal or aim. What would be the point of you project? I can't see the purpose of grouping the topics suggested and starting a project page called Earth. I would be more useful if the tasks listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematical and Natural Sciences/Environment or similar, were tended to rather than create another wikiproject. I feel we need to improve on existing categories and portals rather than create lots of wikiprojects. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are these particular articles listed for inclusion in the proposed project? They appear "cherry picked" from various political, environment and science categories. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 16:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about volcanoes? They're part of the earth. How about oil seepage from the ocean floor? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 16:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanyou i added it. IwilledituTalk :)Contributions 17:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There are already WikiProjects in Geology, Climate change, and Geography; I think these cover pretty much every page you have listed. Verisimilus T 20:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these are covered by WP:WikiProject Climate, you should work to reactivate that project (I would gladly help out from time to time!)-RunningOnBrains 22:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose overlaps existing projects. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Slavic WikiProject

Description
The West Slavic community (that's:  Czech Republic,  Slovakia and  Poland as well as the Sorbs of  Germany) is somewhat fractured here mostly due to naming conflicts over areas of common interest but a common WikiProject could encourage multilateral participation, and provide a centralised area for discussion of shared topics and conflicts. Collaborations of the Week may also highlight under-represented topics or topics over-represented in regards to only one nation of group, and focus on improving multilateral communication in regards to contentious articles. +Hexagon1 (t) 23:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example page for this I am creating under my user - User:Hexagon1/WSWP. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. +Hexagon1 (t)
  2. The Dominator (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC) This is an excellent idea Hexagon![reply]
  3. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 11:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC) 11:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Molobo (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Tymek (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Darwinek (talk) 07:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Montessquieu Montessquieu (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • Personally I think this is a simple, wonderful idea. I think it should be implemented, but I would like for the separate projects to remain here, but be a part of the larger one. The Dominator (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yeah, I didn't mean for the deletion of the other projects, just a joint larger one. The present WikiProjects could either remain as they are and just co-operate with this one or become taskforces, we could have a vote or discussion on which would be preferred. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Small concern: About the talk page banners such as Template:WikiProject Czech Republic, I think we should just keep the respective national ones rather than creating a big West Slavic one and having to spend days replacing. The Dominator (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not quite sure this will go down well with the existing wikiprojects, they may decide not to become taskforces and it would create unnecessary duplicity - this would be a major problem which is why we really need a wider consensus on this before it gets created. About the templates, we should be able to, with mild edits to the template (mostly on the order of "Czech WikiProject --> Czech taskforce of West Slavic WikiProject" keep the current ones with no problems. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I am getting a bit ahead of myself, I think this is a good solution but it works OK the way it is now. The Dominator (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Since this project will augment the current projects in existence it has the potential for great collaboration. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to cooperate with Upper and Lower Sorbian contributors. Xx236 (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If there was enough interest it would be easy to start a Taskforce within this WikiProject, so if you wish - add your support, and add some Sorbian features to the WiP project page! It'd be great if you were able to contribute in this field, I was afraid we'd only get Czech, Slovak and Polish editors interested. +Hexagon1 (t) 10:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm Polish. I have checked and authors of Sorbian articles are generally non-Sorb.Xx236 (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant editors interested in those articles, not just editors of those ethnicities. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Why not". It is just my experience that most of such projects don't attract enough editors to become really active. But sure, go ahead. Maybe this one will work? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I asked you to comment, because the Czech, Slovak and Polish WikiProjects would have to become taskforces to avoid duplication, and I know that some editors might have a problem with that, you think that it would be an issue? The Dominator (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but this project should never override good-working national projects. -- Darwinek (talk) 07:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So would you want the WikiProjects to coexist with this one or to become taskforces? The Dominator (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Darwinek above and particularly approproate historically. My only concern would be country project overlapping and tagging issues The Bald One White cat 13:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious programmes

Description

Recently, I started a new category "Religious programmes". If you look at this category, you may notice that at the moment is heavily biassed towards Christian programmes,towards the U.K. and towards BBC programmes, given that I am Christian Wikipedian who works in the United Kingdom. However, there must be religious programmes all over the world to do with just about all the world's major faiths, so would an international and multi-faith project group be prepared to expand this article? a I shall also be appreciative if any one could expand the contents of what is there already, such as the article on the Radio 4 Lent Talks.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your usernames)
  1. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. John Carter (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
I take the point but I would not want this to be a sub-group of the Television Project group, as the group would cover radio as well as television programmes. Also, having an inter-faith group would mean that certain programmes, such as Desi DNA which has on occasion featured articles on Sikhism or Islam, could be included. An international focus would prevent this becoming too biassed towards the BBC; perhaps it ought to be re-named "Religious Media". ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have had a thought. As well as dealing with programmes that are either currently on air, this project group could deal with programmes such as BBC's "Everyman" or "Heart of the Matter" which were on some time ago. In fact, in the category of "Religious programmes", we already find reference to Sea of Faith: Television series, which was aired (for one series only) as long ago as 1984. We also find reference to The Heaven and Earth Show, which came to its end last year (2007).ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am delighted to see that this category has now been expanded, including references to programmes from the United States as well as the United Kingdom, and many thanks to who ever did that. Can I also say that I have found out today (7 April 2008) that there is a category "Religious television series" - we could also concentrate on programmes listed there. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, as one of the interested parties, it's already been suggested that it be a subproject of religion. Because of the amount of radio and other programming, it would probably not be possible to make it a task force of television, however. Also, the religion project itself doesn't deal that directly with most of the religions which the religious programming is connected to, which might make it a weak fit as well. John Carter (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it has been suggested, in what way does that make my suggestion less valid? Also, I'm having some trouble interpreting your reasoning as to why "taskforce of Wikiproject religion" is a bad fit? Are you saying that this project would cover religions that WikiProject Religion doesn't cover? The DominatorTalkEdits 17:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion, as per it's own stated "Scope" section, focuses most of its attention on those religions which do not already have dedicated projects, and those articles whose subjects are "broader" than a single religion, thus leaving Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Shinto, Jainism, Buddhism and several others as being, in a sense, outside of its scope insofar as dealing with articles about those subjects primarily or exclusively. As most if not all of the religious programmes I personally know of relate to one or more of those faith traditions exclusively, those programmes would more or less fall outside the scope of that project. John Carter (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt you can actually say that a Christianity-related article is outside of WP:Religion's scope, it's in the scope of WP:Christianity which is in the scope of WP:Religion, and I would continue to support this as a taskforce of the religion project, though I don't wish to stand in the way of those who do wish to make this a project so I did strike out my oppose. The DominatorTalkEdits 17:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Recategorisation

Recently, the category entitled "Religious programmes" had all its contents resubmitted to similar categories, such as Christian television, or "Religious television series" or "Religious radio series". This does not make the need for such a project group obsolete however - indeed,the fact this categorisation took place reinforces the need for such a project group. I mention this here so that interested Wikipedians find it easier to navigate to related pages. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject WikiMoney

Description
Wikipedia:WikiMoney has existed since the early stages of wikipedia itself. It has been dead for some time and now I want to revive it. Obviously the old experiment had many members and I think the system would work better as a WikiProject. It provides an incentive for editing and would significantly improve the project.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 04:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Uga Man
  2. AxelBoldt
  3. FridemarPache see Meatball:WeNameInitiative
  4. Wulf
  5. John Carter (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Lurai (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. S.T.H. ( P/T/C )
  8. --pbroks13talk? 07:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • Several people had problems with the title "WikiMoney" at the time; maybe "WikiProject Give and Take" or "WikiRewards" would be more agreeable. AxelBoldt (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One very possibly objectionable idea, but here goes. Maybe WikiMoney could be tied to translate roughly into a real-world benefit? Say, as an example, $????.00 WikiMoney gets you a scholarship ot other assistance to the next Wikimania or maybe other directly Wikipedia-related items. It might involve giving the project a bit more organization, and a rather clear "price guide", but it definitely might help the idea's prospects. Obviously, of course, it would help dramatically if someone were to provide underwriting of the idea as well. John Carter (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • SecondLife has convertible L$ Fridemar (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This proposal falls under article improvement maintenance WikiProjects. See also WikiMoney accounts MfD. GregManninLB (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency Medical System

Description
Maintain, improve, and expand articles relating to emergency medical systems and prehospital care. -- JPINFV 02:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. JPINFV
  2. Brentoli
  3. Jclemens - I may be one of the few active editors in Wikiproject First Aid.
Discussion

Would be interested in an offer as a Wiki:Medicine task force as well.

