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 Zeppomedio (talk | contribs) at 22:12, 20 August 2008 (→‎Description). 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:
 {{SUBST:WikiProject Proposal
 |ProjectName = The Name of the Wikiproject 
 |Description = Your Description of the proposed wikiproject.
 |USER1= ~~~~
  }}
Creating a project
If your project gains support from 5-10 active Wikipedians, it could probably benefit from the organisation boost of having a proper page. Remove it from this list and follow the instructions for creating new projects. If you want to start a page before you have 5-10 active Wikipedians, consider setting up the page on a subpage of your user page until it is active, while leaving the posting here with a link to the user page. You can also promote the newly created WikiProject at {{Announcements/Community bulletin board}}.
Requesting a project
There may be cases where you believe that there is a pronounced need for the creation of a project which does not yet exist which you may not personally feel qualified to join. Some examples might be certain countries, disciplines, etc. In the event you are aware of such a situation, please add the relevant name to the list of projects below and see if there are any individuals interested in creating such a project.
Archive
In the event a given proposal does not receive sufficient support within 4 months of posting here to create a project or task force, it is added to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Archive page.



Projects

WikiProject Chronology

Description

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

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Wikiproject Wikiproject Inactive Wikiprojects

Description

A format to propose that wikiprojects are inactive. Ive made an example of it here

Support

  1. HereFord 20:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Wikiproject Federal and Civil Agencies and Organizations

Description

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

Support

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

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

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

Neutral


African Protected Areas task force

WikiProject Greater Glasgow

Description

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

Support

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

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

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

Wikiproject Gil Scott-Heron

Description

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

Support

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

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

  • Strong Oppose - Project is far too narrow in focus as it only covers the work of one artist. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This proposal does seem to be abit on the narrow side, you could quickly find yourself becomming defunct...Have you considered joining The Music Wiki Project? Gavin Scott (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as above jimfbleak (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • I have withdrawn this due to a previous consensus that TV Shows should be taskforces of WP:TV, so I have proposed this as a taskforce that is listed below instead. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject O.C.

Description

A Project for articles about the The O.C.. There are a number of articles on the subject, including numerous episode article episodes. There is room for much improvement, and hopefully together this project can follow in the footsteps of Lost and clean up articles and make them more encyclopedic. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

The O.C. was a very successful show and hopefully there are interested followers out there who want to get on board.

Support

Oppose

  • Oppose: Should be a Task Force in WikiProject Television -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as Absolon notes, this, at best, should be a task force under the Television project, not a stand alone project. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikiproject Association Football variants

Description

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

Support

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

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Wikiproject Auditing Standards for Wikipedia Content

Description

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

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

Support

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


SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

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

Neutral

Wikipedia:WikiProject Layout

Description

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

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

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Bahá'í Faith

Description

A Project for articles about the Bahá'í Faith. Thankfully, there are already a number of fine articles on the topic (e.g. the main article is featured), so this can coordinate assessment and the improvement of existing material. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Smkolins (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --John Carter (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. AlmightyClam 16:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. HereFord 17:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • The above users have already signed up and there is some talk ongoing at the project's page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great, good luck! +Hexagon1 (t) 04:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography/Bot

Description

A centralised new project is urgently needed to discuss and plan the recently approved User:FritzpollBot project and implementation as discussed at the Village pump. The proposal outline has been drawn up at User:John Carter/GEOBOT group and this woudl eventually function as quite a developed wikiproject as we require branches for research discussion, collaboration with wikiprojects etc in adding new georpahical articles. The project has enough self identity I think to operate independly of WP:Geogrpahy and WP:Cities where our goals are more specific. It already has a substantial following and the sooner it is started the sooner more support will arrive. The nature of the project itslef has been approved after weeks of discussions involving 100s of wikipedians, but have to just arrange a suitable name for the project though and to make a decision on whether a seperate project is necessary or which project it should be a task force of.


Interested Wikipedians
  1. John Carter (talk · contribs), primary focus will be the smaller and less-developed nations 15:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fritzpoll (talk · contribs), primary focus is to coordinate activity for the purposes of bot operation 16:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC) - to supervise bot coordination for each country and help in the planning and implementing process, specific aims are even global coverage but particularly emphasis on undeveloped parts on here in Africa, Asia and Latin America.[reply]
  4. TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 14:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC) for WP:INDIA[reply]
  5. Calaka (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC). I will not be a big help unfortunately, but I will try to contribute in any small way I can.[reply]
  6. --NickPenguin(contribs) 14:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Grunt work is my specialty, and I can dedicate a few evenings a week to this project.[reply]
  7. llywrch (talk) As I've mentioned elsewhere, I have materials about Ethiopia, although I can contribute to Eritrea settlements (which badly needs attention -- our Eritrean specialists seem to have dropped out of Wikipedia).
  8. EJF (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC) (signed as IP, on wikibreak)[reply]
  9. Wrad (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Should be able to help with Arabian towns and villages.[reply]
  10. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 19:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Keeper, although I'm quite useless in most ways, I do have admin buttons for anything they may be needed for (mass deletions/page moves/blocking the opposers,(just kidding on the last one).
  12. I have some skills in rooting up data, but will oppose any stub without a population figure. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Will help with Russia... eventually.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I'm looking for a project, and I'd like to see the bot go forward. --Falcorian (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Adam McCormick (talk) Might be some use to have a template guy and bot op on board. I'm in. Adam McCormick (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Kaly99 (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC) for WikiProject Sierra Leone and anywhere else help is needed.[reply]
  17. —KetanPanchaltaLK 05:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Should be able help somewhat with articles related to India[reply]
  18. — jwillbur 02:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC) I'll help with Caribbean places, maybe South/Central America too if I have time[reply]
  19. Mangostar (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC) have a pretty good idea of online resources re: Cambodia and am decent at digging up other sorts of info as needed...[reply]
  20. Geometry guy 20:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC) — This is a project I support, but passively. I'd like to help at the interface with the rest of WP (e.g. those editors who have mixed feelings about the project :), provide occasional feedback as a friendly uninvolved observer, and comment on issues of scale and scope which may arise from time-to-time.[reply]
  21. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 20:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC) - I'll try to be as active as I can, but may have to devolve into passivity from time to time, as constraints allow.[reply]
  22. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC) I will be happy to create geography stubs (with or without population figures).[reply]
  23. Taku (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject: Construction

