Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2


WikiProject 1990s

The purpose of this project is to add or update articles that related to the decade. Such as music groups, television shows, movies, news/world events, etc.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. leemcd56
  2. User:Hailey C. Shannon
  3. I love the 90's. Abeg92contribs 02:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Monnitewars (talk)
  5. Polarbear97 (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not really good at wording, so I'm gonna really need some help writing the project page. I'm sorry that I also have the project page already started. I guess I should have waited =(. Leemcd56 05:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm a child of the ninties being born in OCtober of 1990. :) --Monnitewars (talk) 03:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


Description: This Wikiproject would focus on anything having to do with abolitionism, the history of abolitionism, instances of abolitionism, the biographies of notable abolitionists in United States, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and around the world. Psdubow 21:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

  1. Psdubow 21:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments: Am I correct in assuming this is referring to the abolition of slavery? John Carter 20:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Abolitionism, the abolition of slavery. Psdubow 23:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd be interested in the comparative research into abolitionisms of various kinds:
    • the abolition of human slavery, exploitation, and abuse
    • the abolition of nonhuman (animal) slavery, exploitation, and abuse

and definitional issues (there are all kinds of 'welfarists' who take 'incrementalist' approaches on the basis that their lives are better, practically, with 'welfarist' measures - but not optimally better and 'free' in some deontological sense. MaynardClark (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Acoustic Music

Description: This WikiProject will help to create, expand, and complete articles about acoustic music. It will work on articles about artists, bands, songs, albums, EP's, singles, compilations, and tours.

Temporary project page: User:Hmwith/Wikiproject Acoustic Music

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

  1. hmwithtalk
  2. Swannie 01:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)-good idea for a wikiproject!


  • I think this is both too broad and too vague to take action. -- Mikeblas 12:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree: it seems to cover almost all the music you can think of except for the music of the spheres. Nevertheless, if interested people can be found to give it focus and (perhaps) a different name it could be useful. —Ian Spackman 14:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it be useful to include this as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Roots music (which covers Folk and Traditional as well)? All the styles listed at Acoustic music fall within the scope of the Roots music WikiProject (although that WikiProject covers Electric Folk too). If you're basing the project around the stuff listed on the Acoustic Music page, you might even want to form an American roots music task force as a child of the Roots music project.

I also note that you've listed "Acoustic music" as a child project of Rock music. Since most acoustic music is not rock music, this probably indicates that you want to make a Wikipedia:WikiProject Acoustic Rock music project instead (which is a much more well-defined field). I recommend rethinking the name and scope of the project. Specifically, the following are acoustic styles; do you want to include them?

If you want to include non-Rock genres, but not the ones I mentioned, then you might want to consider a Wikipedia:WikiProject Acoustic Popular music project.

-- TimNelson 07:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


This project will help assemble and maintain a detailed database of political, religious and social activists. It will work to insure that the biographies avoid any POV, adhere to the guidelines for biographies and make certain that the integrity of the subject is preserved.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Ozgod
  2. l337p4wn
  3. Psdubow

Would I be correct in assuming that this project would deal primarily with individuals? If so, then it might most easily function as a work group of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. John Carter 13:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Admin Nomination project

In Wikipedia, there are a significant number of editors who wish to apply for adminship but whom do not want to self-nominate. This project aims to allow these individuals to list themselves in an orderly fashion so that others can nominate them.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Nathanww 17:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Zucchini MarieComplain here Please sign! 00:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Eskimospy 23:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I fail to see how wikipedia would benefit from having such a list. If one wishes to find a "sponsor" for nomination, I think simply requesting an editor review and indicating that you are considering becoming an admin should be enough to hopefully get someone to agree to nominate one. Also, this does, at least at present, look suspiciously like soliciting for approval, which could be counterproductive. We could have a case where people nominate simply on the basis on the list, which basically takes away the purpose of having a nominator, which is having someone familiar with the subject and his/her activity who can dispassionately indicate that they believe the candidate has, as it were, "measured up." I realize I could be wrong on some of these points, and would welcome responses to them. John Carter 00:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Asking for someone to nominate you borders on canvassing, and even if this is not intended, there many editors could oppose an RfA for that reason. After all, there is no reason why anyone can't self-nominate. Should anyone oppose a self-nomination for that reason, they'll be bombarded by more opposition than they can deal with. Cheeri-o, Arknascar44 ¡Hablar Conmigo! 22:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That.. seems kind of silly. If you put yourself on the list you are basically nominating yourself, but with a slower process. -- Ned Scott 03:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Admin coaching seems to be where people seeking to become sysops should go. Additionally, you could probably expect significant opposition at RfA. You may wish to raise the issue on the RfA talk page to see what kind of response you might get from such a project. Vassyana 00:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with the comments above ... I do not view this project to be unnecessary bureaucracy. There are already many ways non-admin users can express an interest in becoming an admin, including editor review, admin coaching, and by placing oneself in Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls. In addition, there is nothing inherently wrong with self-nominations (at most, one person will oppose for that reason and will be met with significant criticism). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 05:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Like the above wikipedians. I don't really feel there is a need for this kind of Project. We have Editor review. We have Admin coaching. I think that project would become redundant quite quickly. --Тλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 19:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I also think this project isn't all that helpful or necessary. Putting yourself on a list to be nominated is pretty much the same as self-nominating anyway. Just as other editors have linked above, there is Editor Review and Admin Coaching. I just don't see this project really helping Wikipedia a whole lot. Useight 13:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • And, if any of the editors who put their names down here are still interested, they might like to check this out. Cheers, Arky ¡Hablar! 14:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • i personally don't like self-noms so the idea of doing it the other way (via a WP) is even worse. i agree that Admin Coaching and the ER are doing the job. The proposed wikiproject may just discourage people from being coached. - FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin Oversight Board

Description - To try to determine if it is feasible to create a board of administrators and non-administrators, possibly with wikipedia bureaucrats and staff as well, which could act in a judicial capacity to review behavior of administrators, specifically regarding the propriety of their actions, and how such a board could be specifically constituted. The existence of such a board composed of respected non-administrators and administrators alike may be sufficient to forestall questioning of whether a decision made by it is truly fair and independent, as opposed to being a group of administrators who might be seen as acting to reduce the possibility of being sanctioned for similar actions of their own. It also might be sufficient to preempt the possibility of disaffected editors from going so far as to bring civil complaints against wikipedia as an entity or against individual administrators in particular.

Temporary Project Page: User:Badbilltucker/Admin Oversight Board

Interested wikipedians (please add your name below):


  • You might want to get some more feedback about this, even if others gain interest in the project. Maybe a note about this idea should be left on WP:AN? -- Ned Scott 10:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ermm, sounds burocratic to me. -- Selmo (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Sounds more like warmongering to me. "Warn me again, and I'll drag you in front of the Oversight committee!" --InShaneee 22:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

      • Actually, I thought of it as more of the opposite. I personally imagine that most of the complaints would be dismissed summarily for lack of evidence or for perhaps small criticism of the admin in question (maybe for using a remotely potentially insulting phrase, for instance), but the simple fact of having an independent body doing so would, I hope, eliminate the number of complaints about admin collusion and suchlike. Much like the average police board, it might investigate a lot of complaints, but in almost all cases they find that there has been no real abuse of power. Also, I don't think that it would necessarily have any real authority, other than that given it by the community as a whole. However, the mere presence of the body and the rebukes it would offer over time would I think be enough to prove that it is independent, and thus hopefully avoid complainants indulging in other procedures, like lawsuits (as has been mentioned before by others), defamation of the admin in question, etc. etc. etc. Badbilltucker 02:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        • First of all, I can guarantee you that the second this is created, there will be accusations that it's run by 'the cabal'. Secondly, this smacks of a judicial system. Regardless of what power it may or may not be given at creation, you're asking it's members to weigh judgement on other admins. We do have processes to determine this, and simply put, we need less lawyering around here, not more. --InShaneee 16:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
        • No disagreement to the last point. As stated above, the primary purpose of the group would be to create a body which by its existence would serve to help keep real lawyers and lawsuits getting involved in wikipedia's actions. Badbilltucker 16:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
          • That's what OFFICE does, though. --InShaneee 00:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Actually, that restricts itself only to content. The possibility of a disgruntled editor who has been banned and later files a legal action based on that ban has been raised more than once, and in the event that any admin were named as a defendant in such a lawsuit even once, and has to hire council to defend his/her actions, I think there is a very real chance of total chaos erupting. That is what this proposal is trying to prevent ever happening. Badbilltucker 00:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
              • I'm sorry, but I don't see how a wikiproject with no official power on the wiki could have any bearing on a legal proceeding. --InShaneee 03:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
                • I can see this working, It would have the power of the community, and if enough people speak in favor, or not in favor of something, it cannot be ignored. DTGardner 17:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Who currently does "oversight" for the admin? What made you want to create this, have you seen an admin that needed oversight? YaanchSpeak! 23:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I have, at least one. Ukrained 10:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Before an action like this is taken I'd like to see that there is a real need for this. Most of the complaints against me as an admin are from those with no concept of copyright... and if this is the case for most admins then I see this board as getting tired of stupid listening to silly cases repeatedly. When people feel the need they take it up at WP:AN. Are you arguing that this isn't enough? That being said, I don't know how other admins act... but I try to keep my debating a topic completely separate from admin duties. gren グレン 16:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see the point. We already have mechanisms for this, ranging from RfC to AN to DR to mediation to ArbCom, depending on the context and the severity of the dispute. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 17:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I would suggest that this be changed to an advisory and information-seeking board. Like SMcCandish, I do not want to add to the number of overlapping jurisdictions, and I think the general WP feeling is against doing so. But there could well be a less formal channel, in essence a special variant of AN. I see this project as not primarily serving as a place for complaints, but asa pace for collecting information on a routine and ongoing basis, possible programmatically. As for legal issues, I think the existing WP:OFFICE structure is suffficient. DGG 01:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The editor who created the page above seems to be inactive. If I might rephrase the possible set-up, I think it might make sense if this were to function as a form of "evidence gathering" group which might try to find evidence for any administrator abuse of the system which a given party thinks might have been overlooked. I can see it being useful under such conditions. One, if they were to find evidence which had been overlooked which they thought might be considered significant, they could present it to the community as a whole through some procedure for possible future action. Secondly, if they fairly carefully went over the case presented and found insufficient evidence to substantiate any real misconduct on the part of the admin in question and explicitly stated as much, it might help prevent the possibility of nuisance legal action. Most attorneys, after all, will not take a case if there is no hard evidence to support it, and if this group goes over a case and finds no sufficiently "damning" evidence to support a case, then it is that much less likely that the complaint would result in a pointlesss legal action which might potentially get negative press for wikipedia. I think the probability of some such nuisance lawsuit arising, unfortunately, is fairly good, and on that basis don't favor removing this proposed project from the list, even if I do not believe I would necessarily participate in it. John Carter 15:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Considering we already have a mediation committee and arbitration committee, why not make it a reviwing board. The Project could examine and review the progress of admin, and decide if they were still worthy to be admins. Then if the consensus was that he or she was unworthy the Admin could be brought before a beaucrat, and there would be a vote on whether or not the admin should remain admin. If that is to much, why not just have a ranking of the quality of admins by consensus. --Random Say it here! 20:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree that it should just be evidence-gathering, and a place for frustrated people to go. I think the next step after that would usually be one of the standard WP processes--I would strongly dislike adding a new one. DGG 03:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Any ideas what if anything should be done with it now? John Carter 14:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

