Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York (state)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Quantocius Quantotius (talk | contribs) at 16:59, 25 October 2020 (→‎Cheryl Dinolfo: looks like this was already done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Merging inactive and semi-active WikiProjects

I have noticed that two WikiProjects of relevance to WPNY are inactive and another is semi-active. The inactive are Wikipedia:WikiProject Long Island and Wikipedia:WikiProject Syracuse, New York, and the semi-active are Wikipedia:WikiProject Capital District and Wikipedia:WikiProject Hudson Valley. Wikipedia:WikiProject Western New York isn't tagged as such, but I'm including it also.

All articles tagged in those projects should be tagged by WPNY as they are relevant to the project. To bring up some baseball biographies as examples, Patrick Corbin (a GA) is tagged with only the Syracuse project, while Marcus Stroman is only the Long Island project. Justin Dunn is tagged with NY and LI.

I believe the best way to handle these three WikiProjects that have not been able to sustain themselves as standalone projects is to merge them into WPNY as task forces, where all WPNY editors can more easily maintain them. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Is the purpose of this proposal to make these projects sub-projects under the main Template:WikiProject New York (state) banner? Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ejgreen77, yes, that is my intent. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I could get behind supporting that. Realistically speaking, there's nothing that could conceivably tagged under these projects where the WP:NY banner wouldn't also apply. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ejgreen77, with no other responses here, should I consider this uncontroversial? Or ping WPUS for more feedback? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say so. All the relevant projects have been notified, and everyone has been given ample time to chime in here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ejgreen77, alright. I'll read up on how to do it and make it happen in the next few days. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. let mme chime in bout Syracuse, maybe tomorrow. --Doncram (talk) 04:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, okie dokie. I'm still drafting the syntax changes offline atm. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2019

Hey Ejgreen77 and Muboshgu I have a few issues/questions:

  1. Notice given at wt:SYR and I assume similar at other one is minimal, easily missed. You are taking action to eradicate the WikiProjects. It deserves more explicit notice. I think the listed members of the WikiProjects should be informed directly on their user Talk pages, i.e. even more than just pinging them, which you have not done either. The notice given so far is inadequate, just "please consider commenting at wherever", as if this is merely an AFD of potential interest.
  2. What exactly are you proposing to do. Do you mean to leave the two WikiProjects in place (i.e. keep their main pages and their Talk pages and archives and everything else in place), and just list them technically as now being "Task Forces" of the NY WikiProject? That would not be very controversial. Or do you mean to take steps to redirect future potential discussion/activity of these WikiProjects, e.g. by redirecting their Talk pages, or changing the WikiProjects' templates at all their articles so that readers are directed somewhere different?
  3. My big concern is that future arriving editors should be able to find one another and have conversation. Redirecting all to a much higher WikiProject can completely stop/confound all future discussion. For a more extreme example, are you familiar with the fact that many of the U.S. state wikiprojects were, several years ago, eradicated by redirecting all their articles' Talk pages to point to WikiProject United States, instead. That was IMHO an utterly horrible thing to do. It completely cut off discussions and undermined later attempts by me and others to have discussions, e.g. at wt:UTAH. There is plenty which can be discussed at state (lower) level which simply cannot, will not, happen at U.S. level. Neither me nor any other wp:UTAH member would post a question about, say, neighborhoods in Salt Lake City, or some quirk about a historic site in some Utah county, at a national level discussion board. And the redirecting also cut off good stuff of editors occasionally posting about their accomplishments. No one arriving to read anything. Here, I am not sure what you are proposing exactly and it is probably not as bad as redirecting these to a National level wikiproject. But what are you planning exactly, and how will you try to revitalize discussion at the target WikiProject if you are planning to redirect stuff to there? And, could you please comment about the state redirections to national? --Doncram (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Doncram, guessing you didn't see my responses because I didn't ping you. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Since there's been no response to the ping, I'll move forward once I figure out how to. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do my best to answer these.
1. How else should notice have been given? Anyone with the WP on their watchlist should have been able to see it. I see that sort of wording in notices all the time. I meant it to be brief and neutral so as not to bias anyone's opinion before coming here. Also, I am not proposing that we "eradicate" WPs. I am proposing we downgrade them to task forces under this WP because having them as their own WPs doesn't seem practical.
2. I mean the noncontroversial path, to keep the WP project pages as they are but change the templating to make the geographical areas task forces with the WPNY banner. They can be treated like the Cornell, Columbia, and SUNY pages, which weren't deleted or moved when they were merged.
3. There really isn't much conversation going on on any of those WPs. The Long Island one has three posts from this year (one of them my notification) with no replies to any. The Syracuse project has had very little discussion over the last five years as well. At least if they find WPNY, there's a greater chance they can have people to discuss with. I don't really know anything about the Utah WP and what happened to it. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu, like you, I favor the non-controversial "leave everything the same, but collapse the banners" approach. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Muboshgu: This sounds good to me (I was directed here from your notice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Western New York). I agree that it's better to have interested editors redirected to a more-active talk page rather than a completely dormant one. If you need a hand implementing this, let me know and I'm happy to help out. Thanks for bringing this up! Ajpolino (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ajpolino, thanks! Do you know anything about the syntax? I tried working on it and couldn't make all the projects appear. I may need to go to the template experts for that. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Muboshgu: Only a little. If no one else beats me to it, I can take a crack at editing the banner template in its sandbox this week. I'll keep you posted. Ajpolino (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu, Ajpolino, Ejgreen77, and Doncram:The proposed template change has been  Implemented by MSGJ, with this edit, however, some additional work will be needed to complete the merger. I don't think I'll have much time outside of today for at least the next week, but I'll try to assist when I can. If any further time-insensitive technical work is needed, feel free to ping me or drop me a line on meta, with the caveat that it may take a few weeks from request to implementation, thank you. 𝒬𝔔 20:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quantocius Quantotius, yay!!! I'll take a look later. Need to focus on some other things atm. Thanks for your help! – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ejgreen77: No it was not included, because it is currently active and self-sustaining, and thus would not be covered by the consensus above. Indeed, judging by the flurry of activity in response to the commons request for categorization there, compared to the complete lack of response here, it may be more active. That change would also be complicated by the fact that WikiProject New York City already has its own task forces. An interesting idea for future consideration would actually be to place the WikiProject Columbia University task-force under WikiProject New York City instead, although that discussion can be deferred for the moment. This will still remain the parent project of WikiProject New York City. If you have any further questions or requests please feel free to ask. I'm a little bit less sanguine about having sufficient free-time to finish the merger this coming week now than I was earlier, but it should still be done by the end of the month. (please ping on reply)
𝒬𝔔 23:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Please allow a few days for replies, I can usually respond within the week.
So uh, has this been done?NYCDOT (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Pinging discussion participants (Muboshgu—Ajpolino—Ejgreen77—Doncram—NYCDOT). I hope everyone is doing well. I know I'm not the only one whose time commitments have been radically altered by the events of the past few months so I hope you'll forgive the delay. To make things clear since we are not moving any pages,

