Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Council

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.232.52.103 (talk) at 02:34, 13 May 2008 (→Arrested Development (TV series): signed taskforce proposal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:
== Name of project ==
; Description : [description here] ~~~~

; Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
# ~~~

; Discussion
Expressing interest
If you're interested in any of the projects listed here, simply add your name to the appropriate list and start contributing to the relevant articles.
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.
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

There is currently a dispute on whether to organize this in alphabetical or chronological order.

WikiProject ER

Description
This project will aim to keep Wikipedia up to date with all things related to ER including cast, characters more detailed episodes and seasons as well as cleanup and maintain any articles which aren't up to a high standard, and promote the show on Wikipedia while still maintaining the essence of an encyclopedia. I believe that ER is big enough for its own project due to its popularity and I will be regularly maintaining these articles if there is enough interest in a project such as this. EclipseSSD (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. EclipseSSD (talk)
Discussion
  1. You mean something like this? – ClockworkSoul 01:06, 13 May 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
Discussion
Project Page

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

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

Oppose - Should be a Task Force/Work Group in WikiProject Films. - Absolon S. Kent (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject WikiLyrics

Description
This Wikiproject will be about making a wikilyrics site for song lyrics. Each page can have information on a song, its lyrics, and any relevant information of unclear lyrics or background information. I don't actually know how to do this project at all, its just an idea so if anyone could create an extension of wiki, they can really take over.
Interested wikipedians
Discussions
Note that most songs are not notable for their own article and listing lyrics is a copyright violation. The DominatorTalkEdits 14:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject CBBC

; Description : This WikiProject will be about everything CBBC (Children's British Broadcasting Corporation). I know it is very similar to the BBC WikiProject, but this will feature more about the programs and can get more detail. I have a small plan in my mind, so just leave me a message and I will answer it. SimpsonsFan08 talk contribs 21:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
Discussion

PROPOSAL CANCELLED BY SimpsonsFan08 talk contribs


Aftermath Entertainment

Description
We could start a project about Dr. Dre's record label Aftermath Entertainment. The pages within the project would include ofcourse Aftermath Entertainment, all its sub-labels like Shady Records, all artists signed to that label like Dr. Dre and 50 Cent, all albums relased under that label like 2001, and all singles relased under that label like In da Club ZAPMUT (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. ZAPMUT (talk)
Discussion

Oppose suld be a task force in WPP:MUSIC Save The HumansTalk :) 19:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Concur with Save the Humans recommendation. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Mystics

This project would cover the lives of medieval mystics such as Julian of Norwich or Catherine of Sienna. However, it would not be a Task Force with the Christianity project group, as the generic title "Medieval Mystics" means that members would look at articles on medieval Jewish mystics or on Sufis who lived the medieval world. One of the prime items on this group's to-do list would be to start a new article: "Hugh of Balma". I have wondered, however, whether this should be a Task Force sub-project group within the "Spirituality" project group (I believe there is one).

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name):

ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I have now found on the website:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spirituality

there is indeed a WikiProject_Spirituality. This group would probably best function as sub-group, either in this project group or in


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Religion

ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have reservations about such a group, primarily because of the difficult to define "Medieval" and "Mystic" words. I do agree that there is a use for at least one, maybe more than one, Biography group to deal with articles about religious figures, and am, eventually, going to try to adjust the Biography WikiProject banner to accomodate them. But I am far less than certain that this particular definition of scope is likely to generate any real collaboration, rather than simply being an accounting function. Smaller, more focused groups, possibly subgroups of a main religious figures group, would probably work better. John Carter (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I am now prepared to withdraw my proposal,as I think that this would probably best be a task force within the two project groups I have specified here, or alternatively, if there is one, in any project group on medieval history. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there is project for "wikimedievalists" at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle_Ages

So, perhaps these "wikimediavelists", along with the Religion and Spirituality project groups, all combine to see to this one. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Discussion

Palaeontology/Paleontology

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

Christianity in China

This group, which is anticipated to me a subproject of WikiProject Christianity and, with their approval, WikiProject China, would work on articles specifically related to Christianity in China. Given the fact of current active government involvement in certain religious matters in that country, as well as other things, it seems reasonable that a group to work specifically on such content could exist. There is also the extant Portal:Christianity in China which could use support.

Interested Wikipedians (Add Your Name If Interested)
  1. John Carter (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I can help in maintainance along with Secisek - Tinucherian (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Secisek (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Brian0324 (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kironide (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC) I'd be glad to help.[reply]
Discussion

May I ask what articles you would work on? It seems your scope is a little too small - why not just use Talk:Christianity in China to debate improvements? +Hexagon1 (t) 02:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The topic Christianity in India is supported by a healthy workgroup. Christianity in China should be able to support one as well. -- Secisek (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question is a reasonable one. The Category:Christianity in China contains 54 articles directly and several subcategories, most of which would fall within the scope of the project. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I personally recommend you change it from a WPP to a taskfoce. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done The project is kick started as a work group of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity - Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Christianity in China work group. Interested Wikipedians may join now. The project is started with the support of WikiProject Christianity members. - Tinucherian (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dracula Project

Description
[Hi I’m new to the project scene so far I h ave been a fairly minor editer and I submitted some Images to certain Dracula related articles under fair use only to have them deleted some days after so I thought to start a project for Dracula related areticles I have some nic pictures to provide but there are many other ways to improve I’m in the middle of reading the Book of Renfeild which is an article that could use so me touching up there are several articles in need of attention but I cant quite list them all and what they need. ] Tnu1138 (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (Tnu1138 and noone else yet that I know of)
  1. Tnu1138 (talk)
  2. John Carter (talk)
  3. Zahir13 (talk)

17:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. Wrad (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion
There are several topics relating to the subject, not all of which are necessarily "horror"-related. I'm thinking of some of the Fred Saberhagen novels here, for instance. I think maybe this group would best function as a joint subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror and Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises. John Carter (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Oh yes i plan to read Saberhagens works soon prehaps when i'm finished with the Book of Renfield i was thinking of adding info from the Book of Renfeild to Renfeilds page as a sort of "Charecter history in other works" because the book goes deeply in to a possible history for the charecter such things may be good to add as a sort of "In oth er Media" but ya know? and i do agree that Media Franchises would be a perfect place to put it74.244.187.222 (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More like 115 that I can specifically identify right now in Category:Dracula. John Carter (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, 115, way too little for a WikiProject, possibly a taskforce. The DominatorTalkEdits 04:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's quite easily a taskforce. Project is iffy. I'll join either way. Wrad (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think pretty much everyone is agreed to the task force idea, for what it's worth. The question might be of which project, but we'll want to wait till we've got the required five members before worrying about that. John Carter (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics

Description
This project would span topics appropriate to the science of genetics: genes, gene regulation, inheritance, mutation, and related technologies (would need to be discussed). Although there is some overlap with MCB and Evolution, there has been some interest expressed in having a project which would give more focused attention to genetics subjects. Medical genetics and human genetics history are existing wikiprojects that could probably be considered subsets of this. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 19:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Madeleine ✉ ✍
  2. LeeVJ (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Liveste (talk · contribs) 01:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Richard001 (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC) - Interested, though I won't be able to contribute anything significant for at least a couple of months.[reply]
  5. NCurse work 20:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Is it possible to have a workgroup that works in more than one wikiproject? The idea is to present a consistent approach, since many genetics articles themselves are multi-disciplinary and their various styles show this at the moment. LeeVJ (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very easily. There are several such joint subprojects. What you would want to do is contact the various "parent" projects and see if they would accept you as a subproject, if and when you get enough members to feel confident of starting it. When it comes to the project banner, let me know and I'll see what I can rig up. John Carter (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note that Genetics has never been listed as an MCB article.Madeleine ✉ ✍ 22:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, because genetics isn't entirely a molecular discipline, though a large part of it certainly is. This raises the question of the focus of the project: would it have molecular genetics articles like telomere, operon and DNA repair in its domain? – ClockworkSoul 14:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yet human genetics, genomics, and genome project are tagged as MCB articles. In my opinion these are no more related to MCB than the genetics article and might be more appropriately handled by a Genetics wikiproject. But you're entirely correct, there's a huge overlap due to the field of molecular genetics; MCB's scope is vast and arguably could contain everything—because DNA is a molecule, everything genetic is molecular and therefore within MCB. I don't know what the best solution is, but Genetics is a large and popular field and two obvious subprojects / taskforces for it already exist. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 19:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you're right: however you approach it, the scope is certain to be very large. The task force idea was duly considered and ultimately rejected, and at least two existing active groups could easily lie within it as workgroups or daughters. I think the best way to go is to just go now is to create the project, and hammer out the scope from there. – ClockworkSoul 15:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Project created