Description

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

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

Rochester Institute of Technology

Description

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

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

WikiProject:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

Description

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

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. EclipseSSD (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • Oppose Should be a task force at best, and I question that there are enough articles even for that. I'm also concerned by your talk of promoting the series, this is entirely contradictory to the notion of maintaining the essence of an encyclopedia. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Project would be too narrow in focus. Recommend a Task Force in WikiProject Films or WikiProject Horror and can be expanded to a full WikiProject later, if interest develops. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I recommend a task force in WikiProject Films for this.
    Da'jhan 21:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dajhan (talk • contribs)

WikiProject:Chicago Area Public Transportation

Description

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

Scope

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

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

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

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

WikiProject Ireland

Description
A Wikiproject focused on the history, culture, music and geography of the Republic of Ireland. A great way to collate and maintain all of Wikipedia's articles on Ireland.

The man in the mask (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. The man in the mask (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Resident Evil Wikiproject

Description
This project would maintain Resident Evil Wikipedia articles.

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

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

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

  • Oppose - The scope is too small to be a sole project, I recommend a task force from other game wikiprojects and expand to full project later if the need becomes eminent.
    Da'jhan 21:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dajhan (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose - The scope is far too small for an entire project. Possibly as a task force, although I advise going to WT:VG and proposing such a thing there. --.:Alex:. 10:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Literature

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

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

Since there does seem to be a fair amount of interest (be it project or taskforce, leaning towards taskforce) just wondering because I don't know a lot about wikipedia, how do I actually Start it? (lol) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conningcris (talk • contribs) 08:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Earthquakes

Description

This WikiProject is a group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's articles on earthquakes and their aftermath. Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 01:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 01:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 09:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ~AH1(TCU) 21:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --haha169 (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Black Tusk (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • Oppose Should Be a Task force in Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography Save Humans Respond on my Talk Page. 01:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - concur with above recommendation and recommend expand to full project later if interest develops. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As the proposer explains, this WikiProject is intended to encompass rather more than merely the physical/geographical aspects of earthquakes. Also, I think that this is a subject that has a chance of finding a sizeable membership. __meco (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - needs a project and to counteract the bias towards hurricanes on here. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 09:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This has already been up and running for over a month. It has drawn considerable interest in that time and this project has produced 2 good articles and numerous DYKS. If the tropical cyclones wikiproject is seperate from the weather wikiproject, I don't see why the same can be with earthquakes. The interest is already here. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Needs a project like this. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I thought it was already a Wikiproject, is there really any need for them to be "official"? Anyways I'm already a member.
  • Support it's sad it only began this year...--TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per EditoroftheWiki and TheFEARgod. I honestly couldn't believe that the Earthquake Wikiproject was just created in the weeks following the Sichuan earthquake. I was surprised, actually, that Wikipedia didn't have one. In all honesty, I don't see a single reason why this shouldn't be a Wikiproject. --haha169 (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per EditoroftheWiki. There's other subjects related to WikiProject Geography that have thier own projects, such as volcanoes, mountains, mining or geology. Therefore I don't see a problem with earthquakes having thier own project. Black Tusk (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After-the-fact support - seems like there is enough interest, and for the record, WikiProject Tropical cyclones existed even before WikiProject Meteorology came into being. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiSafety

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

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

You said "Wikipedian would know the dangers of giving out personal information on Wikipedia" Well As agent K of Men in black said "people as a whole are stupid." S.T.H. ( P/T/C ) 22:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you spell "safety" correctly if the project ever gets going. --Eustress (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opps. Srry lol. I changed it S.T.H. ( P/T/C ) 23:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really like this idea, like the above poster said, if people are dumb enough to post things that you believe would be harmful then a. it's their choice, b. they should know the dangers, and c. if they put it here, I'm sure there are bigger or equal threats to these people across the web, I oppose conningcris 05:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is not an objective standard for "safety". Looking at the reference page, it appears the suggested implementation is on a judgemental scale - going around handing out "report cards". That's unnecessarily intrusive. --Alynna (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Change the name of it to WikiProject WikiPrivacy and have it focus on:

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 Posturology

Description

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


Project Page

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

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

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

Discussion

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

WikiProject Trolleybuses

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

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

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

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

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]
  • Oppose - WikiProjects are not to be confused with sister projects. Your proposal should be made on meta. I believe a number of similar projects have already been proposed and rejected on copyright grounds. If the song is not copyrighted, then it would be better placed on Wikisource. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 11:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per copyright concerns and project concerns raised above. If your aim is to collect lyrics in the public domain, that should be done at Wikisource. bd2412 T 23:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Palaeontology/Paleontology

Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology is running so can be deleted.