African Protected Areas task force

Aftermath Entertainment


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)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. ZAPMUT (talk)

Algonquin Round Table

The focus of the project would be articles relating to the Algonquin Round Table, including its members and their literary works.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Otto4711 17:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Chris 06:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. gareth 23:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, a project of depth, thought and lasting impact! Most cool, I'm in! Chris 06:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sharpening my olive stick right now :) Gareth E Kegg 22:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


Description-This project is both an article building project and a community building project. I have an ambition. To help build a wiki, greater than any other. To help shape the community into the ultimate pride in editing, and such. This project can help make wikipedia elite. The idea of the Alphawiki project is to keep check on the community, and its editors. The first point being an awards scheme. To give all the best editors barnstars. Because there are many editors who work hard all the time and never get noticed. Whilst having its own IRC channel, and it teachers wikipedians to take pride and glory in editing; to hopefully help form articles, stubs, add references and such; and the main aim, is to transform wikipedia into the largest most accurate source of information in the world. Eaomatrix 19:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The basic goal of Alphawiki though is to help build a happy and prideful community, whilst doing helpful maintenance and backlog work and improving articles through reference additions, cleanup, removal of copyright violations, whilst expanding articles. Also recognising editors and giving barnstars to hardworking contributors.

Aims and goals
  • Help out on editor review.
  • Help build userboxes, and userpages, help users to assume good faith.
  • A coaching area for all editors, to help improve wiki and sort out its problems.
  • Create a new IRC experience.
  • Help list references for thousands of articles and help promote them to GA and FA
  • To build an established united community, where people take pride in editing.
  • Constant updates to the defcon and other facilities, keep wikipedia under check.
  • Helping out on backlogs. Categories, and such.
  • To recognise all editors and award barnstars to them.
  • To teach wikipedians to have pride in editing, so we can make wikipedia something we can be proud of.
  • To also make wiki Fun (As well as having a WP:FUN)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)


  • I have no specific objections to the proposal per se, because it so far completely lacks any specifics. It would greatly benefit from having indications of specific procedures and goals. John Carter 20:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've been bored ever since Esperanza... Oh. Wait. This is kinda like that, isn't it? ScaleneUserPageTalkContributionsBiography style="color:#00F;">Є 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Not like esperanza. Because this one is more focused towards article building; but I would like Esperanza back. Eaomatrix 12:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  • All these things are already done on a place called "Wikipedia". We do all of these things, but as Wikipedians, and not as a closed group. -- Ned Scott 03:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I like the concept in general, but I don't think it would be very pratical. Your plan for the project would be to have a article building, community building, fixing project. I know that that is a simplification, but that is the general concept. I don't quite understand the need for that sort of Project, when we have projects to build articles, the community, and to maintain wikipedia already. --Тλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 19:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

American Old West

Goal is to branch off of the Wiki United States project (which the American Old West article links to) and create an entirely separate project dedicated to identifying and improving articles that are based on the often romanticized American history between the mid-to-late 1800s. The topics this project seeks to improve: historical gunslingers, cowboys, historical Native Americans, Western expansion, tall tales, saloons and fronteir entertainment, etc. Also included could be the portrayal of the Old West in modern fiction.

A major focus of this project would be to expand articles on individual figures of the American Old West (gunslingers primarily.)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Meilander
  2. Psdubow
  3. Chris 22:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Evb-wiki 05 September 2007


This is a proposal for a WikiProject in which is similar to the random smiley award but it is not random award, it's main purpose would be to recognise peoples contributions to our encyclopedia, no matter how many or how minor they are, as-well as to make wikipedians know that all of the contributions are greatly appreciated and therefore creating optimism on wikipedia and encouraging further contributions. If there were enough active members I'd be willing to create templates for members to distribute onto other users' talk pages just saying about the project and thanks for their contributions. I'd be willing to help on this myself and create the project page etc and hopefully make it a success with many members.Tellyaddict 15:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Temporary project page
User:Greeves/WikiProject User appreciation
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Greeves (talk contribs)
  2. Jerry_lavoie (talk contribs count)
  • Good idea but some WP have already created depts. for their project scope (i.e. WP:MILAW). So why not encourage such ideas w/in individual projects scope instead of making it universal? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Arunachal Pradesh

A project, probably working with Wikipedia:WikiProject India, to work on articles relating to the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. [your name here]
  • This may be better suited as a task force of WP:INDIA than a WikiProject of it's own. Polarbear97 (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Auditing Standards for Wikipedia Content


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.


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





  • 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)
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)
  • Oppose -too vague and narrow in scope The Bald One White cat 12:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


Austrian Economics

This WikiProject will help to create and expand articles relating to the Austrian School of Economics and to expand the coverage of Austrian Economics in general Economics articles. This would be a subproject of the Economics WikiProject.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Life, Liberty, Property
  • I got the idea for this Wikiproject when I browsed through Wikipedia and noticed the poor quality of the article on Human Action. The article on Wealth of Nations is about 5 times longer than the one on Human Action. There also is very little content in the Human Action article. If there is sufficient interest, I'll create this WikiProject. Life, Liberty, Property 17:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There is an inactive Austria project. How about making the AUstria project active again and making this a Task Force? Kingjeff 18:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Here is the Austria project. Kingjeff 18:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Austrian Economics really doesn't have much to do with Austria. From the introduction of its Wikipedia article; "The Austrian School, also known as the "Vienna School" or the "Psychological School", is a school of economic thought that advocates adherence to strict methodological individualism." It is known as Austrian Economics merely because it began in Austria, even though most of the recent Austrian Economists have been Americans. If it were to be a Task Force of a WikiProject, the most suitable WikiProject to make it a Task Force of would be the Economics WikiProject. Life, Liberty, Property 18:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

A task force can be involved with multiple projects. Kingjeff 18:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


  • This wikiproject would be about autism, asperger's syndrome, people related to said diseases, people on the autistic spectrum, and for news related to autism.

Just a note, I won't actively contribute to the project, but I strongly believe it ought to exist, but shouldn't the term used be "Spectrum disorder", or are you using "Autism" because of the commonly used term? lincalinca 03:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If the word "autism" is used in the title, it would probably be because it's the most commonly used word. But as there hasn't been a page created yet, the final name is really yet to be decided. John Carter 23:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - There are a lot of "autism activism" organizations and activists currently included in wikipedia, and it would be good to get some clarity for organization of these folks. Frankly, however, I would be considered about a project that included all activists. Unfortunately, in my experience, some projects around subjects in which there are activist interest end up being dominated by activist perspectives. The straightforward NPOV issues of language are easily dealt with; but structural biases that creep in around categorizing, article structure, infoboxes, and other issues are much harder to deal with -- harder to identify, harder to explain, harder to address and fix; and yet still just as present. I would like to see such a project include academic & scientific perspectives as well as activist perspectives. At the very least, the project needs to address that potential problem in its project description. What are the plans to address this kind of issue? --Lquilter (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Bahá'í Faith


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)TCM☯ 17:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