-- GregManninLB (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: However, Wikipedia:WikiProject First aid currently exists and is basically inactive. I'd recommend renaming Wikipedia:WikiProject First aid to Wikipedia:WikiProject Emergency medical services and going from there. There is no need for both an EMS and a First aid project. The first aid project seems to be a bit narrow in scope, and expanding to EMS should draw more participants. --Scott Alter 05:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Whatever we call it, I would like to see a single Emergency Medicine project/task force, subordinate to BOTH Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine and whatever the Wikiproject ends up being for Emergency Services. Can you put a task force in two places? If not, then I'm advocating this be a separate Wikiproject from both Medicine and Fire Service. EMTs and Paramedics walk in the space between clinical medicine and strict fire/rescue, and I think this wikiproject should too. Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that it should be a descendant of both WikiProject Medicine and an "Emergency services" project. However, there is no such project. I do not think these 3 services belong under WikiProject Disaster management in its current state. Therefore, for now, I would put the project in Category:Society WikiProjects, paralleling WikiProject Fire Service and WikiProject Law Enforcement. Each of these 3 projects can link to each other as "related projects." I would strongly object to WikiProject Emergency medical services as a subordinate/descendant of WikiProject Fire Service. Also, since Wikipedia:WikiProject First aid already exists, I'd think it would be easier to rename that than create either a new project or a shared task force between WikiProject Medicine and a non-existent project. --Scott Alter 06:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In reality, while not all emergency medical responders are firefighters (nor should they be), most American firefighters are emergency medical responders, especially on the West Coast. I'm not sure how this plays out in other countries, but the strong connection between fire service and EMS underlies my suggestion. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I recognize that in some areas, there is a strong connection between fire and EMS. I don't necessarily agree that most American firefighters are emergency medical responders. However, even if that were true, I would say that most emergency medical responders are not firefighters. Given that logic, and the fact that most EMS-providing fire departments probably do many more medical jobs than fire jobs, you'd think that fire should be a subset of EMS (not that I would ever actually suggest that, but I think the two services should stand separately and EMS should not be a subordinate of fire). --Scott Alter 06:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's an amusing and logical conclusion. I'll elaborate on your talk page. Jclemens (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just renamed WikiProject First aid to create Wikipedia:WikiProject Emergency medical services. I've began to change the templates to reflect this. --Scott Alter 04:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Education in Malaysia

Description

This proposed WikiProject is meant to organize, improve and expand all articles related to Education in Malaysia at all levels, including adult education, vocational education, etc. A lot of the articles in this category need work. - Bob K 07:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Bob K Bob K 07:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Chan Yin Keen | UTC 07:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Acs4b T C U 10:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Steve F. 17:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Pass the word around. If we can get more than 5 people on board, we can get started. - Bob K 09:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Description

{{{2}}} {{{3}}}

List of important pages and categories for this proposed group

List of WikiProjects currently on the talk pages of those articles
Please invite these and any other similar groups to join the discussion about this proposal. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory to find similar WikiProjects.
Why do you want to start a new group, instead of joining one of these existing groups?
Your answer goes here.

Support

Also, specify whether or not you would join the project.

  1. {{{3}}}

Discussion

Wikiproject Information theory

Description

This project would help organize work on the information theory-related articles on Wikipedia. I don't know how many people are interested, but we currently have over 100 articles in Category:Information theory, and many of them need significant cleanup and maintenance. Furthermore, it would be nice to have a place to discuss, standardize, and formalize some of the policy unique to information theory that has developed in an ad-hoc manner as these articles have been edited, especially concerning how information-theoretic mathematical formulas are written. Such a WikiProject would also be helpful to bring new and/or occasional contributors to the information theory articles up to speed. The main information theory article is currently included in numerous other WikiProjects that are either too broad or only tangentially related. It would be nice to have some more focus in this area.

Update: the front page, Information theory, just got added to yet another Wikiproject. It is in all the following Wikiprojects:

Deepmath (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Deepmath (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hetelllies (talk) 06:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Wikiproject Sino-Japanese-Korean relations

Description

Wikipedia topics on Sino-Japanese-Korean topics all too often, and unfortunately, reflect the tense, exaggerated, embittered and often politically nationalistic debates currently prevalent in the popular presses of these three great nations.

In many case, these polemics are immature, propagandistic and unencyclopedic in nature and causes being promoted by unethical editing habits. Japanese-Korean topics appear to be amongst the more problematic topics on the Wikipedia.

At the same time, within each nation and academic circles there are moves to create pan-national understanding and document an accurate account of history. It is therefore proposed to establish a Sino-Japanese-Korean workgroup interested in establishing good working relations to improve the academic nature of these articles and encourage normal editing.

For the sakes of honesty and transparency, this pan-national workgroup was sincerely proposed precisely in response to the mode of operation used by many such the editor below, Caspian blue (talk · contribs · logs) who also edited as Appletrees (talk · contribs · logs), in this topic area.
Such wasteful activities as persistent allegations, personal attacks and other distractions from the primary activity of content production and reference checking only discouraging newcomers, less aggressive and, especially, genuine academics from participating on the Wikipedia.
It is hoped that by bring together authors from across the spectrum of parties, interested in rising above existing conflicts, that standards, understanding and sensitivity can be improved; just as they are in academia at present. --Ex-oneatf (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ex-oneatf (talk · contribs), such personal attacks of yours could not warrant your allegation. I take a strong offense by your repeated personal attacks again. What a wast of my and many people's precious time. The above editor who claims as a newbie (2 days old) is bashing me here and there and not surprising knowing my changed name. So what has something to do with the proposal? --Caspian blue (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now Korean war crimes which the nominator created was deleted for the massive plagiarism. The related AFD, the article is also pointed out on its seriously POV and total mess. His statement contradicts to his disruptive practices. Per this experience, Ex-oneatf shows what these are : immature, propagandistic and unencyclopedic in nature and causes being promoted by unethical editing habits. Japanese-Korean topics appear to be amongst the more problematic topics on the Wikipedia.

Besides, the three people are from Japanese project, so if the project proposal would be accepted, editors from "China" and "Korea" should support it too. --Caspian blue (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Ex-oneatf (talk) 07:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not certain that this works (could be possibly a disaster), but it's still worth a try. -- Taku (talk) 05:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I would support this as a task force of multiple projects. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I can see why editors would loath to get involved but standards need to be improved. At present many topics look like propaganda wars going on to me. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

  • STRONG Oppose. First of all, at this point I could not trust the suggester who created his own account one weeks ago and Korean war crimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in very bad faith without sourcing. He exaggerates and inflates contents of the article to make it as bad as possible how Korean is by his unethical editing. The article seriously violates WP:NPV and holds his political agendas. This project proposal is his own contradiction as he practices "tense, exaggerated, embittered and often politically nationalistic debates and promoting unethical editing habits" by himself. Japanese-Korean topics appear to be amongst the more problematic topics on the Wikipedia. - It is irony to see the opposite movements by the proposer. His edits based on anti and pro sentiments concern me a lot that the suggester seem to take advantage of the Wikiproject for his own sake. --Caspian blue (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Its going to be a magnet for flaming. And from a user who`s only purpose here is to make false claims left and right, its going to be a venue for him to direct his attacks against Korean-related articles. Good friend100 (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Oppose. I think this is a bad faith edit. maybe he pick a fringe theory by POV content forking. and make korea image as bad to chinese. ALSO I don't think we need Wikiproject Sino-Japanese-Korean relations. Korean, Chinese, Japanese strongly disagree each other. This will make many disruptive edit wars. Manacpowers (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral


Wikiproject Articles Needing Copy Edit

Description

This WikiProject will focus on maintaining and reducing the backlog of articles needing copy edit. I am proposing this because there has been no organized effort to tackle the backlog since the League of Copy Editors (LOCE) went historical. For now I am not proposing a revival of the LOCE because the LOCE's focus was somewhat had become different; I gathered that towards its last days it had become more similar to the focus of the currently-active Peer Review WikiProject. I am proposing a WikiProject that will have more clearly-defined goals. I am already starting to create a project page on one of my subpages, and will send out a call for interested parties once that is mostly done. *smiles*--Samuel Tan 09:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I only contacted a few people from the list of members of the now-defunct WP:LOCE and various other Projects, and we already have six people! I am going to begin shifting the project portal from my userspace into the wikispace so that we can better coordinate our efforts. -Samuel Tan 00:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have shifted the contents from my userspace to the project page. See you there!-Samuel Tan 02:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Samuel Tan 09:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Erythromycin (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. AnnaFrance (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. MeegsC | Talk 15:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. RC-0722 361.0/1 17:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Enigma message 04:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Acs4b T C U 18:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

  • This will work if it gets exposure on the Community portal page, and maybe one of those messages that pop up on people's Watchlist page? (the ones you can 'dismiss'). I believe we should start with the earliest tagged articles and work our way up from there. Maybe an extra workforce could focus on the current month, to ensure the backlog doesn't keep growing at a ridiculous rate each month. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good ideas. I've been wondering how to increase the project's exposure. I'm hoping that the number of editors working on this project will become so large that some day we can start encouraging people to tag their articles for copy editing. *grin*-Samuel Tan 13:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Wikiproject Peanuts

Description

I propose that something be done about the Peanuts-related articles because most of them have little or no references, NPOV violations, and seem to be written in an essay form, especially articles featured in the {{Peanuts}} and {{Peanuts television specials}} templates.