Netball

Description
To coordinate development of pages relating to the sport Netball. Netball is primarily played in British Commonwealth countries, and it is the top (in terms of both particiaption and media coverage) Women's sport in several of them. It has had an international organisation and world championships since the 1960s. Leagues have been semi-professional for the past couple of decades, and as of 2008 there is a fully professional league spanning Australia and New Zealand. Although Netball originated from basketball, there is a significant enough difference for the topic to be completely independent (e.g. a peer rather than a child of Wikiproject Basketball). dramatic (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. dramatic dramatic (talk)
  2. Lanma726 Matt (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Liveste (talk · contribs) 00:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Really needs its own. It's a seperate sport; putting under basketball makes no sense whatsoever. Rebecca (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I agree needs it's own, am willing to participate. - Shudde talk 00:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Description
Though I am not sure about the name, but this WikiProject will check, tag and repair dead external links. The main tool in this task would be Dispenser Link checker. It would be used for maintenance of old articles with outdated dead external links. Amartyabag TALK2ME 09:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Amartyabag TALK2ME
Discussion

Philadelphia Phillies

Description
The purpose of this WikiProject would be to standardize and improve articles about the Philadelphia Phillies baseball team. There are several other teams with their own WikiProjects that do not have as long of a history as the Phillies, and it definitely needs an experienced and dedicated group of editors to work on improving the many season pages that are simply blank templates right now. Killervogel5 (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Killervogel5 (talk)
  2. EaglesFanInTampa (talk)
  3. PYLrulz (talk)
  4. Bjewiki (Talk)
  5.   jj137 (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fantusta (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

I have created the main outline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philadelphia Phillies. It still needs some work and expansion.   jj137 (talk) 17:05, 8 April 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
  • 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)
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]

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]
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]
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]

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]
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]

The Wire

Description
This project would be used to help edit, update, and improve articles pertaining to the United States TV show The Wire. Making character pages, pages about actors, episodes, seasons, and storylines would be included. I've already created this WikiProject under the name WikiProject The Wire, so you can visit its page and add your name to the list of participants if you want to.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Creamy3 (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  1. I've never been involved in creating a wikiproject before but I think Creamy3 may have jumped the gun by setting up a page for the project and then requesting said page. Sincere apologies if that is not the case but I'd love comment from someone with more experience. I would love a task force of WP:TV to work on The Wire related articles but I don't think the show can sustain enough coverage to warrant its own project having just completed its run at five series and 60 episodes.--Opark 77 (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aviculture

Description
A project to coordinate pages on the aviculture.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. User:Snowmanradio
  2. User:Chet Womach
  3. User:OnorioCatenacci
  4. [your name here]
  5. [your name here]
Discussion
  • I have suggested that on the WP:Birds talk page some weeks ago, but no one in the WP:Birds project was interested. The two topics have a lot of differences. The best option is to start a completely separate WP:Aviculture project. Snowman (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Snowman--there is enough difference between the realm of aviculture (which includes the cultivation and maintenance of hookbills, pigeons, poultry and even some ratites) and the subject of wild birds that it seems that aviculture might more properly be classed as a parallel project rather than a subproject.--OnorioCatenacci (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm torn with this proposal. It seems to me that aviculture is an aspect of WP:BIRD's scope, along with the many other aspects of bird related stuff. But we've been a bad parent to our aviculture articles. They are almost universally packed with how-to's and OR and other unencyclopaedic cruft. A separate wikiproject to cover aviculture could rectify this if enough interest can be generated, and a clearly defined structure for aviculture subjects could benefit many articles. At this point anything that improves the articles is welcome. I have a few reservations and would be interested to hear how these might be addressed.
  • Naming conventions - Birds have generally well established common names, but these names differ in some instances from their avicultural names. Ornithologists and birders have a strong preference for their common names and aviculturists presumably as equally a strong preference for their names. At the moment we have one set of naming conventions for birds (with exceptions decided on a case by case basis), who gets to decide now if there are two sets of naming conventions?
  • WP:WEIGHT. For bird species articles, avicultural matters are just one aspect of the species. But would the other aspects of the species would be neglected by this wikiproject? Conservation, breeding (in the wild) diet (in the wild), taxonomy and evolution, range, cultural aspects, migration, whatever? Some parrot articles I have seen you wouldn't even think they ever occur at all in the wild. The fact is that apart from the actual avicultural articles like softbill, bird-safe and the like, the scope of this potential wikiproject covers only sections the of articles.
So I will phrase my opinion about this potential wikiproject as this. I welcome any attempt to improve the avicultural coverage, but I am dubious about the benefits of doing so separately from WP:BIRD. I would dispute the assertion that no one in WP:BIRD is interested. I would be interested to know more about the scope of the proposed project and how it views its relationship with WP:BIRD and the articles which its coverage would share. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second Sabine's Sunbird's concerns; looking at articles for those species which are regularly kept as pets, there is often little or no information about the species in the wild. Would this change if an aviculture project "took over" those articles? Now that there's good signup for an aviculture group (yay!), why not make it a task force in WP:BIRD? What would you lose by doing so rather than starting another WikiProject? MeegsC | Talk 23:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MeegsC and Sabine: In my humble opinion, discussion of wild species associated with domesticated birds makes sense in the context of relatively recently domesticated birds. However it makes less sense for birds that mankind has domesticated for thousands of years (pigeons, ducks, chickens) because there is so much divergence from the wild ancestor. There is a wild ancestor for the fantail pigeon and the Polish chicken but the domesticated animals have diverged so much from their wild ancestors that it almost confuses the discussion to bring them up. I begin to agree with a point that Sting made to me--aviculture in terms of caring for hookbills is one area of knowledge. But aviculture in terms of older domesticated species takes on a different meaning. I think that you (as with others) have assumed that aviculture is synonymous with keeping hookbills. I think it should be considered in a broader context.--Onorio (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Carnival

Description
The purpose of this project will be to expand, create, or improve articles related to Brazilian Carnival. It will include samba schools, famous sambistas (such as Dudu Nobre), and all other articles related to Brazilian Carnival. One useful place to check articles related to Brazilian Carnival will be the following category: Category:Brazilian Carnival.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. --Nadir D Steinmetz
Discussion

Wikiproject Ag-Ed

Description
Created form the proposed Wikiproject FFA. It is basicaly the same proposal but has been adapted to include other organizations like 4-H, National Junior Horticultural Association, ect.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. --IwilledituHi :) 22:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

I agree with Doug's thoughts and with what I stated at the FFA discussion. This should exist as a taskforce within the Agriculture Wikiproject but not a wholly separate project. Metros (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discographies

Description
I was shocked to see that Wikipedia had no WikiProjects dedicated to discographies. I've never started a WikiProject myself, but this WikiProject's goal would be to start, expand, and clean up discographies. Also, in the WikiProject, people would be able to share reliable websites for placement charts. Anyone interested?
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name with three tildes)
  1. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions)
  2. LukeTheSpook (talk)
  3. Drewcifer (talk) Sure why not.
Discussion
  • One major flaw, though. Not all discographies are CDs and albums (which fall under the scope of WP:MUSIC, but some are also of films and DVDs, which fall under the scope of WP:FILMS. It would be much simpler to create one WikiProject instead of two task forces, IMO. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 04:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diseases and cures

Description
[Will help contribute to diseases and cures]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Trulystand700
Discussion
I think this project would help with Diseases and cures because there is none in the dieseases and cures section.
Isn't that quite similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine
Agree with above. It is very similar to WikiProject Medicine. Basketball110 21:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency Medical System

Description
Maintain, improve, and expand articles relating to emergency medical systems and prehospital care.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. JPINFV
  2. Brentoli
Discussion

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

Employment

Description
A group to focus on the various articles relating to emplpoyment on wikipedia, including articles describing specific jobs and professions.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. John Carter (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --IwilledituTalk :)Contributions 01:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. . --Marcinjeske (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

This may seem rather redundant to some other extant projects, but there doesn't seem to be a great deal of attention being given to many of the articles on various "jobs" out there. Also, this group would be able to possibly be able to help determine what if any guidelines should exist for some things like, for instance, relative rate of pay, educational requirements, etc., etc., for the various kinds of employment out there. John Carter (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing a bit about this by trying to rearrange the concepts of job, occupation, and employment to make more sense. I think it would be useful to have a job infobox to describe the basic info about a job: education, training, industry, compensation, estimated numbers, etc. --Marcinjeske (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Hendrix

Description
This project seeks to improve upon the current Jimi Hendrix information available, in a few specific ways:

1. Get the page up to featured article status (has been rejected before) 2. Expand the information on the non-musical cultural impact of Hendrix 3. Incorporate more knowledge on the vast catalogue of Hendrix's unreleased works.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. SunilSuri
  2. Fitz8794
  3. Zack Price
  4. ReignMan22
  5. Izzy007
  6. C_Rossman (FYI - great book on unreleased works called "Black Gold")
Discussion

WikiProject Tuner Cars

This WikiProject would focus on creating and editing tuner car pages. The main focus would be on the stats sections, as well as creating articles for the various aftermarket companies that provide parts for these magnificent cars.