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


A WikiProject to set standards for, and help projects with, WikiProject banners.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Miketm 10:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Agathoclea 15:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't this be something that the Council could assist with? I would help out with this new WikiProject if it was formed but I don't know if a Project with such a narrow focus is needed.↔NMajdantalk 16:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, this seems like something that could be better done directly through the Council; we probably don't need more "meta-WikiProjects" at this stage. Kirill Lokshin 18:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Setting this up as a specific task for Council would probably be more efficient. -- Ned Scott 18:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's up to anyone but the projects to design, make, and handle their own banners. Any effort by the Council to manage the banners would have to be approved by all the projects, IMO. --MPD T / C 21:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I was under the impression that this was intended as an effort to help projects with the technical aspects of banners, not an attempt to control them. (FWIW, I don't like the latter idea either.) Kirill Lokshin 21:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
        • The word "standards" in the description brings up thoughts of cookie-cutter banners. Technical aspects and help is perfectly fine and would be appreciated, I'm sure. Perhaps then, it could be a sub-project of the Council, rather than its own project. I define banners as the template at the top of a it could be broadened to be a more "Templates" sub-project, which would help with all templates needed by a project(unless that's what's implied and I'm not on the same page). Just to clarify. :) --MPD T / C 22:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
          • In that case you might just want to collaborate a revamp of WP:TPT, which could be a lot more useful than it currently is. -- Ned Scott 22:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • When I say standards I'm talking about a naming convention, a starter template that projects can expand and customize and things like that. This project would not tell projects what there banners should look like, or how they should work, but how they can improve and make them work more effectively.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 02:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • In reply to Kirill, seeing as how unchecked wikiproject template spamming has now reached levels where it is starting to noticeably degrade the usability of talk pages, I think some measure of control/regulation is necessary. However, it is inappropriate for the wikiproject council to define those standards. As the TFD nomination has shown, the wikiproject council and its members have an obvious bias in favor of wikiprojects, and against what is in the best interests of the average reader and contributor (who are not wikiproject members). Or, as I previously noted, the NRA should not be writing gun control legislation. Raul654 15:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • There are some bold asseertions here. If this were an article I would definitely tag Raul's statement with {{fact}}. I'd like to see any evidence Raul can provide to back up the claim that "the wikiproject council and its members have an obvious bias...against waht is in the best interests of the average reader and contributor". I think that is a scandalous claim. Force10 15:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Nice to see that AGF is alive and well these days. Kirill Lokshin 15:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • It's not their good faith I doubt - I don't doubt that they mean well. It's the fact that they have an insurmountable conflict of interest. Already, there's at least one bot wikiproject-tagging hundreds of articles per day, and the best solution the wikiproject council has come up with to date is the small=yes non-solution. The *last* thing I want is the wikproject council forming some sort of banners meta-project with airs of authority, setting "standards" which obviously favor its own interests (that is, many large and obtrusive banners which are displayed by default) above the interests of the community at large (which prefers small, uncluttered talk pages). Raul654 16:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Insurmountable conflict of interest indeed! It's not like Council members had any role in developing {{WikiProjectBanners}} or anything like that. I would have thought that our sincerity, at least, would not be in doubt; but it seems that I was mistaken. C'est la vie, as it were. Kirill Lokshin 16:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I would only note to the above editor that the person to whom he seemingly directly addressed the above comment created the User:Kirill Lokshin/Sandbox/Template14 template, which if used would probably do more to decrease clutter than just about anything else I've seen to date. John Carter 16:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
          • "which if used would probably do more to decrease clutter than just about anything else I've seen to date." - then I guess you haven't seen Template:WikiProjectBanners, which ((unlike the above) is already deployed and used on 600-or-so articles. Raul654 16:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
            • No, actually, I have seen it, as is evidenced by my comment here. The template above referenced by me goes a step further, though, and actually displays the projects' names, something the example you cited does not do, and, at least potentially, decreases the need for interested parties to ever have to see the specific banners, and could, at least potentially, replace them in some cases somewhere down the road. John Carter 16:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Um... would WikiProject Banners have a banner? *head asplodes* No, seriously, I don't think this is a good idea. Not even a good idea for the Council, either. This should be done in the Village Pump. Titoxd(?!?) 23:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should have this at all. It is not fair for one WikiProject to have authority over how other WikiProjects use banners. Johntex\talk 15:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I like this idea if and only if one of the goals of the project (besides regulating banner styles and whatnot) would be to assist WikiProjects in specializing their banners (with the complicated code most of us haven't learned) to best meet the needs of each project. I know my project could benefit from someone with technical expertise. KSchutte 22:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This is needed, but it should be a Council task force. There's no reason to create a new project about this, from my point of view. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 17:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC) PS: I agree a bit with the concerns about control; "setting standards" can be interpreted more than one way. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 17:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • i think that there shouldn't be a separate wikiproject, but a task force would be good, not for regulation but for guidance and help with coding. baby_ifritah 00:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It sounds to me like the consensus is that we need to expand on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Technical notes. This could be called a "Topic Co-ordination" (this is even smaller than a task force). In fact, we could read the section I wrote a few hours ago about Topic Co-ordination, and put that to the test. -- TimNelson 02:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Project Banners

Many articles need a wikiproject template on their talk page. This greatly improves their chances of, well, being improved. This project would also deal with the improvement of wikiproject banners. A wikiproject coordinator could just come to this project and ask for help on their banner. I've asked for a bot that could compile a list of these articles. This request can be found here.
Temporary page
User:The Psychless/Temp_work
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Psychless 20:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. MahangaTalk 03:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We already have a small group which is trying to ensure that all articles get assessed here. If you can get that bot up and running, we can then try to get some of the relevant projects to try to do assessment drives like Biography is now doing. Thanks for the work there, by the way! We could probably talk some other projects, individually or collectively, to do some assessment drives if they had several more articles bannered. John Carter 21:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This project would not deal with assessing articles. It deals with tagging articles with a wikiproject's template. It is their responsibility to assess the articles, if they participate in assessment. --Psychless 22:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Understood. But getting the articles tagged in the first place would be a great help to a number of projects. John Carter 22:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Isn't that my point? :) --Psychless 14:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally I'd be more interrested in the second part of the project, as it would mean the various banners would be interoperable - which in turn helps in helping out accross borders ie I would tag an article for any country wikiproject because they all work the same. But is there really a need? Most of that work has been done, and there are only a handful of codewizzards whose code gets copied anyway. Agathoclea 22:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm very interested in finding articles without a wikiproject banner on them and perhaps starting a new wikiproject if none exists. I also think we should work together with WP 1.0 Work Via Wikiprojects. I think a bot could be of great help to us. A bot could tag Category:Software with the Software wikiproject banner. A side note, I don't think we should spend so much time assessing the articles. It's more important to tag the article with a wikiproject banner and have someone from the project (who's more experienced do the rating).
A major problem is that sometimes the wikiproject does not have assessment set up or worse, is inactive. This seems to happen a lot with such broad projects, like software. We'll probably have to revive the project a little bit and set up the assessment functionality ourselves. Secondly, the project may be too broad to use for tagging. I think sometimes, it may be better to create a subproject. For example, Category:Windows software would be better being tagged with a Windows software wikiproject (which currently doesn't exist), instead of the all-encompassing software project. MahangaTalk 03:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Basketball players

This proposed group would work with the existing Biography and Basketball projects specifically on biographies of basketball players, coaches, team owners, announcers, officials, etc. and other related articles.
Interested wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. John Carter 13:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Sweet100000

I think it's a good idea. I'll be happy to help with this--Sweet100000 (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Beanie Babies

This project would contain articles pertaining to the Beanie Babies fad of the late 1990s. The articles within would be about either the Beanie Babies themselves, news stories and events relating to Beanie Babies, and other concepts that in one way or another, had something to do with the collectibles.

Some articles would be about individual Beanie Babies. An example is Princess (Beanie Baby). Obviously, there cannot be a single article dedicated to each Beanie Baby. Individual articles would be reserved for the most notable ones of all. These may include those that were worth the most money (like Peking, Chilly, or Humphrey), those that had rare versions worth a lot of money (like Peanut or Quackers), those that were otherwise highly sought, or those that represented a particular cause, like Princess.

There may also be articles on certain groups of Beanies that had notability, but in which individual beanies within the group did not have notability. Some examples of groups could be The Original Nine, exclusives to a particular country, Teenie Beanies, etc. Entry of name (Beanie Baby) of a member of the group would then redirect to that page.

For all other beanies that do not fit into a notable group, they could be included on a page that simply provides lists of beanies in charts, along with some rudimentary information. Charts can be divided onto various pages, assorted by topics like the year they were introduced, the year they were retired, the animal type, etc. There could also be pages such as List of Beanie Baby Dogs, List of Beanie Baby Sports Bears, etc.

The purpose of the articles would be to mention how Beanie Babies impacted society, and how the craze affected the behavior of the public. Articles about well-known beanies would, whenever sources could be found, describe how beanies influenced various activities of people, such as spending habits, planned events, and mishaps that were caused (such as fights).

A picture of each beanie that is featured in an article should be included. I, myself have a lot of the beanies that were popular in the 90s, but not all, and most are stored away. I am presently trying to dig them out to photograph them for articles. I would appreciate an effort on the part of others to place pictures. Until a picture can be obtained, the article should remain a stub, or else other notation should be included that a picture is wanted.

I am also doing a lot of research to find links to pages that provide information that can be included in articles. Xyz7890 17:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have some Beanies, and I could take photos and them. Sebwite 20:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Sebwite 20:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Swannie 18:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC) --Sounds like a good idea! :)


This seems like a poor WikiProject - too few articles would be covered, and there's little reason to think that an enduring effort in this area is needed. A taskforce under an existing project would probably be better suited to the task. Phil Sandifer 20:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Should not be a project. I honestly see only one article on this topic: The Beanie Baby fad including the effect on society; included within that could be a discussion of most notable beanie babies. But even the most notable individual beanie babies shouldn't have their own separate, individual topics. Don't Pokemon me -- I would apply the same treatment to Pokemon. --Lquilter (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)



This project covers the creation and editing of articles related to the City of Berlin, its buroughs, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on. It aims to expand Wikipedia's resources on Berlin in a fair and accurate manner.

Temporary page
Interested Wikipedians
  1. Kingjeff 21:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would better to create taskforce under wikiproject Germany. Angelbo Talk / Contribs 22:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Beyond Good & Evil task force (WikiProject Video games)

This task force will create and expand articles around the fantastic universe of the video game Beyond Good & Evil.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. MrStalker
  • How much can there be that's going to be notable outside of the universe of a single game, per WP:FICT? This may be a better for a gaming wiki. --Masem 13:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Too narrow, even for a task force. Pagrashtak 16:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be better to propose this on WT:VG. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-30 23:55


A project, probably working with Wikipedia:WikiProject India, to work on articles relating to the Indian state of Bihar.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. [your name here]
  • Should be a task force within that WikiProject, not a separate project. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


Kimdime69, Poulpy and I are about to start a brand new project dedicated to geopolitical boundaries on the French-speaking version of Wikipedia. In order to do so, we have recently created more than 40 articles — out of 310 — about international borders. As you can see on Frontière terrestre entre le Brésil et la France and on other pages, their content deals with as many topics as geography, history and international law. Thus, they all can become quite large and interesting. Moreover, many pictures and maps can be found on Commons and added to them.