Support

  1. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Bernstein2291 (talk) 03:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Wikiproject Backlog

Description

This WikiProject will be designed to draw attention to Category:Wikipedia backlog and the huge number of articles needing maintenance attention. Each month a category will be selected (starting with Category:Articles to be merged), and interested editors will try to resolve the issues for as many articles as they can, removing them from that category. In general, attention will be given to categories with more than 10,000 entries, and categories backlogged for more than a year.

Support

  1. NickPenguin(contribs) 03:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --pbroks13talk? 07:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

  • Absolutely. The backlog is in much need of attention. --pbroks13talk? 07:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland

Description

A project that covers Britain's great diversity of species and their conservation. There is a great amount of information currently unclassified and inaccessible which could do with wider support such as: British National Vegetation Classification, List of UK sites recognised for their importance in biodiversity conservation, List of bees, wasps and ants recorded in Britain, and everything within. For an example of how it would work see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian biota.

Support

  1. Jack (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jimfbleak (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SP-KP (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

  • I'm unclear why it's "British Biota", rather than "British biota" can this be clarified with respect to MoS (or changed) Looking at the cats above, and on the WP:BIRDS talk page should it be "United Kingdom biota" or "Biota of the British Isles" anyway? British Isles, UK and Great Britain are not synonyms. Is it intended to include Eire and/or Northern Ireland? Too vague jimfbleak (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Oops it should be lowercase biota, I'll change that. I thought 'British' includes everything within the United Kingdom? That is: England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and associated islands. I'm up for a name change if neccessary though, and am open to discussion. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Terminology of the British Isles is a minefield! From a biogeographical point of view, however, I feel that a UK biota wikiproject would be the worst option. Either a single "Britain and Ireland" wikiproject, or separate British and Irish ones would be better. SP-KP (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposed categories include Category:Ecology of the British Isles and Category:Fauna of the British Isles which is inconsistent with the UK-based definition above. Also, if you really mean the UK, rather than the British Isles or Great Britain, why not Biota of the United Kingdom? jimfbleak (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to Biota of the British Isles, this will mean the project will cover all categories and lists mentioned in the proposal. What does everyone think about that? Cheers, Jack (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - see below for reasons. --HighKing (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me, although I'd prefer Britain and Ireland, as "British Isles" offends many residents of the Republic of Ireland (see British Isles naming dispute). SP-KP (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The controversial fork page British Isles naming dispute offers very little evidence of "offense" outside of Wikipedia. This is important, as a tiny minority do not wish to see a technical word used on Wikipedia at all. Please see WP:BITASK for proposed guidelines on the matter. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That view is not shared by everyone - simply check out the first paragraph of the British Isles article for the view of the greater consensus. --HighKing (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matt, I was only using that article to draw people's attention to the issue. I certainly wasn't recommending that it gives an accurate picture of the level of offense. What I know however, from experience away from Wikipedia, is that the term British Isles does cause is a significant degree of offense to some people. SP-KP (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right I've changed it for, hopefully, the last time. The project will be called: WikiProject Biota of the UK and Ireland. This incorporates all the land mass of the British Isles, while keeping offence at a minimum! Jack (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have to keep to the technical term British Isles (per other similar Wikipedia articles) - those offended by the geographical use of "British Isles" (rather than a political use) are a tiny minority even on Wikipedia! Opposition to the 'political' use of the term is currently being addressed at . --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (unless "British Isles" is used): It couldn't be called "..in the UK and Ireland" as the island of Ireland is part-UK (ie Northern Ireland). Please see WP:BITASK - a taskforce that is soon to be a BRITISH ISLES workgroup. The geographical name 'British Isles' is the common technical term for the archipelago re 'geographical' matters like flora and fauna etc, and is the term Wikipedia has been using for articles like the one you are proposing here. If you stick to the standard 'British Isles' when referring to the whole archipelago, you'll be okay. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we interpret "and" as a Boolean operator for Northern Irish locations, "UK and Ireland" is fine, and doesn't cause offense to anyone, unlike "British Isles". 22:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose as flora is not scientifically classified according to "British Isles". Also, the lists and articles you've listed are all British lists, not one Irish lists. Your original naming of Great Britain and Ireland, to name it after the islands, is more in line with the flora classification. @Matt above, I thought you were aware that flora is not classified in this way (see the notes in WP:BITASK). Finally, exactly what are you thinking of including in "British Isles"? Will it include the Channel Islands which geographically/scientifically don't belong, but many of the lists include data referring to the Channel Islands? How will you include/exclude these? In truth, it would just be a big mess to use "British Isles" unless the underlying scientific community supports the classification, and that the definition supported agrees with the Wikipedia definition... --HighKing (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Channel Islands are not part of the archipelago - that is a simple fact that effects all geographical articles, and can be even better stated in the British Isles article if it wasn't cynically locked all the time! I'll look up flora - is that really the case? I don't remember any notes on this in WP:BITASK (it actually said "flora and fauna" once, and I changed it to "natural history") - did you include any? -I didn't notice if you did. 'British Isles' is still an option alongside 'Great Britain and Ireland' regardless. The decider could be whether it is normally used for flora or not - I honestly thought it was used in the world of plants etc.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the Flora Europaea article to see a list of "Distribution" codes for Flora towards the bottom. There's an online version you can use too - this is an example of the "Bluebell". --HighKing (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BITASK says this:
Note on 'technical' use of the term "British Isles"
This guideline often refers to the 'technical' use of the term British Isles. Generally, the term 'technical' here covers the sciences and disciplines of physical geography, geology, natural history (including fauna but excluding flora) and archaeology. When used in a 'pure' technical sense the term is always acceptable.
How difficult will it be to come to a consensus naming wise? Even if flora isn't classified specifically as belonging to the BI, it is still within that term right? A plant found in the United Kingdom will come under the British Isles parentage, just as a species belongs to a genus which is within a greater taxon. Ireland wasn't included in any of the lists just because it was some quick examples I was giving. As ROI shares a land border with NI it seems sensible to include it within the project. It's best that we address these issues now, thought we should be careful red tape doesn't take all our efforts. Jack (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We do need to address this now. I hadn't notice the recent "excluding flora" change to the proposed guideline - it was originally 'flora and fauna'. I'll look at this today - though I fully agree with your 'red-tape' point, if it really isn't used for flora we could rethink here I suppose. I'll also look what else WP does with flora regarding the BI, and on the web too. I have a feeling I've seen 'British Isles' used for plants - we need to check that 'no-flora' is clear and unambiguous. "British Isles" can still be used of course (and certainly 'Great Britain and Ireland' would be the only alternative) - but I think we need a research break here, or I do at least.
Nothing is stopping anyone from at least creating the article you want, by the way - whatever the outcome in this poll. None of these terms are illegal. It would then be down to the resulting consensus if someone chooses to propose a form of 'name change'. If you choose to use British Isles, it wouldn't normally be removed - but the WP:BITASK guideline (which people are holding a lot of faith in) currently saying "excluding flora" could be a problem for the future, and certainly is an immediate 'guideline issue'. I've been working on the guideline intently, but somehow the small but important 'flora' edit here slipped past my notice, or I'd have looked fully into it before. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are many books which cover the distribution of species of Flora over the entire British Isles, but the scientific community has different ideas of "regions", and it could also be argued that many of the books were designed to be "accessible" rather than scientific. I agree with Matt that "Great Britain and Ireland" would be an acceptable (and uncontentious) alternative. --HighKing (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before the name is changed, I want to be clear of the consensus: it seems WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland would be the most accurate and uncontentious. If anyone is opposed to this name, leave a comment saying so, otherwise I will change it on Saturday 23rd August. Jack (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right it's been changed again. Hopefully now we can just get on with it. Jack (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Distribution of flora and fauna by region is not something that the WikiMedia software does well. There are problems with defining quite what the regions are, national boundaries are often not observed by nature. Then there is the problem of categorisation. If there were to be a category for each region then species such as Rat would belong to a great many categories. Brown Bear begins to illustrate such problems with some very specific categories Category:Mammals of Romania.