Interested users

Discussion

WikiProject:Students' unions

Description
This project is to help expand the vast number of students' union articles. Students' unions themselves have done notable things, but as there are a large number of universities, so are there a large number of unions. The project is to create and expand upon articles for these unions.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. GreenJoe 18:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. DGG (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FullSmash26 (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. TorstenGuise (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. BpEps - t@lk 19:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. [your name here]
Discussion
Create, expand upon, define appropriative content, and , in my opinion, try to establish them as a place to merge articles for many individual student activities at particular universities. DGG (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Existing Task Force: TF:SA. I'd say the on-going (and unsettled) dispute on the issue of whether student unions are notable and satisfy WP:ORG are grounds on not granting immediate approval of receiving its own WikiProject. The amount of articles on student unions that actually fulfill current Wikipedia policies such as WP:N, WP:ORG, WP:CORP using WP:RS (and keeping in mind WP:COI and WP:NPOV) are few and far between. I'm not sure if a WikiProject for such distinct selection of articles is necessary. I believe that the Student Affairs Task Force that WikiProject Universities provides is more than enough to handle these articles. Note side discussion on topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities/Student Affairs#New WikiProject proposal. However, if consensus is reached that all student unions are notable (regardless of all of those policies), then I'd join it. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 21:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability Dispute I have to agree with Jameson on the whole here. There is still an ongoing dispute as to whether SUs are notable or not. If this WikiProject were approved, they'd undoubtably state that all SUs are inheritently notable, which would completely ignore the current discussions and go contrary to all those who disagree with this. Resolve the dispute first - if it falls a certain way, after all, there will be no need for this group. TalkIslander 12:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. They want to be ceded "inherent notability" so that we can have thousands of pages with lists of ambitious polisci majors? In itself this is an admission that student unions are in general not notable at all. A little research shows that they have had very limited historical impact. Search for books on them; hardly anything. Search in regular newspapers, and all you get is the occasional scandal. Paddy Simcox (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nope. don't know about "they" but I want to make it clear that lists of student officers do not belong in articles, and that articles about student clubs in general should be merged if at all possible. The point is to cut down on the proliferation. DGG (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair points DGG, but you haven't actually denied or confirmed anything regarding the notability of student unions (not clubs, unless you are using the terms interchangeably). What is your view on the notability of an SU? Does it follow WP:ORG, or something else? TalkIslander 22:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Students Unions are hardly ever notable. In general, they are devoid of Reliable Third Party Sources and most of the material is Original Research (usually lists of former members and minutiae about who sponsored what constitutional amendment. Any information that passes WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:Notability fits well within the main university article.--RedShiftPA (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose, as others have mentioned Student unions/clubs/organizations are rarely, if every, notable. They are not exempt from the notability guidelines and do not inherit the notability of their school. As such, a project to actively create and/or maintain articles that go against WP:N that would be pure OR and barely sourced material is not a good idea at all. Collectonian (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Almost every University has a newspaper that fits WP:RS. These newspapers will report on the goings on of the student union, which should ease the WP:N, WP:OR and WP:V concerns. Oren0 (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you here. Oren0. I figure that every student union has done something to meet WP:N and WP:ORG, but it just requires reading those campus papers, etc. That's why we need a wikiproject for this topic. GreenJoe 17:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • University paper is an RS, however it does NOT establish notability as it is not independant of the topic. The student unions must have significant, reliable coverage in third-party sources to be notable. The school newspaper talking about itself does not meet that requirement. Collectonian (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's just not true. Student newspapers are usually independent of the administrations of the Universities they report on and independent of the student unions. To use an analogy I used earlier, this argument is equivalent to saying that the New York Times couldn't be a reliable source about the city of New York. Oren0 (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't want to accuse anyone of suckpuppetry, it seems that RedShiftPA and Paddy Simcox are joined at the hip regarding this issue. See User:RedShiftPA/Cleanup and diffs including canvassing: [1] and working as a pair: [2] [3]. I don't know why, but these guys are on a crusade against University Organization pages. Have a look at their contribs (Special:Contributions/Paddy_Simcox Special:Contributions/RedShiftPA). In the case of Paddy Simcox, how many 3-week old editors do you know who have placed dozens of prods and started/voted in dozens of AfDs (almost all delete votes as far as I can tell) already? Conservatively 2/3 of his ~100 edits are related to deletion of articles related to student organizations. The opinions of these two should be taken with a large grain of salt in my opinion. Oren0 (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to address some of the above poster's concerns here. Hope that clears any problems up.--RedShiftPA (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the disagreements here point to exactly why this WikiProject should not be created quite yet - there is large disagreement as to whether or not students' unions are notable. Until this debate is settled, the WikiProject would have an ambiguous purpose and would not have a cohesive set of goals. If students' unions are deemed not notable then this WP would merely be a deletion task force that would go through and rake articles for notability (which doesn't seem useful for a WP to do). If students' unions are notable, on the other hand, it may be the case that only a select few are notable and that the scope of this WP is very narrow. Hence, I think until this debate is settled the creation of this WP should wait.—Noetic Sage 02:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microscopy

Description
A project to expand and improve coverage of all content related to microscopes and microscopy, including optical, electron, and other forms of microscopy. Microtechnique, staining, fixation, and other aspects of sample preparation, as well as microscopy applications, are also within the scope of this project.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Peter G Werner (talk)
Discussion

Coverage of microscopy topics on Wikipedia is now highly incomplete and existing articles tend to be underdeveloped, hence I think there is a need for this project. Microscopy topics have so far been treated under the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, however, the applications of microscopy go far beyond microbiology, and use of microscopes is central to many other biological and non-biological sciences. And, of course, the optics underlying microscopy are essentially a branch of applied physics. Peter G Werner (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political Science

Description
I have found Wikipedia to be rather lacking in issues concerning political science. This is distinct from politics - as a politicalscience student interested in International Relations, I'd love to see the development of some credible articles on issues like deterrence theory, the offense-defense theory, etc. In othe realms of political science, I think Wikipedia is underserved in a number of places - look at Consent of the governed if you need persuading. I'm not talking about political issues, but instead, broader structural issues and theory. There's some overlap with other realms, like Political philosophy, but there's a lot of content that really falls into a whole, unaddressed niche. Thanks!
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Jordanp (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC) (original poster)[reply]
  2. --William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 22:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. C mon (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Save The HumansTalk :) 15:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

I agree, there is a serious lack of acedemic attention to political science articles. Take Fenno's Paradox as another example. However, it would have to be very focused on staying out of the realms of "political issues" and "political figures" (one would have to be a masochist to get involved in that on Wikipedia), as well as keeping POV-pushers out of the political science articles. I would also like to suggest that the project include articles on Political Scientists, both classical and modern (Richard Fenno, As'ad AbuKhalil, etc).--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 22:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds interesting, I would love to participate but I do really feel that the Politics WikiProject already covers it, and if it doesn't you can always create a taskforce within it. +Hexagon1 (t) 07:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutions of 1848

Description
In 1848, liberal, nationalist, idealistic and republican revolutions swept across Europe. All the revolutions eventually failed, but nevertheless, the years of 1848-49 were a monumental turning point in the history of Europe, and their repercussions are being felt to this very day. I am terribly dismayed that Wikipedia's coverage of these revolutions is so poor and I appeal to all Wikipedians interested in the history of Europe to join in this project. Next year marks the 160th anniversary, and I for one would like to see our set of 1848 articles vastly improved by that time.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. K. Lásztocska 21:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Chris 09:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. KissL 12:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Εξαίρετος (msg) 15:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. István 20:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Harrypotter 08:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Lquilter (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Very good idea, but it is not completely correct that these events didn't accomplish anything; Denmark got its constitution (and a war) as a result of them. Valentinian T / C 17:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom Supermarkets and Retailers

Description
A project to develop the coverage and history of Supermarkets and Retailers founded and operating in the United Kingdom, a subject where there is no group, but there is reason to have one. The group would also write and document the history of the founders of companies listed. Once developed, the group could spawn other wikiprojects based on the same subject, however about other countries, such as "United States Supermarkets and Retailers", "Australia Supermarkets and Retailers"
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Hencetalk
  2. Police,Mad,Jack
Discussion