Description

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

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

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

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

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

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)
  4. Wrad (talk)


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]

  • Um. I, personally, am somewhat against this project: I feel that the topic is too narrow. This should probably be a task force for a horror-related WikiProject, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror. Kironide (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is far too narrow even for a taskforce, let alone a WikiProject. What you're looking for is here. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Should be a taskforce of the Horror project, rather small scope, there's what twenty articles at the most? The DominatorTalkEdits 04:03, 18 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]
  6. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • I'm placing the proposal here because two people expressed an interest in this wikiproject during the FA process for Genetics. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 19:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps we should consider creating it as a workgroup of WP:MCB, rather than as a separate entity? – ClockworkSoul 20:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  • Large enough scope and importance to warrant it's own WikiProject IMO, with WP:MEDGEN and WP:HGH as workgroups or descendant projects. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 01:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think any talk of making genetics a work group of others is silly. We could just as easily make MCB a subproject of genetics, as well as a few other projects. If it was a workgroup of anything, it would be the biology project, though the area of genetics is as worthy of a separate project as most existing ones. Richard001 (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As we would like to cover both the medical and the scientific aspects of genetics, we need a totally separate wikiproject dedicated to genetics. Why isn't it possible? NCurse work 20:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea, I support this proposal, can't believe we didn't have this already. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Project created

Superheroes

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

Deadlink cleaner

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's Checklinks. 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

Is this more than already exists at Wikipedia:Dead external links? --Alynna (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a WikiProject, although there have been attempt to make it into a WikiProject. It still remains a repository of information on where the deal links are and some information to deal with them. Originally I had written the tool to complement a WikiProject but only one Wikipedian is using it on a regular bases to help her check sourcing in Feature Article Candidates. If you wish to start, I'd suggest working on Featured Articles which still has dead reference links (although better since the tool's introduction). — Dispenser 20:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

West Slavic WikiProject

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

Religious programmes

Description

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

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

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

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


Recategorisation

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

WikiProject WikiMoney

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

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
  • 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]
  • Oppose: Should be a Task Force in WikiProject Television -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Absolon. The DominatorTalkEdits 04:05, 18 April 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]
I think for things like chickens and pigeons, you're absolutely right. However, many aviculturalists are interested in parrots and finches and songbirds—which would all fall under an aviculture umbrella as well—and here the "history" of kept birds is far shorter. In the case of Cockatiel or Sun Conure or Zebra Finch, for example, two DIFFERENT projects might have very different "aims" for such articles, whereas a single project with multiple viewpoints might more easily hash things out. Just a POV, I'm sure! MeegsC | Talk 09:59, 15 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
  2. --Shaggorama (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- Trulystand700 01:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- JPINFV 02:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. JPINFV
  2. Brentoli
  3. Jclemens - I may be one of the few active editors in Wikiproject First Aid.
Discussion

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

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

Employment

Description
A group to focus on the various articles relating to employment on Wikipedia, including articles describing specific jobs and professions. -- John Carter (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  • WikiProject - The category for this topic is at Category:Employment and there is enough material for a WikiProject. Here is where your proposal fits in:
-- GregManninLB (talk) 07:42, 26 May 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.

-- 128.122.90.80 (talk · contribs · logs) 03:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. SunilSuri
  2. Fitz8794
  3. Zack Price
  4. ReignMan22
  5. Izzy007 17:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. C_Rossman (FYI - great book on unreleased works called "Black Gold") 02:51, 3 March 2008 216.27.105.10
Discussion
-- GregManninLB (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- GreenJoe 18:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- Peter G Werner (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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]

Under this route, the parent to WikiProject Microscopy would be WikiProject Science until one of the interveening red linked WikiProjects were created. -- GregManninLB (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Microscopy in its modern context is about "visiting" places via active imaging on size scales between single atoms and scales accessible to the naked eye. It makes a wide range of activities involving manipulation as well as investigation possible on these size scales, in all kinds of fields including emergent fields like nanotechnology. Since it provides access to the world in a size range that is relevant to our understanding in most branches of science (even extraterrestrial materials), putting it directly under science (without trying to make it a sub-branch of another specialty) seems reasonable to me. Thermochap (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree. Directly under WikiProject Science is perfectly adequate. – ClockworkSoul 15:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused here – you're basically proposing a structure with a big list of redlinks – basically making Microscopy a subset of a bunch of WikiProjects that don't even exist. Do these exist right now even as actual proposals? I will note that if you intend to create a "Laboratory Techniques" project, "Science" or "Scientific Method" should be the parent in the hierarchy, since "laboratory techniques" are something that exist beyond just biology. Peter G Werner (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, I suspect you may be a little confused. Projects are not intended to directly map to a category tree, either in theory or in practice. To attempt to shoehorn the project hierarchy into such a structure would result only in a myriad of abandoned projects. – ClockworkSoul 05:29, 28 May 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! -- Jordanp (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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
You might want to review WikiProject Philosophy/Social and political -- GregManninLB (talk) 06:17, 26 May 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. -- K. Lásztocska 21:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
-- GregManninLB (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2008 (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". -- Hencetalk (talk · contribs · logs) 15:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Hencetalk
  2. Police,Mad,Jack
Discussion
-- GregManninLB (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mills

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • I did have this proposed project up, but it seems to have disappeared. It is now advertised on these articles, which I should have done in the first place! I've resurrected the previous discussion. Mjroots (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Description
A project to cover windmills, watermills, animal engines and related topics. This would not include large industrial steel mills, saw mills etc.