Being Islands some of the problems are minimised. But I'm not keen on a mass categorisation initiative. I'll support any name which focuses on the land masses WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland seems fine to me. --Salix alba (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Human-Computer Interaction

Description

A project to maintain, expand, and otherwise contribute to the articles on Human-Computer Interaction, Usability, and other HCI-related topics on Wikipedia. Would likely fall under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing, but caters to a different interest group and type of article.

Support

  1. Zeppomedio (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dragice (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Enric Naval (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SeanGustafson (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

WikiProject: Legends

Description

This project would be dedicated mainly to improving and organizing articles on ancient and modern myths.

Support

  1. TheDebater (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Task forces/Work groups

There are advantages to proposing a new group as a task force of an existing project. Generally, task forces require fewer members to be effective and do not have the same degree of required project maintenance, as much of that is taken on by the parent project. If you would like to set up a new group specifically to function as a task force of another project, please list it below.

Halloween

Description

A taskforce for articles about the Halloween series of films, this includes trying to get the movie topic back up to FT status, expanding the character articles and finishing the merge proposals. The article would be a Task Force of the Horror WikiProject and the Movies WikiProject. --Music26/11 10:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. --Music26/11 10:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Citation Task Force

Description

A task force of WikiProject Manual of Style to work on the Wikipedia citation system. There have been a number of complaints about the patchwork of citation templates that all work in different ways. I think there are many editors who feel that we should have a meta-template that the other templates can build on, but that may just be the tip. We probably need three teams: a style team to determine the look of a proper citation, a specification team to work out the way it should work and an implementation team to make it work. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Tony (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jimfbleak (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. MASEM 22:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

The O.C.

Description

A taskforce for articles about the The O.C.. There are a number of articles on the subject, including numerous episode article episodes. There is room for much improvement, and hopefully together this project can follow in the footsteps of Lost and clean up articles and make them more encyclopedic. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JpGrB
Discussion

The O.C. was a very successful show and hopefully there are interested followers out there who want to get on board. I originally listed this as a WikiProject, but have now changed to list as a taskforce under WikiProject Television. Feel free to put forward suggestions at a provisional page.

30 Rock

Description

This project would aim to work on articles relating to the television series 30 Rock. It would aim to expand the main 30 Rock page aswell as make the character pages a better quality and make episode pages to meet notability guidelines.

As of June 13, 2008 there are six good articles related to this topic ("Pilot (30 Rock)," "SeinfeldVision," "Episode 210," "MILF Island," "Subway Hero" and "The Rural Juror") as well as three featured lists (List of 30 Rock awards and nominations, List of 30 Rock episodes and 30 Rock (season 1)). -- Jamie jca (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Jamie jca (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yankeesrj12 (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Polarbear97 (talk - contributions) 01:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 12:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Could I be an unofficial member? Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 12:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? +Hexagon1 (t) 03:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I want to help, but I can't really committ to anything, so I just want to help every now and then. That's why. Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 13:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish. But if I were you I'd just sign up. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The choice to set up this new group specifically to function as a task force of another project seems correct. -- GregManninLB (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Football Video Games

Description
This project would be devotedly dedicated to helping out, coordinating and fixing all content related to american football video games, such as Madden, NFL 2K, Arena Football, and etc. This task force would go under the Mother WikiProject WP:PROJDIR/GT
Founding Member
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. TheNextOneAcross (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion


Andrew McMahon

Description
Would include all articles related to musician Andrew McMahon, like Something Corporate, Jack's Mannequin, Treaty of Paris (band), and other things of that sort. Could probably be a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. --The Experimental Film (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. The Experimental Film (talk)
Discussion

Arrested Development (TV series)

Description
A taskforce focused on improving articles relating to Arrested Development. The taskforce would have WikiProject Television and possibly WikiProject Comedy as its parents. The main article is already an FA, but I think that alot of the other articles relating to series could be greatly improved, especially the main character articles. Article scope is probably 60-70 articles. Joelster (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Joelster (talk)
  2. Was thinking of starting this ages ago! The DominatorTalkEdits 00:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Bill shannon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. TheSnowApe is interested, but can bring British eyes only to the taskforce... TheSnowApe (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Broooooooce (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.232.52.103 (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Duggy Duggy 1138 (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. L (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Thanks to everyone that expressed their interest. The taskforce has been set up here. Anyone who is interested is welcome to join. Joelster (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australian aviation taskforce

Description
Proposed as a taskforce to WP:AVIATION. All about Australian aviation!
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Littleteddy (talk · contribs) March 10, 2008
Discussion

You don't need approval from here, but from the folks at WP:AVIATION. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield (video games)

Description
Proposal for task force under WP:VIDEOGAMES. Relating to Battlefield (series) games. Eg. Battlefield 2142, Battlefield 2, Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield 1942, and supplementary pages.

Proposed By: PwnerELITE (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. PwnerELITE (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Previously turned down as soveriegn Wikiproject. PwnerELITE (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck (TV series)

This WikiProject Task Force would be to create character articles and episode articles for the US television show, Chuck. Additionally, it would be a division of WP:TV.

Interested Wikipedians (Add Your Name If Interested)
Discussion

Etruscans

Description
I propose a taskforce to work on the articles related to the Etruscan civilization. There are quite a lot of articles, but a large amount of them are stubs, so I think coverage could be improved greatly and quickly. The taskforce could be setup under Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology or even Wikipedia:WikiProject Italy (or a combination). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neddyseagoon - talk 21:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dave (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Pecopteris (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

I'd personally favor making it a task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject European history over Classical Greece and Rome, as it doesn't really deal with Classical Greece and Rome per se, but think that the subject certainly merits focused attention. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

European history at the top, sure, but keep some parentage from Greece and Rome too - same time period, related issues (relations with Magna Grecia, descent of the Etruscan kings, Rome seeing its ancestry in Etruria - or not ....), etc Neddyseagoon - talk 21:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd favor Italy or Classical Greece and Rome. So much of it is archaeology it would rather fit European prehistory than European history but then much is in fact history told by the Greeks and Romans. Insofar as the populations assimilated to the Italics in the Roman period and Roman culture took elements from the Etruscan it is in fact an element of classics; classical history is for the most part European history. It is nearly all Italian as most of it took place on Italian soil. Why do we have to go with someone else's task force, why not our own?Dave (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS I'm pleased to be in the company of such distinguished editors, all of whom have many more edits than I. If I start to collide with you let me know. If you have any issues at all with me or I am not following the conventions we decide on let me know. I think I will start on Etruscan cities last-first so as not to collide. Best wishes.Dave (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft sorting and cleanup

Description
This is a taskforce to deal with all the fancruft on Wikipedia. These articles are getting out of hand. We’ve had instances recently where notices were placed on fan website’s and dozens of people came in to fight the deletion of fan pages. What a mess! This taskforce will improve and categories articles that can be saved, and put up for deletion those that are pure cruft.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. S.dedalus 05:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Guybrush (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Lurai (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC) (think I can help, not so sure)[reply]
  4. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 18:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • Is there a Wikipedia article or policy on fancruft? I understand the concept, but we do we have a benchmark against which to measure it? I would like to remove as much of it as possible; there are much better places for it (Wikia springs to mind). -- Guybrush (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FICTION is probably most relevant. Paulbrock (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See discussion of similar project at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fancruft --Enric Naval (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly think such a project is needed. The deletion is likely to go ahead because the initial actions of the project were seen as undiplomatic. I'm not so concerned about the existence of assorted articles. What I actually think is the more insiduous aspect of fancruft is that it infects articles not centred on crufty material with trivia.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Methodism

Description
A group, possibly a work group of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity, to deal with those articles relating to the Methodist churches, their history, people, theology, etc.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. User:Robert of Ramsor (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'll be happy to design the project pages if there is demand for the group, but the subject is not one that I could contribute a great deal to. -- SECisek (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wsanders (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. –RHolton≡– 21:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC) (though my time is somewhat limited, I'd be glad to help as I'm able)[reply]
Discussion

Now active at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Methodism work group.