If this were to go ahead, i think there would need to be a greater project on this, perhaps one on supermarkets etc across the world. Convenience store, Minimarkets, Hypermarkets all fall in as well. Simply south (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user who came up with this project has been indef blocked. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal should still be discussed -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mills

Description
A project to cover windmills, watermills, animal engines and related topics. This would not include large industrial steel mills, saw mills etc.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Mjroots (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

What about Cotton mills, mill towns, bleachfields and tenterfields?... Any scope for them? Sorry, I am from Oldham (!) -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cotton mills would be included, and articles ancilliary to cotton spinning would therefore fall under the project. Mjroots (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that the scope should not initially be expanded too far, at least not initially. By all means ensure that general articles on ancillary subjects are adequately dealt with, but I doubt we could have an article on every cotton mill, at least not yet. I would suggest that the scope should initially be limited to windmills and watermills, excluding works powered by animals or steam engines. It can alwats be expanded later. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth adding your advertisement to the Tide mill article too. --Northernhenge (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)  Done Mjroots (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Brothers

Description
A project to improve the Jonas Brothers article and articles that related to the band, such as their singles' articles or films's articles.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. ♥, calliegal_x (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Calliegal[reply]
  1. Lurai (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Are you kidding? Tiny and scope and barely notable. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, excuse me, but is there a rule saying "tiny and scope and barely notable" band, like the Jonas Brothers (whose album sold 1.5 million+) can't have a project? I don't recall reading that. Oh, and please don't diss about the band, just because you don't want to be in the project doesn't mean anything. ♥, calliegal_x (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Calliegal[reply]
It's the first line in this article, mate: "If the scope of your project idea is very narrow (such as a TV show, music band, video game, etc), or your idea is a variation on a common theme"... +Hexagon1 (t) 06:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is generally suggested that if there is a limited number of articles that the group be considered primarily as a task force rather than a stand alone project. The reason for this is very limited scope groups tend to lose interest and activity rather quickly, which generally fairly quickly leads to the group being merged into another project as a task force anyway. John Carter (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Should be a Task Force/Work Group in WikiProject Music or one of it's many subprojects. - Absolon S. Kent (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support! - If you're saying a band can't be a project, then what can you tell me about Wikipedia:WikiProject Simple Plan? Simple Plan may have been on the music scene for 6 years longer, but that doesn't mean anything, unless months had passed by and no one is coming to join. ♥, calliegal_x (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Calliegal[reply]

Please note John Carter's note above. There are currently more than 200 inactive or poorly managed projects in the Wikipedia workspace. In my humble opinion this has the potential to increase that number. Please review WikiProject Council/Guide for more information on why I think it would be a much better Task Force. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Wikinews

Description
Wikimedia Integration would be to promote Wiktionary, Wikinews and Wikiquote by enhancing Wikipedia articles. The project would be divided into 3 Task Forces with Wikinews, Wiktionary and Wikiquotes Kingjeff (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary location
User:Kingjeff/WikiProject Wikinews
Interested Wikipedians
  1. Kingjeff (talk)
Discussion


WikiProject Elm Street

Description
WikiProject Elm Street would be devoted to all articles relating to the Nightmare on Elm Street series, including the movies, spin off-series, and all cast and crew members relating to A Nightmare on Elm Street. Seabird111 (talk) 00:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians
  1. Seabird111 (talk)Seabird111
Discussion

Oppose - Should be a Task Force/Work Group in WikiProject Films. - Absolon S. Kent (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject RuneScape

Description
WikiProject RuneScape would cover all RuneScape related articles, including videos, quests, Jagex, and more.
Interested Wikipedians
  1. Seabird111
Discussion

Oppose - Should be a Task Force/Work Group in WikiProject Games or WikiProject Video games. - Absolon S. Kent (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Domestic pigeons

Description
Wikipedia's coverage of domestic pigeon topics is currently extremely inconsistent and generally a mess. With a WikiProject set up to bring together articles and editors relating to domestic pigeons, many of these problems will be overcome. Abbott75 ღ 09:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Abbott75 ღ
  2. Lurai (talk) :3
  3. Onorio Catenacci
Discussion

I would bear in mind that we don't need an organized WikiProject to improve those articles that we feel fall within our interests. A WikiProject would help in some ways but there's nothing preventing us from improving the articles ourselves. Sting and I have been working on improving the pigeon keeping article and when we get that up to at least GA standards we'll start working on improving the breed articles.--Onorio (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Snowboard

Description
I believe that given the ever-increasing popularity of the sport, WP's snowboarding articles are surprisingly thin on the ground and many are in need of a serious overhaul due to inaccuracy/misleading statements/incompleteness. Although WikiProject Ski sets out to cover snowboarding, I believe that the main focus of this project - understandably - is skiing, and the majority of participants in the project are more interested in skiing than snowboarding. With an estimated 10-20 million snowboarders worldwide[1], I believe there is enough globally relevant content, activity, and notability to make this a worthwhile project. Due to the sheer number of interested people worldwide, I hope that this Project is unlikely to subsequently require merging into another project.

TheSnowApe (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. TheSnowApe (talk)
Discussion

Add your bit here


WikiProject Identity in the Information Society

Description : A Wikiproject helping to define the concept of Identity in the Information Society. The core of this project originates from the work that is being conducted in the NoE (Network of Excelence) FIDIS (Future of Identity in the Information Society). The idea is to make available some of the knowledge related to the definition of the of Digital Identity concept. User:Nabeth (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Nabeth (talk), FIDIS, 22:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

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.

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 March 24, 2008 there are three good articles related to this topic ("Pilot (30 Rock)," "SeinfeldVision" and "Episode 210") as well as two featured lists (List of 30 Rock awards and nominations and List of 30 Rock episodes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie jca (talk • contribs)

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]

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

Ancient Germanic peoples

Description
A group, very likely a suprobject of Wikipedia:WikiProject European history, to work on content related to the Ancient Germanic peoples through to the early Middle Ages.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. John Carter (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aryaman (☼) 14:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Skadinaujo (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

There is also a portal that relates to this topic-field: Portal:Ancient Germanic culture -Aryaman (Enlist!) 17:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)
Discussion

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]
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]
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]

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, and maintaining articles on the National Express West Midlands and National Express Coventry bus routes. WP is West Midlands WikiProject that they come under.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. TOMBRANT407 (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

Percussion

Description
The percussion task force would aim to improve the content and categorization of percussion-related articles. The major trigger for the start of this task force was my concern at the lack of breadth within the actual percussion article, in coverage of various styles and regional percussion usage. More specific categorization of percussion articles would also be a major goal, as the top-level categories could be consolidated and organized more logically, instead of being in various standalone groups; and stub categories could use better specification. There are numerous holes in article content as well, including quite a few articles not cited (despite the wealth of percussion references available), general lack of templates and sound samples, and very few (if any) good or featured articles. WikiProject Music needs focused effort to improve the section of Wikipedia on perhaps the largest class of instruments, which is not an easy task.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Kakofonous (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.[4]
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

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)
Discussion

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]
Discussion

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]
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]

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]

Wikidelete 2008

Description
[A Wikiproject solely devoted to nominating and providing support for AFDs.

Rationale:

  • Make WP look more "professional".
  • Clear up bandwidth
  • Provide more debate in AFDs


