Talk:Working group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Organizations  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


From, a working group is "a group of people working together temporarily until some goal is achieved". This is a broader and more accurate definition of the term. I suggest the article start with this definition, then add the content of the current first sentence, plus other definitions. Be sure also to include references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takeitupalevel (talkcontribs) 12:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Excellent point. Edited accordingly. Mark D Worthen PsyD 19:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternate spelling: workgroup[edit]

Workgroup now mentions the alternate spelling workgroup. Workgroup is often used as an adjective (as in "workgroup meeting") but can also be found as a noun. Savannah River Site Health Effects Subcommittee (SRSHES) Meeting gives examples of both uses. For groups formally called workgroups see

"The Community Workgroup for the decommissioning of the closed Reactor Facility at NASA Glenn Research Center's Plum Brook Station will meet on Tuesday, January 18, from 7-9 p.m. in the Perkins High School cafeteria, located at 3714 Campbell Street in Perkins Township."

I believe that "workgroup" is also used as a more informal term for a collaborative group working closely together. Please add information to this page if you feel it is appropriate, or, if you feel the meaning is different, create a new page for Workgroup (Group of people). Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What WGs shold be listed?[edit]

Folami, I see you deleted "IETF Working Group". Why?

Why do you ask?
Because I added it because I thought it belonged there - it's a good example of a working group. So you disagree with me. Until I understand why you disagree, there's no point in putting it back. --Alvestrand 03:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
It was already mentioned earlier that this wiki was a work in progress. Your criticism was going to be addressed by this wiki; obviously that was not acceptable to you.
The motivation for the four-sentence wiki you created is, at best, rather suspect. If you think "'s a good example of a working group...", well, you are entitled to your opinion... Folajimi(talk)

when you say "wiki", do you mean a single wiki page? I normally use the term to describe an entire website, not a single page.

WRT motivation - I don't understand your remark. I think the IETF working group concept is an interesting one, so having it described on its own wiki page seems sensible. But it's a rather special beast, so using lots of cycles on the "working group" page to describe it didn't seem to me like the best thing to do. I don't know what's suspect about that. --Alvestrand 03:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Fleshed out section on "technical working group"[edit]

Reason is that I found a link from an article for "working group" where the link was intended as an explanation of what an ISO WG is. People should be able to get there from here. --Alvestrand 07:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant Click Through[edit]

I have been sent here from a discussion of html, and foolishly expected to be told what the "html working group" is.

My bad: I should have noticed that just "working group" was the item underlined.

Can I be excused on the grounds that a reasonable person would think this a quite inane item to selected as an html anchor, while any editor with even a scintilla of mother wit might have seen the notion that there is such a thing as an html working group, or more likely The HTML Working Group, as worthy of a click-through footnote?

DavidLJ (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)