Amendment
In view of discussion from GregMannin, I'm going to reduce the scope of the WikiProject to cover Windmills only. That fits the category and article rules. Project to be WikiProject Windmills. Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Mjroots (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

# name removed Peterkingiron (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Peterkingiron (talk) 19:16, 26 May 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]

  • Oppose A WikiProject should be named after an existing category having an existing article. If you want to revise your proposal to be one for Wikipedia:WikiProject Grinding Mills or some other existing category with existing article, I would support it. GregManninLB (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply Looks like a new head category of "Mills" is meeded. Grinding is not the only process performed by windmills, watermills amd animal engines. Mjroots (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to whom? This has never been the way that projects have been done, and I see no reason for that to change. – ClockworkSoul 13:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not interested, if it is just windmills, but ask me again if it changes to cover watermills. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watermills are more fun. Basically I see them as the industrial driving force, that was the precursor to nation building before the industrial revolution. Why on earth, does anyone think that they were limited to grinding corn- windmills pumped water. Watermills drove saw wheels, made paper, drove weaving sheds and many other tasks we should investigate. Yes there is a project here, and at very least it has already exposed a glaring weakness in the Category system.
  • ClemRutter (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Start again

In view of the discussion, and the fact that a WikiProject Mills doesn't break any rules, I'm reinstating the original proposal:-

Description : A project to cover windmills, watermills, animal engines and related topics. This would not include large industrial steel mills, saw mills etc.
  • Support
  1. Mjroots (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC). I have already done considerable work on a wide variety of kinds of watermill and would mainly be intersted in that aspect. I see no reason why water-powered saw mills should not come into its scope, but would suggest steering clear of anything powered by steam or more modern prime movers. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not against including steam mills in principle, but think it would be better to have some boundary at least initially. That of course does not prevent members working beyond the boundary, as I certainly will be. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Doncram Mills seems to be the right title to include both windmills and watermills. I don't think it is necessary to exclude saw mills and other mills, as, after all, some saw mills were powered by water i am sure. But the description could be amended later, and it is good to reflect the starting focus of interested members, so I support this current proposal wholeheartedly. I will join as a member, and, by the way, i have taken pics of several windmills on a recent trip, to respond to Mjroots' recent posting in WT:NRHP. doncram (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I haven't researched the Cotton Mills of the Lancashire Cotton Corporation but it must be significant that so many of them were located in the valleys of the streams flowing off the Pennines. A feature of such a mill was the shaft that ran along the shed, and the individual looms and frames were powered of it, using a belt drive. The later electric motors were mounted on the frame used a belt to connect to the original fly wheel. So even they can be included. ClemRutter (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Quistnix (talk) 10:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC) I am currently working on a windmill project on nl.wikipedia, where we are creating individual articles on windmills in the Netherlands. I can help by translating some of the articles about the most famous mills. My 200+ Dutch windmill photos are categorized by province on Commons.[reply]
  • Neutral
  • Oppose

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]
  • Task force - There is not enough material at Category:Jonas Brothers to justify a WikiProject. A Jonas Brothers task force would fit as:
Also see my post below at Black Sabbath proposal. GregManninLB (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose should maybe be a task force in music or pop or something, too small of scope and not notable enough yet, maybe in 30 years if they're as popular as The Beatles.--Bhockey10 (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose as per above. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 02:45, 27 July 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 talk:Kingjeff/WikiProject Wikinews
Interested Wikipedians
  1. Kingjeff (talk)
Discussion
From Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion#News Articles:

"Wikipedia is not a news service or news report archive. Yet more and and more attention is paid to creating articles for stories which have only received news coverage, without considering the difference between news and encyclopedia content as well as the longer term historical perspective. This significantly reduces the attention given to creating and improving substantively encyclopedic content. It also undermines Wikipedia's sister project, Wikinews (which is intended to be a news service), by distracting potential user traffic and editorial oversight from that project."   [emphasis added]

For example: The Chris Avenir article, which was brought to my attention here a few hours ago.
A {{Copy to Wikinews}} template was deleted one year ago as per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 30#Template:Copy to Wikinews because the Wikinews copyright (n:Wikinews:Copyright Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License) and the Wikipedia copyright (Wikipedia:Copyright GFDL) are apparently incompatible. (See also m:Wikinews/License).
Transwiki'ing is not supposed to be a cut and paste process (cf. a March 2007 discussion of the reverse situation at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Archive 9#Is it legal to integrate, and thereafter modify, a CC-BY text into a GFDL text?) but there should be a way to get some of the near-zero-encyclopedic-value with marginal-news-value junk out the encyclopedia and into the news site.
And yes, I would support and probably join such a project. — Athaenara ✉ 07:30-19:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

WikiProject RuneScape

Description

WikiProject RuneScape would cover all RuneScape related articles, including videos, quests, Jagex, and more.

Interested Wikipedians
  1. Seabird111
  2. Conningcris - I'm not sure how much i could do..but it does make sense so I agree
Discussion

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
  4. Sting au Buzz Me...
Discussion