Goal For 2008 will be the deletion of 50,000 articles. ]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. User:Librarianofages
Discussion
I have very real reservations about the proposed goal. Any group setting up a goal of deleting 150 articles a day is running a very serious risk of putting that goal before wikipedia's own goals, of providing verifiable information. I cannot necessarily believe that with such a goal in place, all the articles being proposed for deletion will be reviewed as thoroughly as they should be. John Carter (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why, try pressing "random article" 100 times, count the number of articles that don't seem to belong on Wikipedia due to being advertising or not meeting notability guidelines, then multiply that number by 21,000 and you have a rough average of the number of articles that should be deleted. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • strongly oppose, this is a horrid idea and meanspirited at its core. Bad articles automatically find their way into AfDs, an WP dedicated to deleting them with a daily scorecard is an idea that should be fought. Deletionists are but one part of the Wikicommunity. Boo. Chris (クリス) (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tough love, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Librarianofages (talk • contribs)
No. Self-serving pedantry and hugely divisive. Chris (クリス) (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - While I agree with Librarianofages’s goal of clearing some of the rubbish from Wikipedia, I disagree with this proposed solution. There are too many articles brought to AfD with little thought or research of the subject as it is. Combine that with too few users willing to make an informed decision about a nominated article and this proposal becomes a recipe for disaster. —Travistalk 14:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has to be a joke, so I will oblige: lol! --kingboyk (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kingboyk, I think it is a joke. Ha, ha, ha... OPPOSE. Basketball110 21:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This makes a mockery of a Wikiproject, its foul.I'd have wanted to have seen animalistic Projects I would have gone to the Wikiproject Zoo.Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 17:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability serves the purpose in a balanced way. Tyrenius (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the "clear up bandwidth" part, I would like to direct Librarianofages's attention to this link: Wikipedia:Don't_worry_about_performance. Bandwidth, server load, MySQL database size, etc, that's not your job. Leave that stuff to the developers. Phuzion (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed and laughed at - This flies in the face of what Wikipedia IS, if there's something that needs to be cleaned/removed, clean/remove it using the tools you have now. You don't need a badge of justice, it'll just make the members that much more egotistical about their backwards idea of what the word improvement means. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a case for original writers of articles to request deletion of early versions, especially where there is only one writer and other contributions have been minor edits, which can be very helpful. Example, mine on H B Kendall where I left a note that I intended to add some photos, and then picked up and deleted that note after finding the article listed on the Did you know list. Similarly for updates of images with better quality versions of the same. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, and perhaps there is such a facility which I have yet to discover. IS there some tag to request deletion of previous versions? Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose strongly: see above comments.. LukeTheSpook (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose This proposal is essentially a request for creating an organized "stacked deck". This violates the very heart of building concensus. The best word to describe this idea is EVIL! -- Low Sea (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And another thing... there are already 15,000 articles pending deletion (forgot where I saw that) and you want to add 50,000 to the backlog. Holy Crap! -- Low Sea (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWeapons

Description
[A project to organise, categorise, and sort out all things related to weaponry]


A possible Userbox:

This User supports the WikiWeapons Project



Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. User:BernhardFischbein
Discussion
So sort of like, I don't know, WP:WEAPON? ;-) Kirill 19:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, why not make it a project to manage pages covering the use of firearms? You know, sort of a list of firearm-related laws?? BernhardFischbein (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GUNS? Kirill 17:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Already have guns and fire arms. Basketball110 21:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend proposer kill this idea and join the task force and/or the project mentioned above by User:Kirill Lokshin--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal for techniques in the physical sciences

see: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council/Directory#list_of_materials_analysis_methods


Interested wikipedians
  1. Jcwf (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Amaltheus (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC) But what is a portal? Can we call it Portal for characterization techniques in the physical sciences?[reply]
  3. Srnec (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC) — willing to help organisationally and Jcwf's rationale makes sense[reply]
Discussion

Oppose This place is for WikiProject, not portals. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't know that this matters. There is no obligation to bring Projects and certainly not Task Forces here to begin with, if someone wants visibility for a proposed Portal here, that's fine and may help keep it from becoming just another unmaintained portal. Besides, to disallow it would be overly bureaucratic and Portals don't have a formal place for proposal. I take no position on the Portal itself being created, but the proposal is welcome here.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can do that at Village Pump OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transylvania

Description
A collaboration among Wikipedia editors that helps Transylvania related articles, some of which need major work. The ultimate goal, of course, having articles at a good enough state to the point of being featured.
Interested Wikipedians
  1. Basketball110 (talk · contribs)
  2. John Carter (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Doug (talk · contribs) - assuming it's a task force and not an independent project
Discussion
  • Should be joint task force of WikiProject Romania and WikiProject European history (and Former Countries if desired), although there was a period when Transylvania was an independent principality, it is primarily an historical region or of Romania and a former dependent pricipality/county of Hungary.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social Network and Forums on Wikipedia

I am proposing that we create a designated Social Forum on Wikipedia. I would like consent, comments, and suggestions, though, before I continue with this new idea. I completely realize that this is not the main purpose of Wikipedia, and am perfectly content if this idea is completely rejected.

However, if you have any feed back, please do not hesitate to comment on my talk page.

--**macph***-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by **macph*** (talk • contribs) 22:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion
  • I completely disagree with this concept. Wikipedia is for editing, and the social aspect of it... should be limited to user talk pages and that's all. If people want to socialize a lot more, they need to use an actual message board or a chat room. A social forum would just distract from the actual purpose of Wikipedia: building and editing an encyclopedia. Many people would be coming here to just chat, and not help with the encyclopedia, which isn't acceptable in my view. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose This is a Bad idea, it would give those an excuse to use Wikipedia as a Forum, we have a policy which strictly states that Wikipedia is not a Forum such discussions will be removed and the user warned, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a Forum site. Terra 18:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: Police Department

Description
The Wikipedia: Police Department will monitor wikipedia for vandalism, simular to the counter-vandalism unit but will perform different tasks and follow strict rules which will hopefully lower the amount of vandalism. The police department will work closely with the counter-vandalism unit and share information to each member's either editors or Adminstrators. They will obey all rules of wikipedia even if the rules get's changed, if user's try and make their talkpages into a forum the Police department will intervene if it continues then the member's will report it as a violation of the Wikipedia Policy. Wikipedia is here to create an encyclopedia, as such the Police Department will make sure that the policy is respected, and that user's shouldn't make it into a forum website. →Dust Rider→ 21:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible userbox for the Department.

This user is a member of
Wikipedia: Police Department.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. [your name here]
Discussion
  • I'd need to have some idea what the strict rules this group is supposed to be following are, and exactly how they would be different from the counter-vandalism unit. Nothing against the idea, but I think most people would want to see exactly how it's proposed they get carried out. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The rules will be created by member's of the Department, mainly through the tasks simular the counter-vandalism unit, but it'll be based on the rules of Wikipedia and there five piller's, they'll patroll new creation logs of pages, and monitor different articles for vandalism. I'm still thinking of more idea's for the Department, but the Department i hope will be more active, also they'll watch articles talkpages and user's talkpages to see if they're not trying to make wikipedia into a forum website which some user's have been trying. →Dust Rider→ 22:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just seems to be an duplication of existing functions - moreover, the name is problematically because a) many of our contributors come from regions where "police" has various negative connotations (and indeed, it seems that one of the proposed official functions of this group would be watch users...) and b) it suggests that they have some official function. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree. My impression is that this proposed group is redundant with at least two others. Additionally, it seems to me that the name "Police Department" suggests that such a group has an official status that it doesn't. – ClockworkSoul 15:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still waiting for any fundamental difference from the CVU. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taskforce for Bemani

Description
To create, edit and improve articles on Konami's music games, such as Dance Dance Revolution, Drummania, and GuitarFreaks. The project also serves to improve existing articles on Bemani musicians such as Asaki and BeForU and any music related to Konami's music games. The project will be under Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games.

Fireblaster lyz (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


BemaniThis user is part of the Bemani Taskforce.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. fireblaster_lyz
  2. AeronPrometheus
  3. Phuzion
  4. Coredesat
  5. dj ralph
  6. ViperSnake151
  7. tsugaru7reveng —Preceding comment was added at 08:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

I deCAPitated the task force name. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a staff member of a few websites whose topics concern Bemani, I would very much like to see Wikipedia's coverage of Bemani topics improved, and will do what I can to help. As I am a sysop on Bemanistyle's wiki, I will put a notice on the front page linking to this taskforce to rally support for the cause. Phuzion (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the assistance rendered. Now, I will most likely wait and once enough attention has garnered, we will create a page and discuss on what we will do next. Do talk to me on the talk page. CAN SOMEONE CREATE A BETTER BANNER FOR ME? Thanks. Having a plain BEMANI isn't going to help, plus non-free images can't be used. xD Fireblaster lyz (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion, make this the "Konami music video game Taskforce" instead. There are a lot of music-based games released by Konami that are not a part of Bemani (Karaoke Revolution, Dance! Dance! Dance!, Toy's March, Dance 86.4, etc...) and they would be good to include in our efforts.

g.m.d.This user is part of the Konami music video game Taskforce.

g.m.d. stands for Konami's Game Music Department, what was later relabeled Bemani. In this case I use it to signify all Konami music games. Also I see no reason why either box MUST have an image, it looks tasteful this way. Thoughts? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems great! However, my recommandations are to focus on the current Bemani's lineup of games before the older ones come in. We will most likely wait for another week before I am willing to take any action. Thanks. Fireblaster lyz (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karaoke Revolution is a currently running series of games, the entire timeline of Konami games is dotted with music-based ones that don't fall under Bemani. I agree that Bemani should be our parent concern but there no reason why we'd have to wait to start on the others as well. I'm already doing major additions and overhauls to the DDR and Beatmania articles as we speak, so I guess I'll see you in a week. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CVG should be notified of this discussion, since this is being proposed as a task force of that project. I'll notify them. --Coredesat 01:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually brought the idea up a week or so ago to the video game project, before Fireblaster, didn't get much any response. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps now that there's a discussion on the topic, it might get a little more attention. --Coredesat 02:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an editor from WP:WikiProject Video games. Some questions for you guys are below. The purpose of these questions is to give this task force some direction, not to criticise it.

