Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Parker007 (talk | contribs) at 21:29, 26 February 2007 (Lets see if this project actually works). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template

I think that it was originally suggested on the RD Talk page, but I think we need a template that says something like "This article was created thanks to a Reference desk question; support your local reference desk!" (or whatever) to reinforce a positive image of the RDs (that is often lacking) and spread the word about this project (including a link to it). We can then stick the template on the talk page of any new articles that we create. Could somebody with better design and wording skills than me take a crack at it? --Maelwys 15:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Please add your idea somewhere on the main page (To Do or wherever). --Justanother 15:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To-do to-go?

Is it just me or do others think that the below template is more trouble than it is worth. I suggest we remove it and just use bullet points or sub-headings. That is what we are used to and is easier, IMO.

Comments? --Justanother 19:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove it from our eyesight, please. Seriously. ---Sluzzelin 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Focus

I'm not trying to create a false dichotomy here, but there is some contrast in the text:

Under Goals it mentions:

"First and foremost to improve Wikipedia through the addition of new articles on notable subjects and the improvement of existing articles."

... later under Scope

"This project is, to a large extent, about adding articles so if there is doubt then the default would be to add and let the larger community decide by means of normal deletion processes."

... and under Guidelines

"Concentration will be on new articles and existing stubs.'"

Ok, this is why I'm being annoying and nitpicky: Is creating a new article a value in itself? Often, contributing large chunks to existing articles (not just stubs but decent articles too) might be the the better option and also the one with greater chances of survival under the community's relentless weeding process. Maybe I misunderstood the text though. In any case, it's a great idea and I have to hunt for orvietan, Kimera and Masquerade (erm maybe this is a good example of merging into an existing article). ---Sluzzelin 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. This is a collaboration and there is room for lots of different opinions; here are mine:
  1. I know you are not raising this issue but it I really think that this project is a bit "i-word" in its nature.
  2. New articles should not be added for their own sakes and due diligence should be exercised before starting a new article to ensure that the material is not already covered under a different name or as part of another article. I mention in the Goal that new articles should be notable.
  3. This wikiproject, like everything else here, is a wiki and you can edit it. I, personally, would like to keep "new articles" as an essential part of the collaboration. That is because the huge range of questions that we field on the RD highlights areas that are not, in any way, sufficiently represented here. For example, compare the level of detail on any blue-collar job (or perhaps any job at all) with the level of detail on computer and video games or anime.
  4. As I said, there is room for different approaches here and those that prefer new articles can work on those and those that prefer to improve existing articles can stress that aspect. The important think is that this project encourages contribution.
Thanks --Justanother 03:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Justanother. I didn't mean that adding to existing articles vs creating new ones were two different approaches or a matter of personal preference or favored approach. I don't prefer either. I'm just not very wiki-crafty and want my additions to stick the first time around, before I see them at AFD or before they get removed by an existing article's "owners". I'll seek feedback here first. ---Sluzzelin 09:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go. It took 4 minutes for the newly created article on orvietan to get tagged. ---Sluzzelin 01:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC) .. Alright, never mind, I admit I freaked out. I categorized the article now, the tag proved to be helpful and I proved to hyperreactive. ---Sluzzelin 01:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nofear (smile). What a cool article! Good start. There are a lot of editors here and some like some tasks and some like others. That was a helpful tag. Now some day, we will get a delete tag as quickly but that is OK, too; just means that the article needs to justify its existence a bit more. --Justanother 01:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This article was created by... template

I'm no artist by any means, but I have had a go at creating the following template: Template:WPRDAC:

PAGENAME was created or significatly enhanced as a result of WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration, a project to leverage research efforts made on the Reference Desks into a more lasting contribution to the encyclopedia. If you would like to help, please consider joining us.