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[2], 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)
  2. User: Neroyak (talk)
Discussion
  • Oppose. Today, there is significant overlap between ski and snowboard topics, from gear companies and resorts to contests and even athletes. The ski project currently includes snowboarding in its scope (perhaps somewhat unfairly). I suggest trying to convince them to change their title to "wikiproject snowsports" or something of the like to be more inclusive of snowboarding. Can you maybe give a few examples of articles that are as bad as you say? Unless they are stubs, my guess is that their poor quality may be more due to the fact that alot of young, uninformed kids new to the sport may be contributing more than they should. If the problem is that significant, I'll help you myself. Otherwise, leave it to the ski project since they already called dibs. --Shaggorama (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (my own proposal) - I agree that there is a degree of overlap between skiing and snowboarding - resorts being the obvious example. However, while perhaps 1 in 10 snowboarders also skis, I struggle to find examples of world-class pro riders who also compete in world-class ski competitions). WikiProject Ski also includes snowboarding in its scope, but I don't believe much work has been done (reference the number of templates for ski-related topics vs. snowboard topics, or the fact that only two of the WP-SKI participants listed on the front page mention snowboarding - one being you); if this is not the case, could you provide some examples? I doubt I'd have much luck persuading WP-Ski to change their name, as: it is ski-focused, so the name is appropriate; there is already a defunct project which attempted to cover all snowsports; it's a short and snappy name. I don't think the name or the 'dibs' is unfair, necessarily, but I'm not sure it best serves the needs of snowboarding articles on WP. Also, WP-Ski does rather seem to continue to the work of the FIS in assuming that snowboarding is just a bastard subset of skiing. Having said all that, perhaps there is a case for attempting to work within the existing framework. I am a new editor without a track record, and perhaps that also suggests that I should be working with pre-existing initiatives, rather than forging new ones. On balance, though, I still think there is a call for a project here, for the reasons I have stated. I'll have a look for examples of unloved snowboarding articles today and will post a few. TheSnowApe (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Wikipedia:WikiProject Ski states that it covers Skiing and Snowboarding. However, a ski is a long flat device worn on the feet designed to help the wearer slide smoothly over snow. Skiing and snowboarding have separate Wikipedia articles and both are categories under Winter sports. Skiing and Snowboarding belong under Wikipedia:WikiProject Winter sports as either task forces or WikiProjects. As for Snowboarding, a look at Category:Snowboarding reveals more than enough material for a WikiProject Snowoarding.
-- GregManninLB (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 help to clarify the concept of Digital Identity. The objective of this proposal is not about reporting about original research, but working on the definition of the identity concept in a way that is more comprehensible and consistant, and in particular from recognised experts in the domains. The form of this work is strongly Pluridisciplinary (Law, Security, Information systems, Philosophy, ...) . User:Nabeth (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC). Updated Nabeth (talk) 10:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Nabeth (talk), FIDIS, 22:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Royer (talk), FIDIS, 08:45:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Meints (talk), FIDIS, 08:02:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • The members of the FIDIS NoE are strongly encouraged (and will receive incentives) to participate by defining some of the terms in the areas in which they have been involved. Nabeth (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • sounds dangerously like original research to me. Paulbrock (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think so. The main objective of a NoE like FIDIS is not to directly conduct research, but rather to facilitate the networking and consolidate the work that has been conducted in other contexts. An exemple of the work of FIDIS is to work with ISO is related to some standardisation of Identity. However, I understand the point, and maybe I should rephrase the description so that this appears clearer. Besides, we may find some way to limit FIDIS contribution in areas that are not exploratory (some of the work conducted in FIDIS is prospective, but this is not the case of all the work). Nabeth (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: We are currently in the process of identifying a list of identity related terms candidate for the contribution of FIDIS participants (and of course other members interested in this WikiProject). To finish, we have been working for some time on an internal Wiki of Identity terms, and we would like to make others to benefit from this work (FIDIS receives public funding from the European Commission, and one of its mission is to disseminate the results). Nabeth (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - a WikiProject dedicated to generating research original to Wikipedia might not be the best course to take. -- GregManninLB (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Oppose - See also FIDIS#The_FIDIS_in_Wikipedia_initiative. This to me makes it clear that FIDIS would like to use Wikipedia to publish/share their findings, which is NOT what WP is for. See also the guidelines on conflict of interest,What Wikipedia is not and synthesis of published material. More constructively, I suggest you consider sharing your existing internal wiki online instead.Paulbrock (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Explain Nope Paulbrock, there is a misundertanding here. Some of the work that is being conducted in the context of FIDIS (for instance Identity of Identity) is to clarify the concept of identity (terminology). FIDIS is for instance conducting some work with ISO on this (and ISO is also not interested by original research). We are also working on some taxonomy of terms. Therefore, as I indicated several times (but I may not be clear enough) what we want to do in FIDIS in Wikipedia is to see if the work that we have done in FIDIS related to the clarification of the identity concept (and not the prospective work) can also benefit better to the whole community (Wikipedia has a large audience). Concerning the sharing of our existing Wiki, this is something we have been considering for some time already (we had postponed it until now because it is not complete enough, and needs to be fine tuned) and that we plan to do in the future. Example of other project doing something similar: InCaPedia or Identity Gang [Identipedia]. To conclude, I perceive an over-reaction to my desire to explore to which extend some of the results of our NoE can be used to improve Wikipedia. And by saying that I just mean, contribute to improve the definitions of some identity related terms, and adding some of them that could be missing, and nothing more. Looking at the Identity related terms, I believe there is really a need. Maybe, the answer can be only some categorisation (would it make sense to introduce de category Identity?). Nabeth (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. It may be that I have completely misunderstand the proposal, in which case apologies. It still sounds to me that this relates to members of FIDIS using Wikipedia to share their knowledge/information/conclusions/research with a wider audience. This I object to. If it is regarding incorporating freely available(already published) information from FIDIS to existing articles this is marginally better, though an unusual focus for a group of editors, particularly those that have worked on the material itself. The wikipedia article FIDIS describes a strategy of using new technology such as social networks, which is very welcome but I see "transfering some of the knowledge generated in FIDIS (the work conducted on terminology) into Wikipedia" (from the Wikipedia FIDIS article) and use of Wikipedia to "disseminate the results", as suggested by Nabeth above, at odds with standard Wikipedia practice, particularly when this transfer is done by editors associated with FIDIS. I would particularly welcome the thoughts of other editors to see if I am the only dissenting voice or not. I would also suggest that Wikipedia's definition of WP:original research and FIDIS's definition of original research (which they say they don't carry out) may not be the same. Paulbrock (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Sorry my mistake if I am not clear enough. I will stop now working on this for the time being (I wanted to have a minimal core to start with) and see with other members of the FIDIS consortium for additional perspective, as well of course as other feedback from the Wikipedia community. Please consider however this 'project' proposal as an oportunity to explore for a group of expert in the domain of identity to contribute to Wikipedia in the line of Wikipedia objective (probably a better formulation should be done). If it does not work, well, that would have been a tentative and that will be all right. If it works, that will even be better. Note: many people will be in a conference next week, and therefore, thinks are going to be quiet. To finish, and as I indicated, there are many things in FIDIS, and the intention is just to put some of the terminological work that could benefit to Wikipedia. Nabeth (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