  • What will this task force do beyond what a talk page like Talk:List of Bemani series could do?
  • Are you going to have a common opinion on 'controversial' issues relating to these articles. For example, as a WP:VG/A assessor, I've noticed that the question whether track lists belong on articles themselves, separate lists, or nowhere at all, is subject to some controversy.
  • What are you going to do to make sure this task force isn't a 'one night stand'? WP:VG has many task forces, none of which are very active.

User:Krator (t c) 11:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like what I have stated, though the main objective is to commit members to push up the quality of BEMANI pages, the project also serves to improve existing articles on Bemani musicians such as Asaki and BeForU and any music related to Konami's music games. However, this information is very vague as no action has been done or taken place at this moment.
  • Are you going to have a common opinion on 'controversial' issues relating to these articles. For example, as a WP:VG/A assessor, I've noticed that the question whether track lists belong on articles themselves, separate lists, or nowhere at all, is subject to some controversy.
I require some feedback from members in the group on how this should be resolved. Once confirmed, articles must follow the guidelines set by the task force.
  • What are you going to do to make sure this task force isn't a 'one night stand'? WP:VG has many task forces, none of which are very active.
I have been to the Final Fantasy Wikiproject and I seen a nominal rollcall on a monthly basics. To ensure the task force is successful, at least one edit of any article related to Konami's gmd must be done in a week. Again, I prefer to hear on members' opinion on how can the task force remain active.
Fireblaster lyz (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to continue to improve and add to the articles as I have been regardless of whether or not I have a button on my user page. The advantages to having an established task force would be to garner support and raise interest in aiding the cause. As we now have five signed members interested in helping perhaps later on there will be more that makes it less of a cliff scaling for those of us already in the trenches. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: "Once confirmed, articles must follow the guidelines set by the task force." and " at least one edit of any article related to Konami's gmd must be done in a week." are bad ideas. The reason for this is that WikiProjects and task forces are about collaboration and discussion, and are not some kind of elite club that sets the standards. There's no real 'power' or 'group' in a task force - even a member's list could be controversial. Projects have been deleted in the past for being too "closed". The same logic applies to the notion of "applications" as written on WT:VG. You can encourage and recommend, but the "must" that's in the statements quoted above is not something that's done on Wikipedia. User:Krator (t c) 16:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Krator, as a new user of Wikipedia, I am currently unfamiliar with things happening here or how things work here. As of date, I am currently busy with my personal work and am only be able to contribute from time to time. With already five members in the team, I hope we can quickly start off with some guidelines to follow on and IMPROVE PAGES!!! Fireblaster lyz (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think maybe just a general Music Gaming task force would be better, but still, Konami was the innovator here, so what's not to object? ViperSnake151 15:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With much support from Wikipedians here, I would greatly apprrciate guidelines on how to start a Taskforce and get things running. (: PLEASE GO TO MY TALK PAGE!!! Thanks. Fireblaster lyz (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Medical Schools

Description
Medical schools located in the Caribbean islands which cater primarily to American students seeking medical education.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. bstone Bstone (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PaddyM (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Yellowstone National Park

Description
Articles related to Yellowstone National Park, including guysers, basins, water bodies, animal species, etc.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Juliancolton (Talk) 19:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Former German Areas

Description
Articles related to Former German areas, ancerstrial and territorial. These include Prussia, Danzig, Volga River, Saarland, and other German areas that were taken from Germany any time after 1900. The purpose is to organize it so these areas can be found quickly for research and so awareness of the German Return to its land can be raised.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. [Theerasofwar]
Discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theerasofwar (talk • contribs) 11:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond E. Feist Series

Description
This would be a project specifically designated to books, places, items and characters that are connected to Raymond E. Feist’s novels such as: Midkemia, Kelewan Raymond E. Feist.. Feel free to ask any questions below or on my talk page – Thanks
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 06:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. - LA @ 08:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Salavat (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 24.72.109.227 (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. hmoul - I think I've read everything he's written multiple times. —Preceding comment was added at 19:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

just wondering - whether the scope should be as a task force or a wiki-project because I don't know what parent project it should go under. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 04:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page is up and ready - Im just making some refining on it. Check out WP:RAY thanks Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 23:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connections to real-world objects and locations

There are a lot of ways people are making connections between Wikipedia and objects and locations in the real world. See WikiMapia and Placeopedia, for instance. One neat project is http://semapedia.org (scroll down to "latest tag sightings", and also see the wikiproject at WP:Semapedia), which loads software into cellphones that allows you to take a picture of a 2-D barcode, translate to a wikipedia url, and then read a mobile-appropriate version of the wikipedia page on your cellphone or PDA. But that's just one way to do it, and we don't need to stop at tagging historic or interesting locations. We might have a database of UPC codes, for instance, that matches consumer goods with relevant Wikipedia pages. RFID could play the same role, now that the technology is cheap and common...smart cards containing RFID chips are very common outside the U.S., and the chips are common for inventory tagging, electronic toll collection, and many other uses in the U.S.). An extensive bibliography of academic papers on projects connecting the real world to the web (not specifically Wikipedia) is http://www.purselipsquarejaw.org/2006/03/internet-of-things-working.php (not updated in the last two years). It seems to me this has potential as a meta-project...that is, it might give people a new way of looking at previous work they've done on Wikipedia, new ways to point others to the material they're proud of, and new reasons to want to polish it up. Any interest in this? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dillinger Escape Plan

Description

This task force would be used to greatly improve their articles, and source the pages. They would be necessary to keep DEP related things interesting, factual, and informative. Their pages are dull, and the one I wrote is unsourced, and I feel people could help would make it a solid article. The reason I feel it is necessary for a better DEP page is because of their growing importance, and influence. Thanks.

Participants

All you DEP fans sign up!

Discussion

Hi! Please look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Taskforce for BEMANI. Konami has obtained a licence for the song "Pansonic Youth" from The Dillinger Escape Plan to be released and made playable on Drummania/GuitarFreaks arcade machines. You are gladly welcome to join this group, as we will be focusing on such band groups as well. As our task force is not formed yet, you might need to wait and allow time for guidelines which can be posted by you to allow members in the Taskforce for BEMANI to improve articles on DEP. Thanks. Fireblaster lyz (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gangs

;Description

the task force would document street gangs and moniter gang articles that have been vandalized to promote gangs. I think several gang articles are in need of verification. some appear to be written by gang members or independent researchers. also I have a few new articles in the making, as well as some public domain photos and personal ones I own.

Participants
  • Sickero (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 18:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC), great idea! i'd be willing to help out in the law enforcement aspect of it.
Discussion

What Wikiproject would theTaskforce Be under? --IwilledituTalk :)Contributions 23:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably one of the projects dealing with crime or criminal justice. John Carter (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime Shipwrecks

Description

This task force would attempt to improve the articles about maritime shipwrecks like RMS Titanic, Lusitania, and many others! I hope you will join and it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Participants
Discussion

So, something like WP:SHIPWRECK? Woody (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of Connecticut

Description A Task Force for improving articles related to the university, specifically the sports ones.

Participants

  1. ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

I think that these things should go in alphabetical order. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 04:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and this message is not directed only at this proposal. There are others that are not in alphabetical order. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 04:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Anti-Trivia

Description
This Wikiproject will be in Charge of deleting Moving Trivia Sections to the talk page in Wikipages since the are discourgaed by WP:POL and WP:Trivia.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. IwilledituTalk :)Contributions 23:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
That's also advised against in WP:TRIVIA. I'd suggest you get a bit more acquainted with this topic before you propose a project that deals with it. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:22, 28 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • Some entries. Not entire sections. Read the whole sentence. Trivia sections are not to be removed just because they're trivia sections. Each item needs to be judged on its own merits -- which goes for any section. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:35, 28 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Removing trivia sections (generally by integrating their worthwhile content into the article text) is a good thing which I've commonly done. However, since removing trivia sections does not require any particular form of collaboration, and is not a topic on which an editor can have specialized knowledge, it is a goal unsuited for a wikiproject. --erachima formerly tjstrf 23:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not really. It's not like we're fixing typos here, evaluating whether information is irrelevant or just needs reformatted is a process requiring actual thought and often discussion between editors. So there's nothing you can really do to create a standardized procedure. (Also, the word well doesn't have an 'h' in it, just so you know.) --erachima formerly tjstrf 00:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Entertainment