Yet, as it appears that none of the other Wikipedias have followed us down our path, we are now wondering whether or not it is a good idea to go on and set up a project on its own. That's why I am interested in getting your points of view. And also because some help from the English version would be great. Thierry Caro 22:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. ALK
  2. John Carter 20:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope this message was sent in the right place. If not, feel free to move it accordingly. Thierry Caro 22:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It probably is. I do have a few questions, and my apologies that my own French is nonexistent.
Borders will be the first step. When completed, the project will then extend a little bit, for instance to enclaves. Thierry Caro 14:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • (2) Are you specifically asking whether a sister project could be set up in the English wikipedia as well? John Carter 17:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am. We would like to have an international approach on the subject. Thierry Caro 14:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Cantopop Music

My Wikiproject is based on information on Cantonese Music. (See Cantopop) This WikiProject includes information of Hong Kong singers, songs, and albums. This WikiProject would help Wikipedia by adding more information, and improving stub articles about Hong Kong's cantopop music.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Stephy100
  2. Smcafirst
Comments (Any questions? I would be glad to answer them.)
  • Is this WikiProject necessary? Express your opinion?

A:Yes,it will give more information on cantopop music and it will sure make people understand about cantopop music,it will also help Wikipedia because we will make more articles and improve the stubs.

  • How are you going to improve the stubs?

A:we will research on more in formation on the topic and extend the article to improve it.

  • How big is your coverage of this WikiProject? Does it extend to as far as 1930s, to the early development? If not, this WikiProject, to me, would be seemed pointless, as the development of Cantopop in the early ages is important.

A:My Wikiproject's coverage includes music of Hong Kong Singers and albums and Chinese songs.We will include 1930's music,the history of Chinese songs and the development of music.we will include topics like singers,songs,albums,history of music and the music of long ago.To accomplish our goal,we need your help to work on this.

  • Wouldn't it be a better idea to expand it to Project Chinese Pop? That way you snag the Mandopop fans as well, which would get you more support for the project.
  • Anyone interested in this may also want to take a look at my proposal for an encompassing WikiProject Pop music. 17Drew 03:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Might I suggest that you coordinate with User:Pandacomics to create a WikiProject for Chinese pop music overall? He had been spending the last few weeks trying to drum up interest in starting a Workgroup within WikiProject China specifically for Chinese pop music. It's strange that it's taken this long to find that there's a similar effort going on here specifically for Cantopop. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • A new WikiProject Modern Chinese music has just started up. It should encompass Cantopop, so a WikiProject specifically for Cantopop might not be necessary anymore. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


To find and maintain pages about the cello.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. helping make wiki better- dagurlwonder 05:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Charlie Chaplin

To increase the quality of the Charlie Chaplin article, as well as all related articles; especially his countless films. Ultimate goal is to improve Chaplin article to FA status.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. LordRobert 00:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The range of this project is too big for a task force. There are countless Chaplin films, most of which are stubs and can be improved greatly.
  • Please sign comments and help keep this page tidy.I am a lemon 23:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


A project, probably working with Wikipedia:WikiProject India, to work on articles relating to the Indian state of Chhattisgarh.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. [your name here]

WikiProject:Chicago Area Public Transportation


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.


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)

Interested Wikipedians
  1. --DanTD (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Same as WP:LT ElectricalVandilize Me 02:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 22:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
-- GregManninLB (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)

Weak Oppose I have doubts on the success it would have too, but there is undoubtedly a lot the project could cover, particularly if its editors mainly work on articles in this area in Chicago. I wouod suggest it remains as part of WP:Chicago until there is a clear amount of editors who can work on them or set aside a work page for it rather than a full blown project or task force The Bald One White cat 12:51, 22 August 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)
  2. I can help in maintainance along with Secisek - Tinucherian (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Secisek (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Brian0324 (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Kironide (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC) I'd be glad to help.

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)

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)
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)
OK, but I personally recommend you change it from a WPP to a taskfoce. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 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)

WikiProject Chronology


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)



  1. J.T Pearson (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


  • The apparatus for this Project does exist, which is a fly in the face for the Project Council rules, however the Project actually exists in other incarnations...namely WP:TIME and WP:DAYS Gavin Scott (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Concur with Gavin Scott. Perhaps you should join forces with one of the projects mentioned above. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • moved from neutral - This new project overlaps too much with other existing projects (WP:TIME, WP:DAYS, WP:YEARS) and those projects already have low member participation. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm moving from neutral to oppose. I don't envision this project getting off the ground and it is not distinct enough. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)



I have already made a portal for this see Portal:Colonialism now i need to form a group. Its gonna be about imperialism and th scramble for Africa etc.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Leo III
  2. Chris (talk) 06:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I thin it would be great see the portal - Portal:Colonialism Leo III 03:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


Description: This project seeks to organise and collate all craft articles. It clashes a bit with WikiProject Textile Arts, and WikiProject Visual Arts but covers things that they don't such as bead and polymer clay. Visual Arts seems to focus on artists rather than media, and textile arts applies only to textiles. There are also lots of specific WikiProjects, such as knots, that could be grouped under this heading. Essesntially, could we have a wiki project that covers everything?

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

I am a lemon 00:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  • See Also handicrafts. Just found it. And on the Visual Arts page: Art schools made a distinction between the fine arts and the crafts in such a way that a craftsperson could not be considered a practitioner of art. I am a lemon 00:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Doesn't seem like anyone's interested. Will suggest WikiProject Visual Arts broaden their scope.I am a lemon 23:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Crown dependencies

This project will deal with content related to the British Crown dependencies of Guernsey, Isle of Man, and Jersey.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. John Carter 18:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Tra (Talk) 21:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. 06:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

These articles and areas technically do not fall within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject United Kingdom, so it may be that creation of a separate project is required. However, I don't think it would be a good idea to rule out the possibility of becoming a task force of some other project. John Carter 18:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Creating a WikiProject would be a possibility. If there aren't enough active editors, another alternative would be to make a task force at Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe. Tra (Talk) 21:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Cruise Ships

This project seeks to organize all articles pertaining to cruising in a decent manner. There are many articles in wikipedia regarding cruising and cruise ships. This project also seeks to further develop the smaller articles as well as maintain the fully developed ones.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

Daft Punk

To maintain all related Daft Punk articles especially the members of the electronic duo. There are many articles regarding Daft Punk and even their own subgenre of music which is French house (which needs clean up as of right now).
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Douglasr007
  2. The Bone III
  3. ShogoFan3000 12:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, I know that a task force could be a better idea for this but it seems a lot of people have been helping with the editing of all Daft Punk related articles that a WikiProject could benefit more in the end. Douglasr007 04:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something: a project and task force serve the same purpose, they both are used to help editors work together on a group of articles. A project is usually for a big scope, a taskforce is usually for a small scope. In the case of Daft Punk: it should be a taskforce for the music project, as it's a small scope. RobJ1981 22:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe the topic is broad enough to merit a WikiProject in its name; one would benefit the subject greatly. The Bone III 02:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If the scope of your project idea is very narrow (such as a TV show, music band, video game, etc), or your idea is a variation on a common theme, consider starting a task force of an existing project instead of a whole new WikiProject.I am a lemon 23:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with the above comments - I just don't see there being enough articles in this area to justify the sustained and ongoing effort of a WikiProject. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


This project will cover all branches and cars associated with DaimlerChrysler. The Chrysler area on Wikipedia is large, so it would be useful to organize it. Some important aspects would include Mercedes Benz, Chrysler, Plymouth, and Dodge.
JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 02:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)


  • A good idea for a task force of an existing car WikiProject. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I would personally wait until this Chrysler sell off has occurred or passed over. It would not make sense to have a DaimlerChrysler project when the two are no longer in communion with one another. Give it a thought... --wpktsfs 21:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Is there a WikiProject for cars, I haven't found one yet.
  • I prefer a Car or Vehicle WikiProject and better a Green Vehicle WikiProject. --HybridBoy 06:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What to do now that Daimler-Benz is selling Chrysler to <gak> Subaru? - NDCompuGeek 20:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe let Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles make this as subproject, and hope that some drastic happens shortly. And great to see you back, NDCompuGeek! Hope you were feeling better before you found out about the Subaru thing. John Carter 20:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, why is the Subaru thing bad? Chris 23:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


This project will cover all aspects of databases, including (but not limited to) logical design methodologies, query languages, storage systems, physical design, administration, and security. The information currently available on Wikipedia concerning this important, far-reaching, topic requires the talents of all available subject-matter experts, writers, editors, and those with organizational skills. I propose that the goals of this project should be (in this order):
    • To improve the quality of subject-matter content by providing verifiable, accurate, and complete subject matter information;
    • To make the content accessible to a wide audience; and
    • To provide a better organization and support for the articles that fall within the scope of this project.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. SqlPac 16:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that there is a proposed #Relational_Databases project on this page with similar goals. -- Diletante 17:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Noted. That project specifically excludes all non-relational database topics though, such as hierarchical databases, object-oriented databases, xBase-style, XML data stores, flat files, etc. SqlPac 18:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The reason it does is because, with a loose definition, nearly anything can be considered a "database"; XML flat files aren't databases in any real sense. -- Mikeblas 07:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