WikiProject Bavaria

Description
This project covers the creation and editing of articles related to the German state of Bavaria, its municipalities, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on. It aims to expand Wikipedia's resources on Bavaria in a fair and accurate manner. Kingjeff (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians
  1. Kingjeff (talk)
  2. YorkUCBoy (talk)
Discussion

Embryology

Description

Currently the embryology articles are a mess; they are confusing, often wrong and not species specifc. There is definite support for this view of the current articles on the WikiProject Biology [page]. Because of the scope, depth and expertise this task requires, i think a project would be best. Snellios (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Snellios (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Black Sabbath

Dedicated to improving articles related to Black Sabbath, Ozzy Osbourne and their many albums and songs.

Members (add your name here) Shapiros10 Discussion (add your comments here)

-- GregManninLB (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Work on WP:MUSICGROUPS and all this. I'm just looking for a project (or taskforce) of WP:METAL. Shapiros10 Came Back! 17:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Metal doesn't yet have any task forces[5]. If you look at Category:Black Sabbath, there seems only enough for a task force. Black Sabbath is not a music genre, so Black Sabbath would not be a good fit as a project (or taskforce) of WP:METAL. You wouldn't have to work on WikiProject Musical Groups. I could set up WikiProject Musical Groups and easily add a Black Sabbath task force to WikiProject Musical Groups. If you think having "Musical Groups" in the Black Sabbath task force title would make it harder to obtain members, they I agree to a WikiProject Black Sabbath. In fact, there already is a WikiProject The Rolling Stones. -- GregManninLB (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Would you want to join? The link is User:Shapiros10/Black Sabbath task force. I'll start working soon. Shapiros10 Came Back! 19:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen King WikiProject

Description

The project will be devoted to improving all articles concerning American author Stephen King. Including books, media he has written/directed, and media adapted from his works. Blackngold29 22:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Blackngold29 22:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jmj713 (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Chaoticfluffy (talk)11:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. CyberGhostface (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. MwNNrules (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. leafschik1967 (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • Considering Wikipedia:WikiProject The Dark Tower already covers part of this subject, maybe the best way to go would be to ask them if they wanted to expand its scope a little? John Carter (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have raised the issue (here) and have recieved no feedback. I'll give it a few more days and then try to contact members directly, as to their thoughts on an expansion. Blackngold29 06:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think its a good idea, but I think the two projects should be very closely related. If there is enough interest in a Stephen King project, then the Dark Tower one needs to go under it. leafschik1967 (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Toledo

Description
The misson, like other city related Wikiprojects, Wikiproject Toledo will be the organizing, improving, and expanding of all Toledo, Ohio and Toledo Metropolitan Area related articles on the English Wikipedia.

just by typing Toldeo Ohio into Wikipedia there's about 3000 listings, not including other areas withing the metro area.--Bhockey10 (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. --Bhockey10 (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Rik (talk) 23:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  1. Oppose Don't do it, u will regret it 3 months from now, because there won't be enough interest. From experience with a failed city wikiproject or two. You need 30-50 members occasionally participating to have any fun, otherwise it feels like a failed party, and one reasonable sized city is not big enough. Participate in WikiProject Ohio, instead (or Iowa, or whatever is your state, :) ). doncram (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject: Piracy

Description
This WikiProject would be committed to organizing, improving, and expanding all articles on piracy. The Project would focus mainly on piracy in its Golden Age (1500's to 1700's), but we would also work on other eras of piracy. The Project would also cover privateering. Debate dude (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Debate dude (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • Thank you for pointing out that this project already exists. Debate dude (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Education in Malaysia

Description

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

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

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

Wikiproject Prisons

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This wikiproject can now be found at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Correction and Detention Facilities.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Description
A WikiProject to create and improve articles concerning specific prisons and detention facilities. Although similar to law, law enforcement, and human rights WikiProjects, the condition and history of specific prisons is important enough to merit a specific wikiproject. After all, a society is judged by its prisons. Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BD2412 (BD2412 requested I add his name here).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. JeffJ (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Locatorsjoy (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Longhair\talk 02:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Hetelllies (talk) 06:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I'll help out!MY♥INchile 00:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