  checkY Merger complete.

with a hat tip to Primefac for effecting the necessary bot runs.

There is still some post merge work to be done. For the most part it's little things like adding taskforce=yes to their statuses. I also understand part of the plan is to redirect some talk pages to the ones most likely to be active after archiving all remaining discussions on them (i.e. TALKCENT).

However, it's not quite clear to me if we are just redirecting all pages under say Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western New York to the taskforces' primary talkpages (in that case Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western New York) or if all taskforce talk pages including the primary one are being redirected to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York (state), which would presumably include everything in Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York (state) as well, hence the group ping so I can make sure we're all on the same page to avoid duplication of effort.

Unfortunately I'm a little short on time today, but I'll try to find some time Sunday hopefully, and in any event I doubt anyone will need my help to redirect pages anyway. On a semi-related note I tweaked the main project page to fix the post-expand size issue along with a few other things and added myself as a member just to make things official.

𝒬𝔔 00:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I was in favor of combining/collapsing the project banners, I am opposed to the redirection of the individual project talk pages. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ejgreen77: Thanks for your reply. Just to clarify are you also opposed to redirecting the taskforce talk subpages e.g. Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western New York to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western New York?
      Aside from that looks like some people involved in the discussion have not been active recently, so it may be a while before we hear back, but it's not like we're on a timetable.
      FWIW I consider myself more or less neutral I can see both the arguement for directing people to a more active discussion area and the arguement for how that could choke off taskforce specific discussion, and I think Doncram and Ajpolino both already did a good job of laying out the opposing positions above so barring further input by others I don't really have much else to add to the discussion.
      𝒬𝔔 23:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I am opposed to all redirections, as I don't see any benefit to them. It's not like this talk page is particularly active anyways, LOL. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week

Hello there. This is an invitation to join the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week. £250 (c. $310) is being given away in May, June and July with £20 worth of prizes to give away every week for most articles destubbed. Each week there is a different region of focus, including the week ending July 5th dedicated to the US, though half the prize will still be rewarded for articles on any subject. There's a potential £120 to be won in total for destubbing on any subject or region of your choice. Sign up if you want to contribute at least one of the weeks or support the idea! † Encyclopædius 12:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

A discussion which may be of interest to the members of this group can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Dinolfo

Hi! I recently created an article titled Cheryl Dinolfo. She is a former county executive of Monroe County, New York. How does this article officially become part of WikiProject NYS? Or should this article be categorized in a different WikiProject? Dswitz10734 (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dswitz10734: looks like Ejgreen77 already got this done, but for future reference all you need to do to add an appropriate article to WPNY is place {{WikiProject New York (state)}} on it's talk page. If there are already other WikiProjects just place it with them (alphabetical order is common but not required), if not see WP:TPL for where to place it. If the talk page hasn't been created yet, then be bold and start it with just the WikiProjects you know about, and others will be along eventually to add to it.
Relatedly, I'm around infrequently, and this talk page is fairly quite these days so I recommend posting your questions at the TEAHOUSE in the future to get a faster response. Though you shold of course feel welcome to post here at anytime, just understanding there may be a little delay prior to any response.
𝒬𝔔 16:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_York_(state)&oldid=985381498"