De-abstraction of Mathematics Articles

Description: This is a proposal to make articles on mathematical concepts more accessible to a general audience through the use of analogies, diagrams, and examples. Temporary project page: User:Mistercow/De-abstraction of Mathematics Articles Interested Wikipedians (please add your name): Linus M. I personally think that this project would be excellent. Ketsuekigata Comments:

  • How does this fit with Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics? This may work better as a sub project of that, it should certainly be mentioned there. I think most members probably support making articles more accessible, as long as it does not compromise accuracy. --Salix alba (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps this should support the creation of separate articles, such as those for both Theories of Relativity? superscienceman 16:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I agree that separate articles, or at least separate sections would be advisable. Otherwise, Wikipedia would suddenly become useless to math-nuts. -- Zanimum 18:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • If you mean having one technical article, and one non-technical article, that seems a messy work around.Alexnye 08:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This idea — to have separate "simple" and "standard" articles — is already covered by the separation of and So don't need "simple" sections inside this one. But improving our articles here is a good goal. In this regard I fully support what Salix alba said. Ocolon 15:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Indeed. The issue isn't entirely complexity of concepts, though. Some articles are just written obtusely, and others pay so much attention to technicalities and mathematical precision from the beginning that they drown people who ought to have enough background to read them. Ketsuekigata 01:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm especially annoyed by those that expect the reader to follow along by proving some of the lemmas. Very good technique in teaching a class, disastrous for a general encyclopedia. DGG 03:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Please keep me informed of what happens; I may be able to help whether in a wikiproject or sub-project or whatever. I have an undergraduate degree in mathematics (and economics). Keesiewonder talk 14:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
There is also a Simple English Wikipedia-those of us who have to get the "x for Dummies" books could use the math and science articles. Chris 22:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Deadlink cleaner

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)
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Amartyabag TALK2ME

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

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)


A project to deal with the subject of debate, and also the more notable historical debates, like the Lincoln-Douglas debate, presidential debates, etc. [description here]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. LDChamp09 02:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Bernstein2291 23:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The temporary project page is at User:LDChamp09/WikiProject Debate.

Dexter's Lab

A project for all the Dexter's Lab characters and episodes.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. [Aaron122894]


  • Too narrow for a Wikiproject. I just looked at about five episodes at random, and saw nothing beyond a plot rehash, trivia, and cast/character lists. None of them had anything to warrant at article per WP:EPISODE. Pagrashtak 23:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Task Force at best; probably task force isn't even needed. Absolutely no need for separate articles for each episode or each character. A few articles at best are needed -- one for the show itself; one for the episodes. For this show, the characters can be included in the article about the show. I don't think any of the individual episodes merit a separate article. --Lquilter (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This isn't needed as a project. It isn't even needed as a task force. This show should, at best, have a few articles: one for the show, a list of episodes, and a list of characters. There should not be individual episode articles as none are particularly notable, and the show itself was not big enough to have a variety of sub articles discussing specific aspects of it. Collectonian (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I would have to agree with my collegues here... the subject is niether b=very wide or noticable... but perhaps it could be a task force? PwnerELITE (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Taskforce at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Dexter's Lab. - LA @ 08:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Digital libraries

A WikiProject aiming to tag all pages here and facilitate collaboration on them.
Interested Wikipedians
  1. Blast 07.04.07 0615 (UTC)
  2. DGG 03:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be a good idea, but based on open digital libraries in the Internet. --HybridBoy 06:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Part of the usefulness is also to have a directory of paid sites, because that's where the best 1920+ material is. From experience on similar pages, there are going to be spam problems once the existing list gets discovered. What needs doing, besides gathering up all the other ones, is to start writing articles for the 3/4 that do not have them.DGG 03:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


[description here]
Interested Wikipedians
  1. Umpajug (talk · contribs)
  2. Perseus282 (talk · contribs)
  3. Useight 14:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is about Dilbert. Would the proposer be interested in maybe contacting Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics to set up as a subproject? I think that group is already familiar with most of the media involved, and it might make the talk page less busy. It also would probably mean less administrative work for the members of this project itself. John Carter 21:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


There are wikiprojects for many book series, such as harry potter or lord of the rings. Since this series has about 20 books, and many potential pages to work on. I have already started one new page: Code of Dinotopia. There are many others that can be worked on, such as Skybax, individual characters, places, species, and more. Unfourtuneately, the main place to find info is from the books themselves, so go to your local library if you want to source info for this proposed project. So, what do you think? The main goal of this project would be to create new articles for the series, to promote at least a few articles to good status, and to improve wikipedia's coverage of the series. I mean, come on, wikipedia has coverage of so many other series, why not this one? I typed in the wikiproject's name, so I assume it does not currently exist. There's only about one or two or three articles about this series. Other wikiprojects about book series such as Harry Potter, have like, what, several dozen articles? So, it is now this project's goal, still proposed, to expand wikipedia's coverage of this series. I mean, there's very little reason why this series is not at least nearly as widely known as many other series. If you are reading this and worked on the original article, you might be interested. If you've ever read any of the series and are reading this, you might be interested. So, come on, we, or I, have already created one article, and at least one redirect, which could easily be an article. In fact, someone has already suggested that the redirect become an article. So, it's up to you, to help improve this topic. Sorry if I'm being repeatetive. So, anybody interested? Thanks. – AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+sign here+How's my editing?) 01:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs)

The temporary homepage of this wikiproject is here

Disabilities, or Disability Studies

A project to cover the many (and often rather ragged) articles on disabling conditions, disability studies, mobility and medical gear, ableism prejudice, and so forth. Organization, completism, and globalization are all needed here. As an example, there is an article on Wheelchair and Mobility scooter, but powered wheelchairs don't have their own article. For globalization - well, the British tend to prefer 'handicapped', whereas the Americans prefer 'disabled' for the most part.

This project could also serve as a useful umbrella for projects on mental illness, learning disabilities, mobility gear, and so forth.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Feyandstrange 11:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Uppitycrip
  3. John Carter 15:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I would be willing to moderate or help or develop this project. i would have proposed it myself, but i think it is too large for one wikipedian. But it is EXTREMELY needed.

  • Proposal sounds good. I support the creation of WikiProject Disabilities. Chris! ct 06:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree proposal sounds good. As a social worker based in the UK, I should like to point out that "handicapped" is not favoured over here either by the disabilities rights movement or by professionals working in the field.--Peter cohen 09:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Dracula Project

[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)
Interested Wikipedians (Tnu1138 and noone else yet that I know of)
  1. Tnu1138 (talk)
  2. John Carter (talk)
  3. Zahir13 (talk)
  4. Wrad (talk)
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)

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)

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
More like 115 that I can specifically identify right now in Category:Dracula. John Carter (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, 115, way too little for a WikiProject, possibly a taskforce. The DominatorTalkEdits 04:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, it's quite easily a taskforce. Project is iffy. I'll join either way. Wrad (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
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)

Dream Anatomy

Just a first line. This effort does not intend to create one more psychologies, mystic, spiritual, nor a dream interpretation site. All those thing are IMHO, lets say, childish, subjective and kind of unhealthy. Sorry for the inconvenience.
The idea is to collect tagged dream narrations, so they would be content-searchable, and categoryzable. Anyone could contribute with a brand new dream or deviations from existing ones, a clear structure hasn't been still designed. Tags should apply to anything appearing in the dream, from emotions to objects that seem relevant to the story in the contributor opinion.
The result would be worth to surf, a delicious piece of human nature, a nice place available for the very first time thanks to a collaborative engine. Common dreams and nightmares would reveal as common, and the relation among their parts may partially unveil an anatomy of dreaming.
Last words were in oratory's sake... Anyone attracted?
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. [your name here]
  • Can this be a WikiProject under the guise of Wikipedia? It sounds more like you are proposing a new Wiki altogether. If that's the case, there are other forums for such proposals. __meco 12:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comment Meco. I'm new to this and therefore a bit lost, and as you say this proposal sounds more like a new wiki. If you could point me the right forums I'd be very grateful. In the while I'll try to find them on my own :)


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)
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. --IwilledituTalk :)Contributions 15:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Sushant gupta (talk) 07:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • Well this is more broad then wikiproject envirorment —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwilleditu (talkcontribs) 23:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
Thanyou i added it. IwilledituTalk :)Contributions 17:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)
  • Oppose overlaps existing projects. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry but I have to Oppose due to the reasons listed above and there are wikiprojects on geology, geography, weather etc. which mostly cover the broad earth topic. Nce idea though. :-) Andy (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Earthquakes


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)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 01:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 09:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  4. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  5. ~AH1(TCU) 21:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  6. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  7. --haha169 (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  8. Black Tusk (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Should Be a Task force in Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography Save Humans Respond on my Talk Page. 01:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Support - Needs a project like this. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

WikiProject East Timor

East Timor is one of the world's newest nations, and the articles relating to it on Wikipedia are in desperate need of attention. I've just finished a major rewrite of Indonesian occupation of East Timor (1975-1999), and as someone who's studied Timor for more than 15 years, I feel confident I can help make these pages something to be proud of. Who's with me?
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. – Scartol • Tok 01:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. --Merbabu (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a total moron. This project already exists. – Scartol • Tok 14:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Edgar Allan Poe

A WikiProject devoted to improving articles relating to Edgar Allan Poe, his life, works, and media based upon same. It will also help to maintain the Portal:Edgar Allan Poe.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. John Carter 18:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
It is understood that the scope of this project could be seen to be rather narrow. On that basis, it is expected that this particular group may try to become a subproject of another extant project.
  • A relatively short-lived task force could clean up the EAP articles. It would be good to see a project do for EAP what editors (esp Awadewit) did for Mary Wollstonecraft: Set up a nice template, and work systematically through the basic biography and the major works. The project could also adopt some of the articles on history of genres that EAP effectively invented or particularly influenced (e.g., mystery). I'm not sure a project is needed for a specific writer, even EAP. --Lquilter (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Elena Paparizou WikiProject

WikiProject to improve content and consistency (eg. Greek-English translations) on all pages relating to Greek singer Elena Paparizou.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. UKWiki 13:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Panagiotis_200715:58, 28 May 2007
  3. Aaron Moss 02:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If the scope of your project idea is very narrow (such as a TV show, music band, video game, etc) then you should start a task force of an existing project instead of starting a whole new WikiProject. Chris 05:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, A general consistency in all her information and keeping it constantly updated Aaron Moss 02:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Description: The project will aim to improve the quality and quantity of Entourage related articles, and decide and implement uniform editing guidelines on pages related to Entourage. Temporary project page: User:Argash/WikiProject Entourage User: Argash Interested Wikipedians (please add your name): Also add you name to the members list on the temporary project page.