National Express West Midlands and Coventry bus routes work group

Description
A group to focus on creating, improving, standardizing and maintaining articles on the National Express West Midlands, National Express Coventry bus routes and the wider bus routes. WP It would be in the WP:WESTMIDS and WikiProject:Buses
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Dudleybus (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Oakland Raiders

Description
Fixing Oakland Raiders related articles. Similar projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago Bears. --Louis Alberto Guel 00:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians
Discussion

Roman Catholicism in Great Britain

Description
This task force (connected to WikiProject Catholicism) would standardise the articles and templates pertaining to the religion of Roman Catholicism on the island of Great Britain (where England, Scotland and Wales are situated). This includes the modern day structure of the Church on the island, including the five provinces of England and Wales, as well as the two provinces of Scotland.[1]
There are many articles which I feel would benefit from the attentions of such as taskforce and it would be useful to centralise them all (including the general history) as in the huge main project they could be harder to find and sort, the articles related to it are currently lacking.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Yorkshirian (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Robotforaday (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neddyseagoon - talk 16:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • I can't contribute much, but I may be working on an article or two related to John Henry Newman in the near future, so I'll keep in touch. Dozenthey (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm trying to create a taskforce which may overlap with yours a bit. It's Sub-Roman Britain. During this time period many groups of people were Christianized and many of the important saints of Britain came from this time period. I don't know enough to help out in general, but we could collaborate on a whole lot of saints, monasteries, churches, etc. ---G.T.N. (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sakura Wars

Description
A task force dedicated to creating and improving the Sakura Wars articles. There was a suggestion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#WikiProject Sakura Wars? and it has been said that this project will be a task force rather than a Wikiproject. This series is very popular in Japan and that is the reason I want to create the articles relating to this series and make them featured or good article status. My subpage is at User:Sjones23/WikiProject Sakura Wars and I am working on some articles at my subpages (they are User:Sjones23/Sakura Wars (video game), User:Sjones23/Music of the Sakura Wars series, User:Sjones23/List of Sakura Wars titles, User:Sjones23/Sakura Wars: The Movie and User:Sjones23/Sakura Wars 2). The taskforce will be a division of WP:VG for the games, WP:ANIME for the anime-related series and WP:FILMS for the movie. I am a huge fan of the Sakura Wars series. Similar projects like WP:FF and WP:STARWARS, which I am also a part of. Greg Jones II 03:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Greg Jones II 03:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
You don't need to propose task forces here. If you want to create a task force, it should be discussed on the project talk page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right. I will make sure I will do that as well. Greg Jones II 02:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 11th

Description
This would be a task-force within WP:TERRORISM and would work on improving articles relating to the September 11th attacks; there are at least 175 articles relating to the attacks (most needing attention). I was actually surprised there wasn't already a task-force/wikiproject about 9/11. Here is a possible userbox idea:

User:Noahcs/Userboxes/Sep11



Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Noah¢s (Talk) 20:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Leobold1 (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Basketball110 what famous people say 19:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. conningcris 00:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conningcris (talk contribs)
  6. Hetelllies (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Acs4b T C U 06:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • The image for the userbox should definitely be changed, imho. "Studying attacks" is not the same as "Memorialising victims", one could write specifically about Atta, or the financiers, or the FBI failings that led to the attacks - somebody may even celebrate the attacks...a ribbon "In memory of the lost" is simply not neutral enough. But the idea for a taskforce sounds good to me. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Fiction

Description
A task force of the WikiProject Novels that focuses on the Historical fiction genre
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. The man in the mask (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dozenthey (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC) I'd mostly be interested in working on 19th century historical novels and theory, and I intend to develop a page for Georg Lukacs' The Historical Novel later this summer.[reply]
  3. Liveste (talk · contribs) 22:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. the_ed17 02:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 18:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • Would this also include alternate history and counterfactual history ? 70.51.9.121 (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good question - is normally shelved under speculative fiction and this lumped under Science Fiction, which seems a slightly barmy place to me although where history blends with future the notion gets even more brain taxing. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 18:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think alternate history could support a task force or wikiproject by itself? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars video games

Description
A task force of WP:VG, though this task force would definitely have some links with WP:STARWARS. The category bearing the same name as this proposed task force shows that there are plenty of articles which it would cover: well over eighty.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Una LagunaTalk 18:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. EEMeltonIV 18:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 14:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Polarbear97 01:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. RC-0722 communicator/kills —Preceding comment was added at 19:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Blackngold29 (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Freshbakedpie (Wanna talk?) \'_'/ 21:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

It looks like you can go qahead and create this now, it has enough interest--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 17:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-Roman Britain

Description
This taskforce encompasses the history of Britain just before the Romans left until the Anglo-Saxons, Scots, and Danes conquered the formerly British lands. It will cover the Brythons, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Picts, and Scots. This will cover each of the kingdoms that emerged in this time period and the people who lived in this time. It will also cover the time of Arthur. This would be part of WikiProject European history.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. -G.T.N. (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Pecopteris (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Doug Weller (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Hrothgar cyning (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. PKM (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

I just put together a page here for the taskforce. I didn't have time to make it very sophisticated, so now it pretty much amounts to an article and participant's list. ---G.T.N. —Preceding comment was added at 02:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tabla

Description
This taskforce will focus on creating a representative presence relating to the tabla on Wikipedia. The main tabla article needs revision and referencing and the many splinter articles relating to the tabla are either stubs, poorly written, or not written at all. This would perhaps be part of WikiProject Percussion. (Simon ives | talk) 04:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. (Simon ives | talk) 07:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wikidās ॐ 09:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Deepraj | Talk 08:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. User:R Rajagopal
Discussion

There is a good amount of graphics that need to be added as well as other items to the relevant pages. Wikidās ॐ 09:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a temporary space at wikipedia: Tabla taskforce and wikipedia talk:Tabla taskforce until there is enough supporters for a dedicated project page. Please add your name in the section above and carry on the discussion in the temporary page.-Deepraj | Talk 09:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Deeprak. Simon Ives (talk | contribs) 10:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Rajagopal. I'll help you get started with Wikipedia if you like. Simon Ives (talk | contribs) 06:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venus

Description
A task force of WikiProject Astronomical objects, this task force would focus on improving articles related to the planet Venus, its exploration, the astronomers who studied it, and its geology.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Shrewpelt
  2. Dust Rider —Preceding comment was added at 18:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Auawise —Preceding comment was added at 09:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

This has quite a small scope. Too small to justify even a task force, I think--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 14:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I counted 125 or so articles currently in the Category:Venus. If 80 is enough, 125 should be as well.
  • I agree, it has a very small scope. But if such a task force is established, I am interested in joining. Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 09:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Artist's books and multiples

Description

[I would like to see a series of inter-related articles on artist's books, creating a virtual library of the best and most interesting ones from the last 50 or so years. I have already written a few attempts; Yves: Peintures, Dimanche, Linee, and am currently researching Dieter Roth. Anyone who fancies writin about Ruscha's books, Merz periodicals, Lawrence Weiner, etc etc.?? I'm trying to differentiate between artist's books and livre d'artiste-expect an addition or two to the artist's book page, which incidentally needs a dramatice edit to remove lists of MA courses IMO. Artist's books are historically important but hard to actually see, and a virtual library on wikipedia seems a good place to start. Obviously copyright on images is a problem, but surmountable, I think??] Trevelyanhouse (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Trevelyanhouse (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Nancycampbell (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Chicago Cubs

Description

WikiProject Chicago Cubs project's scope is to improve any articles about Chicago Cubs. LAAFan 23:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. LAAFan 23:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. RyRy5 (is helping with the project)
  3. Shapiros10 Came Back! 00:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC) (it's a good cause)[reply]
Discussion

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Cleanup

Description

A less "incivl", "iffy", "unilateral" Solution to the debate around Wikipedia:Wikiproject Fancruft, which has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Fancruft, this was the page when it was nominated by User:TreasuryTag, however, the project page has since changed, and TreasuryTag's reasons for deletion are no longer relavant. However, I am neutral about the project being deleted, because several users have suggested that a Wikipedia:WikiProject Cleanup or Wikipedia:Wikiproject Article Cleanup would be more apropriate, and most have voted for deletion of WP:Wikiproject fancruft. to avoid accusations of "unilatarity" and violation of WP:OWN, I want to propose this project first, and have a number of people agreeing with each other before they or I start the project. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 18:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 18:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • I think this is certainly a huge improvement on the original, and indeed merits consideration on its own terms, regardless of the history (or fate) of the other-mentioned WPJ. OTOH, I do think it risks being somewhat too broad: many projects and work groups (etc) are already engaged in some sort of "cleanup", so unless this is intended to be granddaddy of them all, it could stand to be a tad more tightly focussed. I think if one were to cast it in terms either of a specific topic, or of some identifiable set of standards as made explicit in existing policies and guidelines, it might prove to be more effective. (That might not do everything the first project set out to do, but firstly, that may have been a tad ambitious anyway, and secondly, nothing precludes a series of such projects/task forces, if there's interest in each.) Alai (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing I would be worried about is that if its started by the same people as the Fancruft project, its just going to do the same thing as the Fancruft project but with a more "politically correct" title. Mr.Z-man 20:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That may be a reasonable concern, but I would imagine that if it only attracts the same two people, it will in any case "wither on the wine", for all practical purposes, whereas if it attracts many more, it will find its own way in any event. Alai (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to your comment, Z-Man, The whole idea behind WikiProject Cleanup would be that I, or anyone else, would only initiate it if there was consent from other editors, to avoid accusations of it being a "police force" or unilateral. Again, this project could be split up into task forces or something similar.