A very useful potential project, as prisons have their own unique community of interest. bd2412 T 01:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability would be an issue. Like schools and large employers, prisons may receive significant local press, but the content of that press may be insubstantial in the eyes of most Wikipedians. As a short list of criteria, I would say that any of the following make it "presumably" notable: Notable for reasons other than specific inmates or routine press that typically accompanies an institution of its size; notable for a unique feature such as being the state or country's first, only, or historical location for executions, location or previous location of the state or country's primary prison hospital or prison mental hospital, other significant "first, only, or historical" qualities, or largest prison in a state or country. There may be other things that would make it notable, this is just a start. Examples of prisons that would not be presumed notable: If a state has 4 prisons, and all the "important" features like the main hospital, the death chamber, the prison museum, etc. are at the main unit, the other 3 wouldn't be presumed notable, and no stub should be written about them unless the stub-writer is planning on expanding it shortly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is an interesting issue. Perhaps if this project is approved it can model its notability policy on that of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Schools. I hope issues of notability will not divert us from the reality that the condition of individual prisons and their treatment of prisoners is a notable topic (for instance, at the risk of sounding US-centric, the protection of prisoners from cruel and unusual punishment is enshrined in 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution while education is not mentioned in the Constitution at all). I also note as an aside, because access to the internet for students is probably vastly superior than the access given prisoners, articles on schools will naturally be over-represented on wikipedia while prisons will be under-represented. I see this proposed wikiproject partially as a way to correct this inequity.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It can not be disputed, however, that there are some highly notable prisons (Alcatraz Island, Attica Correctional Facility, Riker's Island, the Bastille, the Tower of London, Abu Ghraib prison), along with many lesser-known but historically significant prisons, and prison-related concepts such as the Panopticon. All of these, I say, cry out for a governing project. bd2412 T 16:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've been thinking about this, and a better title might be Wikiproject Incarceration, or Wikiproject Prisons and Jails, to take account of prisons, jails and possible military detentions.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

May I also suggest Wikiproject Correction and Detention Facilities? --JeffJ (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just my 2 cents on notability: I'm very much biased on this topic, but I think most (but not all) older jails will have some sort of notability. In Ontario, it was pretty rare that a jail didn't see a hanging or two with the appropriate heinous crime attached. There are also usually records of corporal punishment, ill treatment, horrid living conditions, etc. All of these things speak to the society of the time. Modern facilities tend to have less colourful histories and usually only receive notoriety through a specific incident or innovation. So, getting back to older, historic jails, I think even a stub with a bit of general interest information reflecting the times can make for an enjoyable entry even for the layperson. I also think that stubs help encourage new editors to contribute, whereas the idea of creating their own article from scratch might be a bit daunting. Now, while I'm typing all this, it occurs to me that maybe each jurisdiction, state, country might have its own main article such as Correctional Facilities of Ontario, Canada, but with all the stubs arranged as sections within that article. Then a link could be provided to a main article if the facility is notable enough to have a more extensive entry.
Regarding red-links: You'll see several on the Correctional Facilities of Ontario, Canada list, but many of those jails have interesting histories, but no one has created an article yet (something I'm hoping to correct). For example, Andrew Mercer Reformatory for Women didn't have an article until just within the last few weeks. Now it has grown beyond just a stub with much more of its history yet to be reported.
Okay, so that was more like 8 cents. Bottom line: I'm very eager about this project, but don't want to see us get locked into (no pun intended) a format that might prove too restrictive. --JeffJ (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Law Enforcement (WP:LE) project cover all the prison articles, I suggest joining that. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 17:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Prisons deal not just with the enforcement of law but with punishment and rehabilitation, and general treatment of prisoners. Prisons are also used for political reasons outside the scope of civilian law. For example, prisoner of war camps are types of prisons that have little to do with the enforcement of law. I would also note that neither the Law Enforcement Wikiproject, nor the Law Wikiproject have shown very much inclination to focus on prisons in the past (See the absence of a wikiproject assessment from either at Talk:Alcatraz Island).
Also, historically there have been some prisons that served no legitimate law enforcement purpose, but were simply places to which political opponents or social "undesirables" were relegated. bd2412 T 18:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Description

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

List of important pages and categories for this proposed group

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

Support

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

  1. {{{3}}}

Discussion

Wikiproject Information theory

Description

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

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

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

Support

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


SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Wikiproject Sino-Japanese-Korean relations

Description

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

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

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

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

Neutral


Wikiproject Articles Needing Copy Edit

Description

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

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

Support

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

SWPP

Discussion

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

Wikiproject Peanuts

Description

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

Support

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

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Wikiproject Backlog

Description

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

Support

  1. NickPenguin(contribs) 03:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Wikiproject Biota of the British Isles

Description

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

Support

  1. Jack (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. jimfbleak (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

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

Neutral

Task forces/Work groups

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


Citation Task Force

Description

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

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

The O.C.

Description

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

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

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

30 Rock

Description

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

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

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

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

Why? +Hexagon1 (t) 03:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I want to help, but I can't really committ to anything, so I just want to help every now and then. That's why. Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 13:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish. But if I were you I'd just sign up. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The choice to set up this new group specifically to function as a task force of another project seems correct. -- GregManninLB (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Football Video Games

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


Andrew McMahon

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

Arrested Development (TV series)

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

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

Australian aviation taskforce

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

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

Battlefield (video games)

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

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

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

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

Chuck (TV series)

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

Interested Wikipedians (Add Your Name If Interested)
Discussion

Etruscans

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

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

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

Fancruft sorting and cleanup

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

Methodism

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

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

National Express West Midlands and Coventry bus routes work group

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

Oakland Raiders

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

Roman Catholicism in Great Britain

Description
This task force (connected to WikiProject Catholicism) would standardise the articles and templates pertaining to the religion of Roman Catholicism on the island of Great Britain (where England, Scotland and Wales are situated). This includes the modern day structure of the Church on the island, including the five provinces of England and Wales, as well as the two provinces of Scotland.[6]
There are many articles which I feel would benefit from the attentions of such as taskforce and it would be useful to centralise them all (including the general history) as in the huge main project they could be harder to find and sort, the articles related to it are currently lacking.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Yorkshirian (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Robotforaday (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neddyseagoon - talk 16:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • I can't contribute much, but I may be working on an article or two related to John Henry Newman in the near future, so I'll keep in touch. Dozenthey (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm trying to create a taskforce which may overlap with yours a bit. It's Sub-Roman Britain. During this time period many groups of people were Christianized and many of the important saints of Britain came from this time period. I don't know enough to help out in general, but we could collaborate on a whole lot of saints, monasteries, churches, etc. ---G.T.N. (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sakura Wars