Comments, criticism, improvements? Rockpocket 07:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hmm. Any particular reason for the hat? V-Man737 07:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, it seemed scholarly and I couldn't find anything more reference desky at the Commons. If you can think of something better then I would be happy to change. Rockpocket 07:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is that kind of hat called, anyway? More importantly, do we have an article about it?? ^_^
As far as alternative ideas (and this is really stretching it), I'm thinking of getting someone to make an image that incorporates all the WP:RD images into one graphic somehow, and we could use that. V-Man737 08:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its a mortar board! I thought about trying to merge the RD symbols, but the image on banners should be kept pretty small, it would be difficult to fit them all in. Rockpocket 08:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Academic headgear"!! ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!11 *whew* Yeah, I dunno... I just might take a crack at it. Maybe. V-Man737 08:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice! Well done. :) --Maelwys 13:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I love those hats and always wanted one. ---Sluzzelin 13:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That looks great! I like the mortar board but if others don't then you might be able to find something "library-ish" like books or building detail (stairs, door, columns, like that). But I am not too particular myself. --Justanother 14:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the template to incorporate a link back to the original question. I think this helps to build the web and also increases awareness of the RD from articlespace. However, the one slight problem is that the link will change when the question is archived. Once (if?) the archive bot is back online and archiving quicker this hopefully will be less of a problem. Rockpocket 03:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prison preacher/religion/ministry

    • Sounds good. I would go with "Prison ministry" and I think there is nothing on it but a few specific churches. --Justanother 07:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think prison ministry is the preferable title - UK link http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/adviceandsupport/prison_life/religion/ 213.249.237.49 15:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of the title Prison religion? V-Man737 03:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or would that be a different subject? V-Man737 04:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I've titled it "Prison religion" for now; if it was too WP:BOLD of me, feel free to change it. V-Man737 05:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean where an organized outside church or pastor ministers to inmates by an outreach program or setting up some satellite church in the prison then that is called "prison ministry" (see http://prisonministry.net/ for example), IMO. What is "prison religion"? --Justanother 06:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the article for full details; basically it is religion that is practiced in (and sometimes because of) prison. And hey!! I added that as an external link in the article!!!1 V-Man737 06:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So would it by then that it is a point-of-view issue? If an outside church sets up in a prison then it is "prison ministry" while "prison religion" might descibe the epiphany that some inmates have and any efforts to save others that results? --Justanother 06:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds about right. "Prison religion" is what the inmates experience or practice, and "prison ministry" is the organization of such. Do you think it is enough of a difference to elicit a separate article? V-Man737 01:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<left> I think that that one article is fine for now. If it develops it may split. --Justanother 04:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attention! template

I have had a go at creating the following template to be added to questions that we wish to expand into articlespace: Template:WPRDAC attention:

Again: comments, criticism, improvements? Rockpocket 09:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be a tad bit large (thus, distracting; I dunno, is it that bad to make a big deal out of a new article?) to stick right in the middle of a question; contrasted with my earlier request to make it catch the eye, this opinion must be really stupid looking... The template looks really nice, IMHO maybe we should try reducing its height by a line by changing the wording? V-Man737 09:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about this, pushing it to the right margin. This way it remains highly visible (which is what we want) but also doesn't break up the question and answers. Rockpocket 10:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is great, the execution is nice and neutral (I really hate those orange and pink boxes), and I tend to agree with V-Man737, to make it even less bulky we could type it in small bold font . Gotta love those little hats. ---Sluzzelin 12:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I have now changed it to reflect your idea. Rockpocket 17:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful! I love it. V-Man737 08:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of African-American inventors

Juice box

Do you suppose it would be good to have a RDAC juicer user box made to put on our user pages? I'd like that very muchly. V-Man737 01:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - AMP'd 03:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be sweeet! --Justanother 03:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is {{User WPRDAC}} ok:
This user is a member of WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration





Rockpocket 06:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice!! I'm adding it! --Justanother 04:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wing walking

I stole the Google Queen's job and did a little search on wing walking. I foundthis. If someone less tired could work on adding that to the article that'd be peachy. - AMP'd 03:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. Code four. Over and out. V-Man737 03:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Silly me, I got the one worser image from there and never looked to see what else there was. But then, wikipedia has been a bit exciting for me lately on my more "serious" front. Go get 'em, V-man! --Justanother 04:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see if this project actually works

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Reference_Desk_Article_Collaboration#Dopamine_reuptake_inhibitor.7C_Antidepressants_.7C_NEED_REFERENCES. --Parker007 21:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Reference_Desk_Article_Collaboration&oldid=111165557"