I also think that TresuryTag found the critiscim of articles under WikiProject Doctor Who offensive, again, I would find that dangerously close to WP:OWN. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 08:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, Mostly I am talking about In-Universe writing, unneccesarily detailed plot summaries, and notability.
    Then, of course, The project could also spread out to things like biographies. If you don't lke the name, consider coming up with and alternative. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 11:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've already suggested splitting this up into several related WPJs or work groups, which IMO also finesses the naming issue... Alai (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dropkick Murphys

Under WikiProject Irish music. Just enough for a task force.
  • Members
    • Shapiros10
  • Discussion

Religious creeds/denominations

Description

The purpose of this group, which would function as a subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion, is to bring all the main articles regarding individual religions or religious creeds not specifically in the scope of another group up to at least B class status. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • In view of the dismal history of participation in these sub-groups, this doesn't really seem to be anything that cannot gbe handled by existing groups. In particular it should not be made an excuse for another round of mass cruft-tagging, after which nothing is done. Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And with editors such as the above, it is I have no doubt clear to everybody that AGF is in no danger of ever disappearing, Johnbod. John Carter (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cant see this working as a WP, but maybe as a task-force of WP Religion? Five Years 15:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian creeds

Description

Similar to the group above, this group would focus specifically on the religious creeds included in the Category:Christian denominations, hoping to bring all the main articles on the various Christian religious groups up to at least B-Class status. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. iloveheadbangingmusic July 26 2008
Discussion
  • In view of the dismal history of participation in these sub-groups, this doesn't really seem to be anything that cannot be handled by existing groups. In particular it should not be made an excuse for another round of mass cruft-tagging, after which nothing is done. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that the group was proposed by someone else elsewhere, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian theology

Description

The articles on the philosophy and theology of the various Christian churches tend to be among the most difficult. This group would aim to focus attention on those articles, and trying to bring as many as possible up to the highest possible level. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kristamaranatha (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Pastordavid (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. iloveheadbangingmusic July 26 2008
Discussion
  • In view of the dismal history of participation in these sub-groups, this doesn't really seem to be anything that cannot gbe handled by existing groups. In particular it should not be made an excuse for another round of mass cruft-tagging, after which nothing is done. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that the group was proposed by someone else elsewhere, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum. John Carter (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm game. Pastordavid (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed theology workgroup is now online, here. Any suggestions, improvements, and ideas are more than welcome - as are interested editors. Pastordavid (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahamic Religions

Description

This Wikiproject would be mainly based around the three major Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. My personnal goal for the project would be to have it focus on the relationship, similarities and differences between the religions, though of cousre with enough members and enough time the course of the project may well change or become equally focused on other areas. This project would help deal with articles which are currently within the scope of all of the Abrahamic religions wikiprojects but due to the small difference between them opinions and technical wording are often disputed and Wikiproject Abrahamic religions would fill this gap. The other Abrahamic religions such as Bahá'í would aslo be dealt with although in the begining of this project not a huge amount would be done on them as I dont know alot about them, due to them being less well known about within the Westeren world and it being quite hard to find any reliable information on them I suspect other editors would find similar problems as well although hopefully in time with a bit of research we would be able to incorporate these other faiths completely into the project. The Quill (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name below)
  1. The Quill (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

I put up this comment on the Wikiproject:Christianity board but also thought I should put it up here... I'm not sure a Wikiproject Abrahamic Religions is necessary. There are already Christianity, Judaism and Islam wikiprojects in existence, as well as Wikiproject Religion - which most likely covers the scope of your idea in deal with comparative issues in religion. Why do you propose this project would be different? If the existing projects don't cover the scope of your idea, why not propose a Comparatie Religions subproject under the Wikiproject:Religion umbrella? Kristamaranatha (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There actually already is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Interfaith work group, to deal with articles which relate to more than one faith, either as comparative religion or because the articles deal with several religions. That might actually be the easiest place to start with. John Carter (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To just day something to John Carter this isn't just an interfaith religion group. This is one faith that has split into many different factions. For Kristamaranatha one you dont have a link to your suggestion which is rather unhelpful but more importantly two because it is only for Abrahamic Religions and this would meen that other non-Abrahamic Religions would be compared. Thanks The Quill (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John's pointing to the interfaith workgroup is exactly where this belongs. In fact, the best work of this particular type is undertaken on an article by article basis. Pastordavid (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is some danger of WikiProject proliferation here. At this point it's not clear to me what can be done by such a WikiProject that can't be done by one of the existing WikiProjects. Could you articulate the need as you see it and why it can't be met by the existing structure more clearly? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistoric

Description
A WikiProject about any prehistoric life that isn't a dinosaur. EvolutionDude08 (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians
  1. EvolutionDude08 (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

It will also include SEa Monsters and Pterosaurs. --EvolutionDude08 (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject:Typography

Description
A WikiProject to create and improve articles concerning typography, which is a rather extensive craft. In computer age it is important to conserve the knowledge of century's of typographers. There should be a wikiproject that coordinates and improves articles on typography with respect to both the technical and aesthetical aspects of the topic. Tirkfl (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Tirkfl (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PKM (talk) is in. PKM (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

WikiProject:Autism

Description
A kind of wikiproject to improve articles within the scope of Autism. Autism is a rapidly growing function and should have its own project. It could come in handy for all the ASD articles that need improvement out there. Mrld (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Mrld
Discussion

Such a group has been proposed before, but it didn't much support then. I might expand the scope to include the entire autistic spectrum, myself. John Carter (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to find a medical-related WikiProject for starters then spin off if there is a demand. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


WikiProject Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force

Description
A task force under WikiProject Medicine to improve articles related to Reproductive medicine, particularly articles in Category:Methods of birth control.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Please list yourself at this newly created page.
Discussion
  • Comment: This task force was proposed within WPMED here and was just created here; we've followed the process backwards. There are six editors signed up so far, and I hope that you will please consider this to be an invitation to the entire Wikipedia community to join this task force. (Perhaps in a week or two, someone will take this notice down -- I just didn't know any other way to extend the invitation to new editors.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian University Athletics

Description
A task force under either College Sports or Canadian Sports to improve the articles about Canadian Interuniversity Sport. First step is to standardize each schools athletics page using {{{infobox Canadian college athletics}}} and add logos. -- Coppercanuck (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Coppercanuck (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Manchester City Football Club

Description
A task force under WP:FOOTY to improve the articles about Manchester City F.C. and Manchester City L.F.C.. Paul  Bradbury 09:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Paul  Bradbury 09:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

I don't think the topic has enough regular contributors to justify the effort of maintaining a separate taskforce. At At present there's only three active editors who regularly work on articles relating to the club: Pbradbury, Falastur2 and myself. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Interested party finding himself agreeing with Oldelpaso's comment above. I love City, and I'd love to further City's "reach" in Wikipedia, but I can't help wondering if there are actually enough things we could add to keep this taskforce active. The vast majority of encyclopædic information on City has already been added, and those articles are already vigorously watched by us and a few other neutral editors. If you (Paul Bradbury), or anyone else can come up with enough feasible stuff to add, then I'll sign my name up, but until then, while I'm interested, I'm not convinced. Falastur2 (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magazines work group

Description
This work group is under WP:ANIME to improve all the manga and anime magazine articles. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 22:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (add name)
  1. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 22:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
  • I think this would be better if expanded to all anime and manga related magazines, not just the manga ones. NewType USA and PiQ, for example, are mostly anime, and not manga focused. If refocused, then simply call Magazines work group. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good, what should we name it? – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 15:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Magazines work group" is fine. It is short and simple, and since it is a workgroup under the ANIME project, there isn't any issue with name conflicts. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. : ) I have already changed it. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 16:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computer and Information Security taskforce

Description
Computer and Information Security taskforce under WP:COMPUTING . See related discussion here

Here's a series of in-scope topics:

  • Computer security concepts, methods, and devices. Firewalls, for instance.
  • Computer security historical events that received appropriate RS/N coverage--Morris worm, Code Red, etc.
  • Computer security formal models, frameworks, standards, and legislation: ISO 17799, TCSEC, etc.
  • Computer security practitioners, like Marcus J. Ranum
  • Computer security professional organizations, certifications, journals/magazines, etc.
Interested Wikipedians (add name)
  1. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 07:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jclemens (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Gladiators (all series)

Description: ALL GLADIATORS SERIES AROUND THE WORLD ARE BEING PROPOSED TO BECOME A WIKIPROJECT. Don't made seperate WikiProjects for separete Gladiator series.