  1. Sven Erixon (talk · contribs)
  2. Davey4 (talk · contribs)
  3. LoyolaDude (talk · contribs)
  4. Grahamdubya (talk · contribs)

If the scope of your project idea is very narrow (such as a TV show, music band, video game, etc) then you should start a task force of an existing project instead of starting a whole new WikiProject. Chris 00:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any TV Series WikiProject?. --HybridBoy 06:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Not to my knowledge, but there is WikiProject Television. Octane [improve me] 28.06.07 2352 (UTC)
There's the Doctor Who WikiProject. Wrad 21:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • How about you go an join, editors and serious members are needed for it become a better source of information.



This WikiProject aims not only to better existing equestrianism related articles, but to create new ones. As a major international sport, events are held each year throughout the world. More articles are needed to communicate this historic sport to Wikipedia readers. This project will cover terms, events, riders, horses, and more. The goal of this project is to act as a sister project to WikiProject Thoroughbred Racing. It will provide guidelines and recommendations for articles relating to equestrianism, be used as a central location of communication when creating new templates, and to overall improve equestrian related articles.

Interested Wikipedians
  1. Canada Nurmsook! 02:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject ER

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)
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. EclipseSSD (talk)
  1. You mean something like this? – ClockworkSoul 01:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Event venues

This wikiproject will cover all event venues worldwide. This includes arenas, stadiums, exhibition centres, open spaces which hold events and any other venues which may hold notable events. Examples include the Tokyo Dome in Tokyo, Earls Court Exhibition Centre in London, the Staples Center in Los Angeles and Hyde Park in London.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

Tbo 157 11:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


External link descriptions

This project is focused on ensuring that external links have proper descriptions attached to them - that is, instead of cryptic page titles, links should describe their content, and where necessary, the source or stance of the target. Unlike Wikipedia:WikiProject External links, this project is not about the potentially contentious area of adding or removing links, but purely about labelling the content of links correctly and informatively, to prevent conscious or unconscious bias/confusion. Special attention should be paid to high edit/high view articles, and possibly an aim should be to construct a proper set of guidelines for all external links.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Fangz 20:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fantasy Literature

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)
  4. (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Da'jhan 23:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dajhan (talkcontribs)
  6. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Be sure to tell me if this goes through.
  • 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)
  • Question Why just books? What about short stories and poems? Wrad (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)

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 (talkcontribs) 08:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Already covered - as Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Fantasy task force see you there :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Federal and Civil Agencies and Organizations


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.


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





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


Fictional Biographies WikiProject

Seeing as the Biography WikiProject does not include any Fictional biography articles, I don't think this could work as a work group of that project. However, it could function as it's own WikiProject, run in a very similar way to the Biography project, except that it would only include fictional characters. It would include all manner of fictional characters with the possibility of eventually having work groups dedicated to certain categories (such as Fictional Characters in Film or Fictional Characters in Literature).
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Yenemus 21:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This would be far more efficient to do via existing WikiProjects that cover fictional topics. Also, be aware of WP:WAF. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Is this just supposed to be an project on fictional characters? What would be really useful in that space would be people who would develop some reasonable standards for when the characters should be on the main work page; when there should be a separate entry discussing characters; and when (rarely) individual characters have sufficient notability that they need their own encyclopedia entries. Developing templates and model articles on these kinds of character-related material would be great. My main concern though is that this would be used for people who just want to add more articles, rather than figuring out appropriate criteria for articles and applying those criteria to create and improve articles when appropriate. --Lquilter (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I am cpmpletely ensuring I do not state my opinion on such a conorversial issue, the page must be completely neutral and contain no traces or evidence that it was edited by a biast contributor. It might be tricky to ensure that. Otherwise, great idea you have there.

Football (soccer) players

This proposed group would work with the existing Biography and Football (soccer) projects specifically on biographies of football players, coaches, and related individuals and other related articles.
Interested wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. John Carter 13:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Bigmike 18:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What would this add which cannot already be provided by WP:WPF? I have concerns about unnecessary duplication of effort. Oldelpaso 18:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

With any luck it would be a subproject of that project, as well as of the Biography project, so it wouldn't be so much duplication of effort as concentration of effort of some editors on biographical articles specifically. WP:MILHIST, among others, is already involved with several seemingly successful "joint" subprojects. John Carter 18:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't really feel the need for a separate subproject/taskforce, given the history of unsucessful ones we have (a few them have even a redlinked talkpage yet!) and the subject, that can already be covered by the main project which is instead clearly alive and well. As Oldelpaso noted, there's really no need for effort duplication. --Angelo 11:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It is risky to ensure that a page isn't formatted as a list (because it is very unbenificial to do otherwise). Regarding, the biographies, just ensure that they are from accuratle and cited sources, which is a very obvious proccess to consider. Other than that, I have no objections. But I do warn you to avoid a list formatt very strongly (it is very irratating to a user). "--**macph***-- {{subst:dated adoptme}} (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)"


The project's goal is to improve the main article Frasier, and to create new articles for the episode list and also to expand the characters articles.
Temporary User page 
User:Bernstein2291/WikiProject Frasier
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Ageo020 18th March 2007
  2. Bernstein2291 20th March 2007

If the scope of your project idea is very narrow (such as a TV show, music band, video game, etc) then you should start a task force of an existing project instead of starting a whole new WikiProject. Chris 00:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is that narrow. Remember Frasier has over 264 episodes and there are no articles for half of them. There are Wikiprojects for the Simpsons as well as Fawlty Towers which just has 12 episodes.--Agεθ020 (ΔTФC) 22:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It is also covered by the even broader WikiProject Television. Blast [improve me] 25.06.07 0344 (UTC)
Most (all?) of the articles for Frasier should be / will be tagged with {{Notability|episode}} . Please see Wikipedia:Television_episodes for guidelines on notability, and whether a particular tv episode warrants an article. - superβεεcat  21:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


This WikiProject will mostly be aimed toward articles on inventions and society of the future. Articles on multiple futuristic inventions will be included. Articles on futuristic society will also be included...What will cars be like? What will the clothing be like? What will the people be like? Are there robots? Basically, this WikiProject is about the future.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

Proposer of WikiProject: Swannie 02:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

--HybridBoy 06:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This sounds remarkably like and attempt at WikiProject Crystal-ball. Too much speculation involved. Pastordavid 18:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Create it, with prolongation of date obtained from the present. There is a lot of articles about "the future of..." and we can include researches in the field of study. I like the invention idea, but not the society part. --HybridBoy 06:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I think that the proposal some merit, but that it would have to be very careful regarding what it covers and says. Speculation about "the future of abortion", for example, even if it is exrtremely well documented, is likely to cause endless battles over what should and shouldn't be included. Having said that, information on the future of technology (and possibly the future of the planet, the universe, maybe even evolution) would generally meet less resistance. John Carter 19:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject future management

A project in which manages wikipedia articles on events that are yet to come, or are in the future. Involves referencing the articles, working on them, keeping the content on the event that is to happen very accurate, and having articles removed that violates WP:CRYSTAL, a genius and simple project. Articles managed will be articles on upcoming, television series, books, newspapers, and articles on years in the future such as 2200, 2300 etc . Francisco Tevez 20
46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. [your name here]

Galápagos Islands

Ultimately, with or without the á, this is a project I wanted to start a long time ago, and never got around to. Although WP:ECU already exists, I think there is sufficient content unique to the Galápagos to warrant a separate WikiProject.

Project page (proposed, would be)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Galapagos or Wikipedia:WikiProject Galápagos Islands — Input welcome here—the format for which I borrowed quite heavily from WP:WPWI.  :-p


To include all articles related to the Galápagos Islands, e.g, Geology, History (human), Biology, etc.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Proposer :-) Tomertalk 02:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kitia 20:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Shrewpelt 01:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments. Please sign your comments with 4 tildes (~~~~)
Get a task force from Wikiproject Ecuador. Teh Ferret 22:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. --HybridBoy 07:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree as well. The difference isn't regarding whether there is sufficient material, really. However, the entire scope of this project does fall within the scope of that project, and it makes sense not to have to go through the effort of creating all the templates, project subpages, etc etc etc, if you can take advantage of the existing structure of the other project. John Carter 19:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


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)
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Madeleine
  2. LeeVJ (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Liveste (talk · contribs) 01:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  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.
  5. NCurse work 20:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
I'd like to note that Genetics has never been listed as an MCB article.Madeleine 22:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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 (talkedits) 01:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Good idea, I support this proposal, can't believe we didn't have this already. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Project created

Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography/Bot


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)
  2. Fritzpoll (talk · contribs), primary focus is to coordinate activity for the purposes of bot operation 16:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  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.
  4. TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 14:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC) for WP:INDIA
  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.
  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.
  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)
  9. Wrad (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Should be able to help with Arabian towns and villages.
  10. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 19:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  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)
  13. Will help with Russia... eventually.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  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)
  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)
  16. Kaly99 (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC) for WikiProject Sierra Leone and anywhere else help is needed.
  17. —KetanPanchaltaLK 05:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Should be able help somewhat with articles related to India
  18. jwillbur 02:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC) I'll help with Caribbean places, maybe South/Central America too if I have time
  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...
  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.
  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.
  22. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC) I will be happy to create geography stubs (with or without population figures).
  23. Taku (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Geometry

A WikiProject covering polygons, polyhedrons, geometric shapes, angles, and any other mathematical topics related to geometry.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Kamope · talk · contributions 22:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Eskimospy 15:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. ALK
  4. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 20:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea (I'm surprised it already didn't exist), but I'm afraid I'm not particularly interested in Geometry. :-P | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 00:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This would be better off integrated into Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics (as a task force or otherwise), I think. Kirill Lokshin 23:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what's intended to be included in this WikiProject's scope. The examples in the description above — "polygons, polyhedrons, geometric shapes, angles" — are all covered in high-school Euclidean geometry. There's a lot more to geometry than that: see the article Geometry for a taste, or the list of geometry topics for a partial list. So I'm not sure whether the description above is meant to imply that these topics are not in the scope of this WikiProject, or if they were merely chosen as examples of topics that will also include Bruhat-Tits buildings, the Hodge conjecture, and so forth. (I'm just seeking clarification, not meaning offense.) —msh210 04:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Create it! Definitely a broad enough topic for WikiProject. Also like msh210 said, you can add to the description stuff about hyperbolic and elliptic geometry, and also mention the fourth dimension. --eskimospy (talkcontribsreview me) 00:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Ghana

This WikiProject would be dedicated to finding and improving articles related to Ghana as well as being a focus for editors who work on articles about the country. The project would encompass all articles about Ghana including history, politics and others. There are a lot of articles related to Ghana which either lack references or need to be improved. It would be under the umbrella of WikiProject Africa. There is already some support from de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Ghana about this.
Temporary project page
User:Natsubee/WikiProject Ghana
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Natsubee 14:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Allison Stillwell 15:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Gil Scott-Heron


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.


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





  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Oppose - as above jimfbleak (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose -as above The Bald One White cat 12:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


Global Democracy

With the human rights portal in place, discussing human rights around the world, it seems right that there be a similar portal for democracy (or lack of). The voting rights or suffrage of every country on Earth could be profiled, with a chronological history of the spread of democracy. I'm relatively new here so technical help would be especially appreciated. Thoughts?

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Josh
  2. Crested Penguin 07:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. --HybridBoy 07:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 02:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Global Perspectives Task force

Hi, forgive me if this is discussed somewhere in the archive or if an extant WikiProject covers my proposal, but: I'm wondering if a task force specifically concerned with making sure global perspectives are represented in key articles would be an efficient way to counter the systemic Western, 1st world bias the WikiProject Countering systemic biaslists among its concerns. As has often been noted, many articles have sections (e.g. "media response") that only describe U.S. events/reactions. I would be happy to spearhead an effort to make sure global perspectives are included where relevant. Any thoughts or advice regarding such a task force would be much appreciated. Keep up the great work!Benzocane 03:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Great idea. We could call it Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias! -- TimNelson 03:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the real job of this task force should be to provide international references for articles. Also to provide more in depth reactions of foreign countries when dealing with international crisises. I believe the Task force should be called Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Global perspectives task force. How does that ring.
--Random Say it here! 13:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
We can use {{Globalize}} --HybridBoy 11:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming

In the last few decades, the Earth's average temperature has gone up by 1 degree. This may not sound like much but is taking a toll on our environment. Over 80% of our glaciers are now gone. The main goal of this project will be to expand the number of articles related to global warming itself and informing the average person of what would happen by relating the warming in everyday topics. Anyone else interested?

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. ALK
  2. Psdubow
  3. Swannie
  4. Mgeheren
  5. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)
  6. ¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤
  7. PAH Page

Great idea! I would be willing to help. I think maybe we should team up with the Wikiproject Environment on this and they some of the members might be willing to help us. Psdubow

Possibly. Let's see what they would think of it. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting to see if anyone else is interested. ALK

Sure. You're right, we should probably wait, you know, until some more users get on board. Please keep me posted! Psdubow 00:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Will do! ALK

Note that there WikiProject climate change already exists; you may like to take a look at their scope. Gralo 21:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding Idea I am in!!!! --Mgeheren 17:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Good, we've got quite a good amount of people interested now. As for as WikiProject climate change, I've noticed that tehri goals are entirely different from what I have in mind. I guess it's time to start the project. ----ALK 22:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
This project is already inside the scope of WP Climate Change, and WP Climate Change falls under WP Environment. 2 projects are more than enough to cover this aspect, so I don't think forming a new one is a good idea. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


This task force would work on improving pages related to Goosebumps, such as the television series, R.L. Stine, the various book articles and lists.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. 60 Delta 22:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


The articles related to Gorillaz are a mess. The band members pages sound like they are written by rabid fangirls, and the singles contain irrelevant trivia.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

The Swagga


If the scope of your project idea is very narrow (such as a TV show, music band, video game, etc) then you should start a task force of an existing project instead of starting a whole new WikiProject. Chris 20:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I don't know much about Wikiprojects. That suggestion was very helpful. The Swagga 19:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Glasgow


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


  1. Andrew22k (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support: Glasgow and its region is the prime industrial and population centre in Scotland. There's a sufficient mixture of topics (people, industry, history, geography, etc) to provide a volume and mix of articles. Other major UK cities, eg, London, have a Wikiproject. (PS I'm not Scots.) Folks at 137 (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. Weak Support Cheers, RockManQ (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)






  • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
  • I can't commit myself to participating in anything on Wikipedia, given as I am to not editing for weeks or months at a time, so I would feel uneasy about supporting because that would imply my participation. I do however fully support this from the bylines, though the question of inclusion would have to be answered. As Shoemaker's Holiday says, several American cities have their own projects, and Greater Glasgow comprises a huge proportion of Scotland's population so I think it would be justified from that perspective. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Guitar Tunings

Description: This WikiProject would help create and improve articles that relate to guitar tunings and ways to tune a guitar. It would work on ways to tune a guitar and it would expand and improve the articles that relate to tuning a guitar. Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

  1. Mezmerizer

Comments I think that this proposal would be better as a task force since the coverage of info is so narrow. --ALK 21:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it belongs in Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments if anywhere. Wikipedia is not a how-to. Chris 21:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, a task force, if anything. Best and good luck, --Gp75motorsports 13:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


There are many articles that are within the scope of gymnastics. I'm kind of surprised there isn't one already. I am also considering adding cheerleading because it is similar.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Maddie was here 23:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. DanielEng 03:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't propose a cheerleading WikiProject – instead, let this WikiProject cover it. The scope for cheerleading isn't very large to gain its own WikiProject. Sebi [talk] 06:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Harmonised Classification of all Wiki Articles

The classification of all relevant articles according to the WCO's harmonised notes and addition of an info-box to the aforementioned articles with the relevant heading. This will involve many thousands of articles. This is a universal standard in international trade from which all local tariffs are taken from.
Interested Wikipedians (user:librarianofages)
  1. librarianofages
  2. meco
  • Huh? Wassis mean? I think it might help if it were clarified what the WCO is and maybe included a link to which kinds of articles might be so classified, with maybe a link to the classification scheme. John Carter 00:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Who will update the articles when the classification changes? It seems this happens frequently. --Kevinkor2 04:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Harvard University

The scope of this project would be all articles related to Harvard University, its history, structure, alumni, sports teams, staff, and othhr related articles.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. John Carter 14:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, at one point it was the case that all Harvard students wrote their own biographies for the school's archives. If that's true, finding a way to use those archives to any degree would probably be very beneficial for a lot of articles. John Carter 22:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Historical novelists

to maintain and improve quality on all subcategories and listed author articles. I want to categorize all of the authors there. Put them in separate categories about time period, type of novels and depicted region or country. I need more help on this task. I'v done substantial work myself. Also, I am a Bulgarian and I see the lack of any Bulgarian novelists as highly undermining. But I suppose I'll be the only one working on it.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)


A task force of WikiProject History focusing on Historiography. ie. about, rather than of history. There is already a category (Category:Historiography) for this subject that needs something to maintain its articles
Interested Wikipedians (Please add your name)
  1. User:Phoenix-wiki
  2. John Carter 18:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • For further clarification, historiography is studying historians and archeologists at work, rather than studying history itself--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 14:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The military history project has already such a task force. it stayed relatively small and has low profile, especially since oldwindybear left. Wandalstouring 16:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
That focuses on military related historiographical articles (here). This focuses on Historiography in general. As far as I recall, archaeology and Oral history, to name but a few, aren't within their scop--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 16:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Homestar Runner

[This project will try to improve all articles related to the flash cartoon series "Homestar Runner"]
Interested Wikipedians
  1. Wikizilla (Talk)signme! 20:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many Homestar fans out there, and if we joined up, we could benefit wikipedia.

Too broad of a scope. It should be a taskforce as per what the top of the page says: If the scope of your project idea is very narrow (such as a TV show, music band, video game, etc) then you should start a task force of an existing project instead of starting a whole new WikiProject. I don't understand why people just choose to ignore what it says. RobJ1981 21:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest RobJ1981 meant to say "Too narrow of a scope" instead of "Too broad of a scope". --Kevinkor2 10:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest Rob said exactly what he meant to say. Chris 09:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Homestar Runner Wiki exists, perhaps they could be encouraged to help out with Wikipedia's coverage. GreenReaper 00:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Internet culture already exists, and includes Homestar Runner (among other Internet culture-related articles) in its scope. Blast [improve me] 24.06.07 2224 (UTC)


This project will be a subfamily of Wikiproject Primates. It would include The species, the discoverers and the theories about them.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Kfc1864 23:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Temporary project page
User:Kfc1864/Wikiproject Hominids
  • I'm guessing that the human race per se is not included in this project, on the basis of the sheer number of articles relating to them and their being covered by many other projects already? John Carter 23:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It will include most of the hominid species on the template and also famous anthropologists.K14 06:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
      • It might help to point out which template you're talking about there. John Carter 18:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

House, M.D.