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


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

September 11th

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

User:Noahcs/Userboxes/Sep11



Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Noah¢s (Talk) 20:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Leobold1 (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Basketball110 what famous people say 19:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. conningcris 00:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conningcris (talk contribs)
  6. Hetelllies (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Acs4b T C U 06:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • The image for the userbox should definitely be changed, imho. "Studying attacks" is not the same as "Memorialising victims", one could write specifically about Atta, or the financiers, or the FBI failings that led to the attacks - somebody may even celebrate the attacks...a ribbon "In memory of the lost" is simply not neutral enough. But the idea for a taskforce sounds good to me. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Fiction

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

Star Wars video games

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

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

Sub-Roman Britain

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

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

Tabla

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

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

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

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

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

Venus

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

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

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


Artist's books and multiples

Description

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

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

Chicago Cubs

Description

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

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

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Cleanup

Description

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

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

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

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

Dropkick Murphys

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

Religious creeds/denominations

Description

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

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

Christian creeds

Description

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

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

Christian theology

Description

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

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

Abrahamic Religions

Description

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

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

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

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

Prehistoric

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

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

WikiProject:Typography

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

WikiProject:Autism

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

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

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


WikiProject Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force

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

Canadian University Athletics

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

Manchester City Football Club

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

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

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

Magazines work group

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

Computer and Information Security taskforce

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

Here's a series of in-scope topics:

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

Gladiators (all series)

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

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


Wikiproject Cutlery

Description

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


Support

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

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Wikiproject DNS and Domain Names

Description

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


Support

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

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

WikiProject Anti-Vandalism Corps

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

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

Wikiproject Generations

Description

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

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

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

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

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

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


SWPP

Discussion

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

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

Wikiproject Voicestream Group

Description

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


Support

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

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Curling

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

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

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

Just a suggestion?

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


Wikiproject Psychiatry

Description

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

Menelaus2 21:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

Dinotopia

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

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

Bash #wikipedia-en

== Wikiproject En-Bash ==

Description

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

Support

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

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

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


Wikiproject Cheerleading

Description

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

Support

  1. 193.171.84.30 (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Wikiproject Left-wing bias Watch

Description

A Wikiproject dedicated to preserving neutrality on Wikipedia by identifying left-wing bias in all relevant wikipedia articles

Support

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

SWPP

Discussion

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

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

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

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

Support

Oppose

  • Count Iblis (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia should not be made a battleground for political and/or ideological disagreements. Bias is bias, regardless of whether it is left-wing, right-wing, or centrist (incidentally, what's considered "left-wing" in one country could be "right-wing" in another). Creating projects that target specific ideological leanings, even if the intention is a good one (to remove or counter bias), paves the way to forming political parties on Wikipedia. –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saying "bias is bias" does nothing whatsoever to improve neutrality standards on Wikipedia. This project is NOT about creating a battle between certain ideological viewpoints. It is wholly about addressing a neutrality gap. Aletheon (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe you that starting an ideological battle is not the project's intended purpose, but I believe that it will be its ultimate effect. There is no reason to remove or counter the bias of one side of the political spectrum and leave alone the bias of the opposite side. –Black Falcon (Talk) 15:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There actually is a pretty good reason to counter the bias from one side of the spectrum. This reason being that Wikipedia operates on a consensus model. This means that certain viewpoints can be easily marginalized, so long as the opposing viewpoint is in the majority (of current editors). See the global warming article history and talk page for good evidence of this kind of marginalization (although this Wikiproject proposal should in no sense be construed to be only about the global warming issue). Consensus and neutrality are not always mutually consistent goals. In fact history shows us they are often mutually inconsistent. Aletheon (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure why you point me to the global warming article... I'm aware that it's a controversial topic on Wikipedia and in politics, but I'm not seeing any clear example of marginalization of any particular point of view. (Of course, I haven't researched the topic too much, so perhaps that shouldn't be suprising.)
          • With regard to the WikiProject proposal, you seem to be claiming that en.wikipedia has an overall leftist bias. However, I have to wonder in what context you evaluate this. For instance, a political platform that is considered left-wing in the United States would likely be considered right-wing in most countries of Western Europe. The situation only becomes more muddled when we adopt a less Euro- and Anglo-centric perspective and consider the politics of South America, Africa, and Asia. Rather than trying to fight the bias of one side of the spectrum or the other, why not simply seek to promote NPOV? –Black Falcon (Talk) 01:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We are not Conservapedia. Let's not draw battlelines.Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  • I would only support such a proposal if there were also a right-wing bias watch, which is still bias and is not allowed. ~AH1(TCU) 21:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming as Wikipedia:WikiProject political bias watch and maintaining equal watch for all varieties of political bias. Otherwise, I see problems down the road. Likely answer from many people would be Conservapedia is thataway. DurovaCharge! 20:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Image restoration

Description

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

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

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

Discussion

Support

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

Oppose

Neutral

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

Wikiproject WikiProject Human-Computer Interaction

Description

A project to maintain, expand, and otherwise contribute to the articles on Human-Computer Interaction, Usability, and other HCI-related topics on Wikipedia. Would likely fall under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing.

Support

  1. Zeppomedio (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SWPP

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

  1. ^ 1
  2. ^ Google Answers: outdoor sports
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals&oldid=233198415"