We have a Japanese anime project that includes manga, videogames, etc. But they have stated that animated projects from Korea or other countries should not be put in their project. Korea has produced a lot of manwha and animes themselves. I think we should have a Project Korean Entertainment. (Sorry if my explanation is so plain horrible and confusing.)Cardinal Raven (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

They've also produced a significant number of video games. NeonMerlin 13:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • IN FAVOR. I lived in the Republic of Korea (South Korea) for 4 years. It is a rich and dynamic nation. If we host pages specific to one country's arts and entertainment (Japan or the United States for example), then it's only natural (and neutral) to include other nations contributions as well. I am strongly in favor of this and all pages showcasing nations' unique (or unique variants of) historic, artistic, cultural, technological or intellectual achievements.Saseigel (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Calibur

Description=This project would be about all of the Soul Calibur games

PAH Page

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
Discussion

Obviously we would want to add linksto all the other games, and manufactorers, on each page, so instead of this being one page, it would an interlaced series of pages. Obviously, ensure that all references are cited and accurate (but you probably are quite knowledgable in the Soul Calibur games, based upon your interest). Otherwise, I personally approve if that project. "--**macph***-- {{subst:dated adoptme}} (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

If the scope of your project idea is very narrow (such as a TV show, music band, video game, etc), or your idea is a variation on a common theme, consider starting a task force of an existing project instead of a whole new WikiProject. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki editors harmony

Aim: To reduce unnecessary conflict and drama at source SunCreator (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an upfront project which aims to reduce unnecessary conflict and drama at source.
Typically would involve identified problems and making improvements in Policies, Guidelines and other documents to reduce problems later on.

Just an example to get an idea.

When a editor goes to create a new document they should be clearly informed that the article has to be notable. Currently they are not, as notabilty is not even mentioned. This often results in an unnotable article being created without the editor in question having the slightest idea that it was inappropriate. Then perhaps if it's deleted the affected editor having a bad experience of wikipedia. Possible also making drama later on to save the article from speedy deletion or articles for deletion, all of which is unnecessarily wastefully of all the people involved.

This is NOT about resolving conflict between people or individual incidents but reducing the chance of them occurring in the first place. Withdrawn, given the poor response it seems people are either apathetic, found some more important project or just enjoy the drama created by repeated conflict on wikipedia. So withdrawn.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. SunCreator (talk)
  2. Low Sea (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • Oh, so you're after a cabal, then? Or a political party? Absolutely not. Proposed policy changes are to be discussed on relevant talk page, and what you've proposed requires admin powers, not a WikiProject/taskforce. You've misunderstood what they do. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it is to be entirely consensual to the relevant talk page etc. Sorry I didn't explicitly state that above, thought it would be assumed. SunCreator (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All my points remain valid. A political lobby is completely unacceptable. PS: Have a look at Wikipedia:Esperanza. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry you are mistaken. This proposal is nothing like Wikipedia:Esperanza which is or was some sort of support group, the complete opposite in fact. I noticed earlier from Ľudovít Lehen (we both edited that today!) that English is not your first language perhaps the words are difficult here. The idea of creating a cabal or 'political lobby' is completely as odds with the words used to describe this project. Please try and understand again this is a project for harmony which aims to reduce unnecessary conflict and drama at source. SunCreator (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media-finders

Description
[This would be a WikiProject to find pictures and other media for articles that need some or more ] Freshbakedpie (Wanna talk?) \'_'/ 21:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Freshbakedpie (Wanna talk?) \'_'/
Discussion

Workgroup Swaminarayan

Description
[This would be a Workgroup under the Hinduism Wikiproject which will work to Expand and Maintain present articles and add new ones on the subject.] To see all articles within this future workgroup please click on the linkCategory:Swaminarayan_sect_of_Hinduism ;    Juthani1    01:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC) and Wheredevelsdare (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1.    Juthani1    01:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ism schism (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Raj - सनातन धर्म (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. wildtornado - wildT (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wikidās ॐ 23:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • Shall we begin by contributing new articles - like separate pages on Swaminarayan Philosophy, Theology, Current Structures within Swaminarayan followers/organisations etc. Since the first requirement we should fulfil is to have about 100 active pages. Then we can set about improving the quality / information in those pages. wildT (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, many new articles need to be created concerning Philosophy, Theology, etc. I am not sure how to go about creating a page to discuss these matters, but I feel that a consensus among the above editors can be found as to a starting point. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would at this point consider a separate work group to be a bad idea. In general, any group which doesn't have at least 100 articles is going to be, ultimately, doomed to merger or deletion. This group doesn't yet have 100 articles. As such, I would be opposed to creation of a separate group, unless there were at least five listed members, which is generally the minimum number for a group to remain active, and at least 100 extant articles. Maybe, when those minimum criteria are met, things would be different. But based on the situation today, there isn't yet either the number of articles or the number of editors for the creation of a separate work group. Particularly when there is already a main group which deals with all the relevant content that this more focused group deals with. John Carter (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are already 5 editors signed on in just a few days. Also, there are hundreds of articles to be created, referenced, and wikified. ALSO, the Vaishnava work group has over 700 articles - a few subgroups will be necessary. The above proposal should be fully considered. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that there are several extant projects, also with roughly the same scope, which have become basically moribund. Wikipedia:WikiProject Church of the Nazarene among them. And, in general, we don't talk about the necessity of dividing up projects until at least several thousand articles, possibly tens of thousands, has been reached. John Carter (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are also helpful workgroups (similiar to the above proposal) such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Unitarian Universalism work group. Such groups assist in facilitating discussion, group consensus, article creation and expansion. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I do not see a need of a separation of this project from the rest of the Hinduism, I would suggest piloting it for 2 months and if it to become extinct, merging it back into Hinduism project. I'm not sure if I make sense, as I'm not sure as of the structure of projects and sub-projects. Can a subproject have a sub-project? As for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Vaishnavism/Swaminarayan - is it acceptable? Or does it have to be Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Swaminarayan The cell structure of Hinduism as a tradition asks for both segregation and a unity at the same time. Wikidās ॐ 23:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the project should be given a chance - I believe it is a matter of finding a place within religion, as you have suggested above. There are already 6 editors who have both have a history of contributing to Swaminarayan articles and have signed on above to the Swaminarayan workgroup. Personally, I feel that 6 dedicated editors is enough, I hope others agree and we can find out a way to begin the work ahead. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support the proposal to pilot the project - as mentioned above, it can always be remerged with the parent project if necessary. I think it should be a subgroup of Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Vaishnavism, where it is most relevant. There currently (according to the ) 58 articles tagged as relevant to the workgroup, and it is likely that there will be many more created and/or tagged. --Shruti14 t c s 19:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Shruti14 - it needs to be under the Vaishnavism umbrella. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should hold off on this idea until a few more articles are created to be on the safe side. I would like to thank everyone who gave there opinion about this project. Thanks. If any think the project should be made now, please add your opnions under this    Juthani1   tcs 20:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject:Fablehaven

Description
[A Project on the Fablehaven Series of books to expand the knowledge of these books, and the information in these articles or the related articles of the Fablehaven series of books.] ; --18:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Jabba78 (talk)
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. --Jabba78 (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Jibajabba 20:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.81.77 (talk) [reply]
Discussion

Myst task force

Description
A task force of the Wikiproject Video games dedicated to rewriting and then maintaining all articles related to the Myst franchise. This group would be dealing with those articles relating to the games, books, soundtracks, etc. The task force is necessary because many of the articles that would be within the scope of this project are in need of reorganization and rewriting, and there are currently two WikiProjects claiming that the pages are within their scope (WP:VG and WP:ADVENTURE). Creating the task force under the Video games project will resolve the ambiguity and will allow editors to coordinate their efforts more easily. Currently, I am seeing over 50 articles that would qualify for the scope of this project, which is too many articles for one person to efficiently and judiciously reorganize and rewrite single-handedly. — OranL (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. OranL (talk)
  2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) - the cruft has to be cleaned up and the games polished, so why not.
Discussion
  • From what I can tell, ADVENTURE is just a sub-project of VG; therefore, wouldn't it be more worth your while to add the task force to ADVENTURE instead? Indeed, I am seeking clarification on reasoning for VG and not ADVENTURE. --Izno (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right in that it is too much for a single person, but looking over those 50 articles I can see a lot of in-universe articles which may not even meet notability requirements, and I'm sure some of the cruft could be removed, and perhaps some mergers are in order, then maybe it wouldn't be as daunting. It's like cleaning up a dirty house. You don't just rearrange the junk that has pilled up, you throw most of it away to let you have more room for the stuff you do need. And I also agree that it probably should be under WP:ADVENTURE per Izno's argument.--十八 06:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main reason I don't want it to be a task force under WP:ADVENTURE is because WP:VG is much more organized and seems to be much more active, and therefore much more helpful. It can be a part of either project, but I would rather have a group that is active and helpful. I can do this by myself and simply use peer review and other help from WP:ADVENTURE or WP:VG, but I wouldn't mind the collaboration if more people are interested in really cleaning out these pages. — OranL (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll grant you that, however, what's to happen if people continue to think that ADVENTURE is actually inactive? I advise leaving a note on both WT:ADVENT and WT:VG inviting them to this conversation. I don't care either way where it ends up, as I think it a suitable task force for either, but it seems to me that the more focused Wikiproject would be the better choice for it. --Izno (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Philanthropy