Are you interested?, Sign on to make the project a reality: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay95 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Wikiproject Cutlery

Description

A project to organize and stabilize all the articles related to knives, knife makers, cutlery companies, and bladed weapons.


Support

  1. Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Wikiproject DNS and Domain Names

Description

Upkeep all articles on domain names practices, registrars, etc.


Support

  1. Melab-1 (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. HereFord 01:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

WikiProject Anti-Vandalism Corps

I've HAD it with vandalism, so I'd like to start a WikiProject to do away with [shudder]vandalism[/shudder]. DaL33T (Talk) 14:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you. ---G.T.N. —Preceding comment was added at 03:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CVU Thingg⊕⊗ 02:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Generations

Description

I feel there is enough debate and controversy over various articles about the different definitions of each generation that it might warrant a generations wikiproject. I am hoping that there are others like myself who are interested in developing these articles who would be interested in signing up. If you think we should have some sort of preliminary page to give a start before this idea goes to the next step please say so in the support section and I will be glad to set something up in my userspace.

To be clear about goals, I think the primary goal of this group should be first and foremost to create a consensus on what defines each generation that are outlined in each article as well as proposing mergers and setting standards as far as what is an actual generation and what is simply a marketing term. I feel that these things are all things that could be greatly improved by having a group of people who are dedicated to this category of subjects.

Also, to the Council, if you feel that this would be better suited to be a task force or fits as a sub-project please say so in your notes. I would like to do this in the most official manner possible and am very interested in fixing several articles which I feel are currently unreliable information.

A short list of the types of articles that clearly could benifit from this project (note, there are plenty more than listed here):

Many others which often need cleaning up, referencing, merging, redirects galore!, and plenty of other things of that nature.

  • Withdraw I no longer think this would make a good project, I may later propose a task force in the sociology category but until then I have changed my mind. Thanks for the advice, it was very helpful.  %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 17:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


SWPP

Discussion

Support

  1. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 05:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. %%Kevin143 (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. HereFord 17:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Good feedback, perhaps that would be a good way to approach it thanks :) %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 00:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned about the notability of some of these "generations". It's (apparently) easy to get carried away talking about generation this or generation that. I agree that the baby boomers, for example, are probably a notable generation, and there should probably also be articles about the major cohorts before and after them, but realize that any attempt to classify people into "generations" (whether it be chronologically or culturally or whatever else) is completely arbitrary and subject to endless interpretation and discussion back and forth. These articles by their very nature are going to have a tendency to fill up with all kinds of popular culture cruft (complete with references to the popular press), and in my opinion somebody (or a group of folks) interested and knowledgeable in this area should keep an eye on these articles just to ensure that they don't get out of hand. Just my 2¢. Deepmath (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Voicestream Group

Description

VoiceStream group of companies having an international presence in seven countries providing business, outsourcing and network solutions and it is because of this, I'd like to create a wiki project to provide factual information on the company's actions/status around the world.


Support

  1. --Tigercomuk (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Tigercomuk[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Curling

Description
A task force under Winter Sports to improve the articles about Curling around the world. Some to do items include:
  • standardize the competition formats and layouts (templates)
  • add basic info about past events
  • expand player bios
  • standard layout for curling clubs (infobox to include location, number of sheets, number of members, notable players)

--Coppercanuck (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Coppercanuck (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Just a suggestion?

An umbrella group for puppetry, marionettes, Muppets, & related subjects. (No, I really don't want to oversee it....) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 02:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Wikiproject Psychiatry

Description

Psychiatry project to be placed within the Medicine Project. Ideally, this would be in combination with the Neurology project. Could we rename the Neurology project Neurology/Psychiatry ? Alternatively, a separate project. Or both in collaboration with the Neuroscience project ? I see the clinical diagnosis and practice articles in Neurology as separate from Psychiatry, but there is a lot of overlap (developmental disorders, dementia, other neurodegenerative disorders, side effects of drugs, etc.)

Menelaus2 21:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't think this should be an independent WikiProject. Instead, it would be better as a task force of WikiProject Medicine. I am all for having one task force for each medical specialty within WPMED. There is a new, separate proposal page for WPMED task forces. If you think this would be better combined with Wikipedia:WikiProject Neurology, then you should start a discussion on their talk page. Eventually, I am aiming to convert all of the medicine specialty projects to be task forces of WPMED, rather than their own separate projects. Many of the existing specialty WikiProjects have become inactive, and I think it is better to have an inactive task force than an inactive project. Also, there already exists Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology. I'm sure there will be some overlap that should be taken into consideration. --Scott Alter 22:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. It is an interesting notion to put together a task force. Not sure if a task force would gather more or less enthusiasm for improving articles. One way to help define the level of interest would be to assay how many authors are active in each field of medicine. Not that I have any way of how that might be done. Seems like a relatively simple statistic. Menelaus2 03:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Menelaus2 (talk • contribs)

Dinotopia

While thinking about the challenge and the dilemma of the WikiProject Council undertaking the momentous decision whether or not to allow a Psychiatry WikiProject to get up and running, I reviewed some of the previous now inanimate Wikiprojects (most of which I would have been quite sympathetic with). Among them are Dinotopia, and Magic; The Gathering. (As well as German Mysticism). I am sorry to see the German Mysticism Project is inactive. Somehow, I suspect that Psychiatry as a medical discipline might have a longer shelf life than Magic: The Gathering. Others are welcome to disagree. Menelaus2 03:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You should not equate a task force as being lesser than a full WikiProject (which is what I am assuming you are doing, based on your posts). Level of interest does not define whether a topic becomes a full project or a task force - it only defines whether a collaborative effort should be created. If no one is interested in collaborating, then there is no point to create a project or task force. Task forces can just as easily attract new authors who are not already involved in the parent project - and some authors may only wish to be involved in the task force. Generally, the scope of a proposed topic (number of articles to be included) better determines the potential for a full project or a task force. The main reason for a task force rather than a full project is for ease of organization and administration. If a project's scope includes a limited number of articles, editors will probably end up working more on the project's organization and maintenance than the upkeep of the articles.
There are many inactive medicine-related projects. Inactive medical specialty projects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dentistry, Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastroenterology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ophthalmology, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Radiology. Other inactive health-related projects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aids, Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Health, Wikipedia:WikiProject National Health Service, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Nursing. All these projects are tagged with the {{inactive}} tag, but there are also other medical specialty projects that are barely active. Task forces are never really tagged as inactive, since the parent project (WPMED in this case) still incorporates the task force articles into its scope.
By definition, neurology is a specialty of medicine, so all articles within the scope of neurology would also fall within the scope of medicine. Rather than having two separate projects looking after these pages, it is easier to manage with one project banner containing task force designations (see Talk:Emergency medicine for an example). With less administrative overhead, task force members have more time to focus on their topic of interest. Creating a new collaboration as a task force instead of a project is not a bad thing. In the case of medical specialties, I think it would be better to have task forces than separate projects. --Scott Alter 05:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bash #wikipedia-en

== Wikiproject En-Bash ==

Description

An article of humourous quotes specifically from the #wikipedia-en channel, as a part of en.wikipedia.org. We feel it would be an awesome chance to put some smiles on some faces! Granted our project would not be of high priority, we believe if it makes some people laugh, then it's definitely worth it!

Support

  1. Neuro√Logic 19:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Bstone (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

  • Doesn't m:bash already cover this as well as http://toolserver.org/~mike/quotes/ ? Also note the policy there "Many Wikipedia related IRC channels have rules against publishing chat-logs online. Please make sure you have the consent of all involved before posting" Nanonic (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Wikiproject Cheerleading

Description

I would like to create a wikiproject for cheerleading, as it has a large amount of complexity and therefore wikipedible content, such as notoritous clubs, and organisations, and competitions by country. If I don't get much support I would like to create a task force in wikipedia Gymnastics (which is the closest thing wikipedia has) to improve the breadth and quality of cheerleading articles.