Description
A project aimed at improving all articles about organizations and people who exhibit an altruistic concern for human welfare and advancement, usually manifested by donations of money, property, or work to needy persons. Worthy articles like United Way of America and Boys & Girls Clubs of America suffer because they don't receive the attention that an applicable WikiProject would provide. Moreover, other similar organizations (e.g., Boy Scouts of America) and charitable people (e.g., Bono, Oprah, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates) need an umbrella WikiProject. WP Human Rights is too specific while WP Organizations is too general.
I have experience leading WPs and would be willing to be bold and get such a project going, but I'd like to see if there are any major things I'm not thinking of and what others' interests in the tentative project may be. Thanks! Eustress (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Eustress (talk)
Discussion

While I'm not interested in joining such a project, I think it is a wonderful idea for a wikiproject. --Izno (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Protestantism and Messianic Judaism

Description
A project aimed at creating and improving articles about Protestant Christian faiths and Messianic Judaism. Danielaustinhall12 (Go Wolverines!) 19:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Danielaustinhall12 (Go Wolverines!)
Discussion


WikiProject Barbarians

Description
A project aimed at maintaining and creating arcticles on barbarians. Includes such tribes as the Huns, Visigoths and Ostrogoths, Alans, Vandals, Mongols, and many more. Please visit the project page at WikiProject Barbarians.--Pecopteris (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to define barbarian a bit. If you are referring to those who contributed to the downfall of the Roman empire, you might add the Picts, Scots, and Irish. By the way, I saw on the page you listed them as "tribes," which probably doesn't apply to groups such as "Scythian," and several others, as each refers to a group of tribes. Just some sugesstions. If you work on it a bit, I might be interested. ---G.T.N. (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok -G.T.N., I will work on this some. Thank you very much for your suggestions! Hope to see you there!--Pecopteris (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All right, take a look now, I made some improvments.--Pecopteris (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in. ---G.T.N. (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Krishnaism

Description
Uniting and expanding of various traditions where Radha Krishna is worshiped. Wikidās ॐ 21:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
Discussion


Its a wide range of traditions -- but within the scope of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism with the specialised interest and review scope. Wikidās ॐ 21:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few questions. I'm assuming that the phrasing of the description isn't meant to imply that there will be some attempt at religious syncretism here, although the phrasing as it currently exists doesn't rule that out with the "uniting" part. Also, and here I acknowledge my own lack of total awareness of the subject, I'm assuming this is meant to refer to those groups which worship Radha Krishna as primary object(s) of veneration, not simply all those which consider him/them to be divine. A more detailed description of the various groups which are expected to be included in this group would be useful. Also, I know that in some circles Radhakrishna is treated as one entity, although in this case I'm not sure if what is being referred to is one entity or two. Would it be accurate to say that the intention of this group is to deal more directly with the groups which see Vishnu as being derived from Krishna, rather than the other way around? And my apologies for my own often inexact language here. If so, however, how would it relate to the proposed Swaminarayan group? John Carter (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The principle of all inclusive will include all traditions listed here. Its not a question of syncretism, as nobody has to change ones views, its more a common group uniting different traditions, historically and philosophically different, that have the worship of Radha Krishna as part or the main object of worship. Its not exclusive of anyone who would have a difference in the type of worship, nor will this group exclude topic that are not related to Radha Krishna. Like for example history of Swaminarayan even if not the same topic. This group is not based on any other philosophical or otherwise beliefs, as some will consider Radha Krishna to be incarnate of Laksminarayan, that will not exclude in any way or form such group from being the object of this project. Its not single POV project nor is it single tradition project. We are still working on the complete list of the proposed traditions
On the other hand the name, does not cover who is original, be it Vishnu, Narayana, Swaminaraya, Brahman or parabrahman or Krishna. Its clearly can not be a uniting point. What is to unite everyone is that in one way or another they worship Radha Krishna, be it one entity or two divine persons. Wikidās ॐ 22:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the list, the six traditions listed so far seem to be the "Krishna" end of the Vaishnavism spectrum, and to have at present probably sufficient content to justify a work group, although I would still question how it would relate to the proposed Swaminarayan group, though, as I'm not sure it would be the best idea to try to start both simultaneously. Maybe it would work better to start out with this broader group, develop the basic content there, and maybe later split off into various more focused groups later, more or less like what has been done with the various Christianity projects? John Carter (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Acutally, Dvaita is more on the "Vishnu"/"Narayana" side of Vaishnavism than the "Krishna" end, and I'm not sure about a couple of others on the list.) --Shruti14 t c s 01:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to your greater knowledge of the subject. Thanks for the clarification.:) John Carter (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting project idea. May be a bit specialized, but it could work. Enough articles are within its scope. I recommend test-driving it as a task force within WP:VAISHNAVA for a while and see if it has potential to remain an active WikiProject. One question - how it its relationship with WP:VAISHNAVA? --Shruti14 t c s 01:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One question which might be relevant here, and I say this knowing comparatively little about "Hinduism" in general, is whether it might work best to contact the Hinduism project and perhaps see if there is enough support for subprojects relating to the major traditions in it. I know from experience a banner can be used to assess and display for multiple subprojects at once, so that shouldn't be a problem. But it might be a good idea to at least consider the possibility of setting up subprojects for all the major traditions at roughly the same time, so that questions regarding interrelationship of the various traditions could all be discussed at basically the same time. John Carter (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed Dvaita from the list of traditions, as they do not worship Radha-Krishna. Radha-Krishna subproject of Hinduism is a good option. I think setting up other subprojects at the same time is also a good idea. How do we proceed? Wikidās ॐ 21:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need more votes and support before proceeding. I have left a note on WT:HINDU and WT:VAISHNAVA to bring more attention, and potentially more support, to the project. --Shruti14 t c s 23:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its a narrow field project that will allow us to focus on various sub projects within its scope. The other will have a similar structure and will include all the goals of the Swaminarayana project described a few entries above, and will also include other groups that need similar presentation. Wikidās ॐ 12:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I can see, the major groups not yet covered specifically by either active or proposed groups are Shaktism, Smartism, Ganapatya, and Saura. Does anyone know if there's enough interest for separate groups regarding any of them? John Carter (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could create a Wikiproject for every broadly worshipped deity, such as Ganesha. Doing so, however, would detract from the collaboration at the Hinduism Wikiproject. Also, in practice WikiProjects tend to act like cabals. Since ISKON, a cult, represents the most well-known Krisha worship in the west, this may just end up being a forum for their members to vandalize Wikipedia. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a need of unity to a large number of traditions that do have a large and significant thing in common - and that is Krishna as an object of worship. I do think that if more editors are interested such elements of Indic traditions as Smartism Ganapatya will have its own project, however it appears that this have nothing to do with this particular project that is currently about the following traditions:
There are in alphabetic order and no specific preference should be given to one over the other, all need a lot of work in regards of their structure and content and yes they can eventually grow into its own project or sub-project. Task groups are good for specific purposes, but when structuring is involved project is a better means, as there is a lot of material to be added. We should not take a pessimistic approach to Wikipedia as in User:Zenwhat/Stay_sane - we have faith in Wikipedia and we should proceed with the project as it will provide better means to structure the material and let individual groups grow into separate projects. There could be other similar projects on similar views shared by a number of traditions, but its only if sufficient number of editors will be interested. I actually take the point about ism and it can be dropped. Any others suggestions as to the name of the project? I think naming is quite essential, some of the projects really need help. Wikidās ॐ 09:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This idea proposed by Wikidas is a very good one! I believe these ideas discussed above are very constructive and will facilitate a lot of good editing on Wikipedia through efficient communication. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would work best using the existing Hinduism project banner, to prevent having too many banners on any given article, but the name proposed above roughly approximates the existing "Shaivism" group. John Carter (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with John Carter. Using the existing Hinduism project banner is appropriate. Krishnaism is also, in my opinion, the best name. Also, in my opinion; Krishnaism is to Krishnology what Christianity is to Christology. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://local.google.com/answers/threadview?id=587281
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals&oldid=212023034"