Support

  1. 193.171.84.30 (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree. I know a few cheerleaders, and it's just like other gymnastics. AlexanderTG (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Wikiproject Left-wing bias Watch

Description

A Wikiproject dedicated to preserving neutrality on Wikipedia by identifying left-wing bias in all relevant wikipedia articles Proposal withdrawn, agreed that Wikiproject: Countering Systemic Bias is a more suitable avenue of effort for this sort of thing. Aletheon (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Aletheon (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

What's the definition of "left wing"? If there is a bias in an article then that can only be measured relative to some objective standard (e.g. the reliable sources). Suppose that one uses some vague definition of "left wing" and concludes that on average many article are biased toward "the left". Then that doesn't imply that there is any bias at all. It could well be the case that on average the "left wing" perspective is closer to the truth (or at least closer to what the reliable sources say), while the right wing perspective is furhter from the truth (or at least furher from the hard facts that can be distilled from the reliable sources). This is what I would expect, because a "right wing" attitude is in practice a more reactionary attitude while a "left wing" atitude is often a more thoughtful intellectual attitude. Count Iblis (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns, Count Iblis. But are you saying that often liberals exhibit more intelligence than conservatives? Strictly speaking, the word "liberal (left wing)" refers to people who want changes, and the word "conservative (right wing)" refers to those who want to keep things pretty much as they are. While I agree that the term "left wing" is a bit vague, I think we generally understand what it means. The suggestion for this group is not meant to suggest that all left wing views or pieces of information will be systematically removed. Rather, the people who participate will examine them and decide if they violate NPOV and should be removed. I will post an example later. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Count Iblis, your argument and its premise (that left-wing viewpoints are more often thoughtful and intellectual, thus more often "the truth") make plain the reason why there needs to be a Left-wing bias Watch here on Wikipedia. You are simply re-iterating what happens to be the prevailing current cultural meme (i.e., that the left-wing viewpoint is somehow automatically more "compassionate" and "reasoned" than the right-wing viewpoint). If people are so conditioned that they cannot even entertain the notion that the other side's point of view may have just as much value as their own point of view, then that bias will creep into a significant number of articles without being questioned or addressed. And the point of this proposed Wikiproject isn't to simply delete any left-wing bias found in any article, but rather, to first begin to identify the pervasiveness of the left-wing bias here at Wikipedia, and from there serve as an organizing point for those who wish to discuss how to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia by addressing any such biases found. Aletheon (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like this description of the purpose, initial focus, and possible future goals. Despite the left vs. right psychobabble we see above and which only serves to illustrate the problem, I have concerns about the pragmatism of trying to implement a one-sided wikiproject as proposed. How would you justify the need for being one-sided in this case to those who would use that as a rationale to oppose the project? --GoRight (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we three that support it are enough to move forward with the project initially. Three independent people who don't know each other all seem to agree on the problem of left-wing bias interfering with neutrality here on wikipedia. If other people oppose it, it should be no surprise, given the prevailing bias. But since we're working to improve the encyclopedia and to improve standards of neutrality (by countering, not erasing, any left-wing bias), I think we would be working entirely within the spirit of the overall goals of Wikipedia. So to start, I think we ought to start coming up with a list of articles that we agree show a strong left-wing bias, and in which opposing viewpoints have been systematically quashed. Aletheon (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The existence (and name) of the project will inevitably lead to counter-arguments that it is promoting a right-wing agenda - these might well be unjustified but I can see it leading to a lot of edit-warring. Why not reframe it as Wikiproject NPOV Watch, correcting biases to the left, right, centre and elsewhere? Barnabypage (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the focus to Wikiproject NPOV Watch I think creates a larger focus than is called for here. Theoretically, EVERY editor on Wikipedia should be part of the "NPOV Watch." What is needed is a specific focus to correct a specific type of systematic bias. It could be renamed "Wikiproject Political Bias Watch," but to my mind this slightly obfuscates the directive that is called for in these circumstances. Aletheon (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Oppose

  • Count Iblis (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia should not be made a battleground for political and/or ideological disagreements. Bias is bias, regardless of whether it is left-wing, right-wing, or centrist (incidentally, what's considered "left-wing" in one country could be "right-wing" in another). Creating projects that target specific ideological leanings, even if the intention is a good one (to remove or counter bias), paves the way to forming political parties on Wikipedia. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saying "bias is bias" does nothing whatsoever to improve neutrality standards on Wikipedia. This project is NOT about creating a battle between certain ideological viewpoints. It is wholly about addressing a neutrality gap. Aletheon (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe you that starting an ideological battle is not the project's intended purpose, but I believe that it will be its ultimate effect. There is no reason to remove or counter the bias of one side of the political spectrum and leave alone the bias of the opposite side. –Black Falcon (Talk) 15:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There actually is a pretty good reason to counter the bias from one side of the spectrum. This reason being that Wikipedia operates on a consensus model. This means that certain viewpoints can be easily marginalized, so long as the opposing viewpoint is in the majority (of current editors). See the global warming article history and talk page for good evidence of this kind of marginalization (although this Wikiproject proposal should in no sense be construed to be only about the global warming issue). Consensus and neutrality are not always mutually consistent goals. In fact history shows us they are often mutually inconsistent. Aletheon (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure why you point me to the global warming article... I'm aware that it's a controversial topic on Wikipedia and in politics, but I'm not seeing any clear example of marginalization of any particular point of view. (Of course, I haven't researched the topic too much, so perhaps that shouldn't be suprising.)
          • With regard to the WikiProject proposal, you seem to be claiming that en.wikipedia has an overall leftist bias. However, I have to wonder in what context you evaluate this. For instance, a political platform that is considered left-wing in the United States would likely be considered right-wing in most countries of Western Europe. The situation only becomes more muddled when we adopt a less Euro- and Anglo-centric perspective and consider the politics of South America, Africa, and Asia. Rather than trying to fight the bias of one side of the spectrum or the other, why not simply seek to promote NPOV? –Black Falcon (Talk) 01:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We are not Conservapedia. Let's not draw battlelines.Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Where is this going? Bad idea... Splette :) How's my driving? 17:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose This suggestion may be made in good faith, but regardless of the intention the fact is that fire is being fought with fire - those of a right wing leaning are removing what they define as left wing bias from articles. There is no way on earth that the appropriate definitions of what is suitable and what is not can be agreed upon, thus conflict is the only possible result. By all means, those who support this can and indeed perhaps should become POV warriors, but such editors have no bias whatsoever - using one bias to correct another is not the way forward. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While the proposal is made in good faith, that Aletheon raises global warming as an example is, to my mind, indicative of what's frequently really meant by "liberal, left-wing", which is "reality-based". This sort of labelling goes on all the time in "controversial" science articles, where scientific consensus is repeatedly tarred as some sort of "liberal" or "left-wing" conspiracy rather than the product of literally millions of hours of careful thought by experts. Anyway, enough ranting. I can't see how this proposal will help the WP. While there may be articles where "liberal, left-wing" bias dominates, my experience in science articles makes me very skeptical that this proposal is helpful. --PLUMBAGO 09:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Science speaks for itself. The conclusion is often uncomfortable. But claiming that that is liberal, leftwing bias is not a rational response. ClemRutter (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Strike-through text

WikiProject Image restoration

Description

A Wikiproject dedicated to encyclopedic image restoration. Goals would be:

  • Finding and restoring historic material for use illustrating encyclopedia articles.
  • Improvement of images for featured picture consideration, and to assist other featured content drives.
  • Countering systemic bias in image representation.
  • Pooling skills and training new editors in image restoration techniques.
  • Collecting information about online image archives.
  • Advocating best practices for uploading and documenting edited images.

A prelude to a formal project has been in progress for half a year at User:Durova/Landmark images.

Discussion

Support

  1. DurovaCharge! 20:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Gnangarra 12:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Great idea. Carcharoth (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Supporting, but not really interested. I know some of the great works that this will and has produced. (Durova, you the woman! :P) Mitch32(UP) 18:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This sort of stuff needs doing. :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 19:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Absolutely. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Definitely. There is a load of images out there that need fixing. J.T Pearson 15:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  9. This is the most essential thing. --Nagasheus (talk) 08:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Could you explain what you mean by "systemic bias in image representation"? - PKM (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Largely, making sure we have images from around the world, not just convenient ones from America or Britain. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Like Shoemaker said. It's far easier to get images of certain countries and cultures than others. So part of the mission of this project would be to foster quality imagery from around the globe. Part of that means networking internationally with people who have access to material. DurovaCharge! 01:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Godzilla Task Force

Description

A task force for maintaining and adding to the plethora of Godzilla articles. Would be under media franchises.

Support

  1. AlexanderTG (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral


Wikiproject Wikiproject United States Navy

Description

The Wikiproject would cover all articles in the U.S. Navy Portal and any conflicts involving the U.S. Navy

Support

  1. Plyhmrp (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. AlexanderTG (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Wikiproject Zagreb

UPDATE: The task force has been launched (WP:ZAGREB)

Description

A task force for writing and maintaining articles related to the city of Zagreb and its surroundings. It will be part of the WikiProject Croatia. A proposal for its main page is available at User:Admiral Norton/Zagreb and those interested can also sign their name in the participants list.

Support

  1. Admiral Norton (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Plantago (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GregorB (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dzhugashvili (talk) 12:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Suradnik13 (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Wikiproject Antibug

Description

A force bent to clean up Wikipedia by helping stubs, correcting vandalisim, and removing vandals. Bmoc2012tms (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals&oldid=243435778"