A WikiProject for the show House, M.D. Although there are a lot of pages for the show, I feel as though we could really improve the overall quality of the episode synopses and the such with a dedicated group of people. Right now, there is no continuity between pages and I feel that we really need to rectify this.
Interested Wikipedians
  1. Allison Stillwell
  2. mirageinred 06:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Maddie was here 19:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Docta247 16:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. ShogoFan3000 12:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • As the note at the top states: If the scope of your project idea is very narrow (such as a TV show, music band, video game, etc) then you should start a task force of an existing project instead of starting a whole new WikiProject.. RobJ1981 05:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The television show Heroes has its own WikiProject and it's only been on for one season. House has been on for three seasons and therefore has a much wider pool of information to dive into. If you feel that House doesn't merit its own WikiProject, then what WikiProject do you feel that it would fit under, oh guru? Allie 15:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
      • In general, it is agreed though that when the scope of a proposed project specifically already falls within the scope of another project, in this case Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, that it both reduces the amount of talk page clutter and redundant activity to take advantage of the existing infrastructure of the larger project. The fact that some well meaning individuals create an entirely separate project, some of which wind up being moribund fairly fast, is no really good reason to copy them in that regard. John Carter 17:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I would love to start Wikiproject House! Maybe it should not have M.D? It's officially called House. I think that this Wikiproject can cover a lot. There are many House episodes and even more as they kick off the fourth season. A lot of the pages need work. Some of them are too short or have plot summaries that are way too long. There's the House article itself and the House characters. I hear that more characters will be introduced for the next season. It's a big yes for me. mirageinred 06:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I would definitely participate. I love that show. It does have a lot of related articles too.Maddie was here 19:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Generally I would agree that there are enough episodes and character pages etc to merit it's own wikiproject. I would in fact join if I had seen more of the programme, though being in the UK have not seen all the seasons yet. AndrewJDTALK -- 20:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - This appears to be much better done as a task force. Only a few articles (at most!) need be created: one for the show, a list of episodes, a list of characters and character descriptions, and one for the main character who has achieved real world referentiality. (None of the other characters have.) As for "Heroes", it's unfortunate that it was approved as a project, but "other stuff exists" is not sufficient reason to create more stuff that shouldn't exist. While there are numerous House articles now, they should be pruned; there is simply not enough real-world notability for all these pages. --Lquilter (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that this is too narrow for a full-fledged project. Phil Sandifer 23:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


A project to unite all articles on hunting, including shooting, fox hunting, wildfowling, etc, some of which are currently of a high standard whereas others are in need of a cleanup. Also, a series of articles of "Hunting in [insert country]", as has been started with Hunting in the United Kingdom and Hunting in Russia could be helped by this project.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Greenfinch100 16:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. A Taxed Mind 18:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Indian Independence

It would encopass events, biographies, etc. related to Indian Independence. Mainly, it would try to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Indian Independence.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Psdubow 13:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Indiana Jones

A project covering all articles related to Indiana Jones, including films, games, comics, characters, locations, clothing, firearms, vehicles, etc. etc.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. [your name here]
  2. Chris 10:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This may be broad enough of scope to work, but shouldn't you sign your own suggestion? Chris 10:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think that maybe expanding the scope out a little might be a good idea. Perhaps a project on the works of Lucas and Spielberg, individually or collectively, barring Star Wars which already has its own project, might be preferable as many of the individuals associated with Indiana Jones probably are relevant to some of those two gentlemen's other work as well. John Carter 18:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Firearms? Vehicles? Locations? I'm not sure why the proposal needs to incorporate all those topics. Surely the topic would be satisfied with articles on the major works and the major characters. --Lquilter (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


This project would encompass everything having to do with the American city Indianapolis, Indiana. From the local neighborhoods to the Colts and Pacers, and everything else that we can find that has to do with the city.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Jasont82
  2. TheHoosierState89
  3. Thrillrider08
  4. Basketball110 21:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Check out the temporary page here

I know a lot about Indianapolis and would be willing to help out as much as possible. TheHoosierState89 02:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Most other major cities have a WikiProject page so great idea! Thrillrider08 17:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Considering many/most of your articles will also be within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Indiana, you might want to check with them about possibly becoming a task force or other related project. Most of the city projects of Australia use the WikiProject Australia banner, and receive separate assessments anyway, and having multiple projects use the same banner where possible is one way to help reduce the often excessive clutter of banners on several talk pages. John Carter 17:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
If that were the case, there would be only one WP, with everything else being a task force of that. There are enough articles out there for separation between Indianapolis and Indiana. The project would fall under the same veign as Atlanta's WP -JT 16:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Indigenous Australia

Description : This Wikproject would cover everything related to Indigenous Australians, past and present. Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

  1. Ptcamn 05:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. WikiTownsvillian 07:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Garrie 04:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


  • would favour using the title Indigenous Australia or Indigenous Australians, but no biggy. WikiTownsvillian 07:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    Sure, either works. --Ptcamn 07:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • would think that you would need to use Indigenous Australians if your intention is to improve the quality of articles about the various people, their history, their culture. Gnangarra 12:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    I would like to think that if everything being put into an article is referenced from a reliable source then the gender, race, nationality and religion of the contributor are irrelevant. For example: if I am going to ensure all suburb articles include population statistics regarding self-identified ATSI residents then why does it matter what race I am? Same with assessing articles for quality and a lot of other housekeeping kind of matters. And looking at some articles - attachment to a topic can get in the way of maintaining NPOV, and ensuring only verifiable information is included.Garrie 06:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
This would seem to be a good candidate for a task force or workgroup within Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian history. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Internet (by country)

Someone created this long article on the Internet, its history, and usage in the People's Republic of China a while back. However, other "Internet in x-country" articles were lacking, and the country-respective sections in Broadband Internet access worldwide were insanely huge. I spun them off, but I guess copy-pasting is discouraged in favor of migrating the sections AND their edit histories into new articles. The reason why I've started on it is because there is a dearth of formal WP coverage of the national/geographic origin of websites and Internet phenomena, and the stuff which are available are disorganized and non-contextual (I created an Category:Internet and Japan category yesterday to group together 2channel, Futaba Channel, and .jp, among others. But these articles need quite a reform, which is why I'm proposing a WikiProject for "Internet by country" articles.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Toussaint (talk · contribs)

WikiProject Ireland

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)

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

Isaac Asimov

This is going to be a compilation of everything related to Isaac Asimov (Foundation, robot, and galactic empire series,him,Encyclopedia Galactica, and the Foundation Universe.)
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Perseus282
  2. Nate1481(t/c)
  3. John Carter 23:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Voyagerfan5761
  • I might change the name to WikiProject Isaac Asimov, given the scope you stated above. Also, I'm curious as to whether you would specifically include his other work, including non-fiction books and other fiction, like the Black Widowers, the Lucky Starr series, and others. Would also like to know whether you think this might be viable as a subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional series or not. I do like the idea in general though. John Carter 16:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • am going to include his nonfiction and other fiction i just didn't want to list everything.
  • This sounds too specific for a project, but might make a good task force. Feyandstrange 10:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree - if nothing else, there seems an easily obtainable upper limit to the amount of good content on this subject that could be added. Phil Sandifer 20:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Isle of Man/Manx

I'm surprised no one has come up with a project for this unique and fiercely proud island, not part of the UK, they will tell you, home of tailless cats and three-legged-but-no-body-racing. ;)
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Chris 05:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Basketball110

It's included in the scope of the "Crown dependencies" proposal above. John Carter 12:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Jammu and Kashmir

A project, probably working with Wikipedia:WikiProject India, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan, and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject China, to work on articles relating to the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. User:toprohan
  • Wow, that's a hotbed, good luck. Chris 05:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Rock

[This WikiProject will mostly deal with Japanese rock musician pages such as those of Gackt, hyde, Dir en grey, and X Japan. Other musicians similar to those will also be included.]
Interested Wikipedians
  1. SeventhHaido 09:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. L337p4wn L337p4wn 11:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

We need this quite badly. The pages for some of Japan's greatest musical acts on the international stage are a gigantic mess.

Personally, I believe that both of these topics would be best handled as task forces. We just recently took steps to reincorporate a number of small sub-projects into the larger one - since it's just a matter of semantics, really, why not work it within the project? Both of these subjects need a lot of work, but I don't think they quite warrant full WikiProjects. LordAmeth 13:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with LordAmeth that this would be better handled as a taskforce instead of a separate wikiproject. I also think it would be better expanded to all Japanese music and not just rock. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I also feel that a new WikiProject would not do the trick. We already have projects that focus on (rock) music and Japan related topics, hence a joint effort of members from these should suffice. This way, we may also see better integration of those articles into Wikipedia as a whole, in both, content and process. - Cyrus XIII 20:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


A project, probably working with Wikipedia:WikiProject India, to work on articles relating to the Indian state of Jharkhand.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. [your name here]

Kinks, The

Description: This project would focus on the creation, expansion, and maintainace of articles related to British rock band The Kinks.

Temporary project page:
None at this time.

User: Painbearer

Interested Wikipedians: Painbearer

Comments: If the scope of your project idea is very narrow (such as a TV show, music band, video game, etc) then you should start a task force of an existing project instead of starting a whole new WikiProject. Chris 00:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • How many pages would The Kinks actually need? I don't think a whole project is needed just to maintain a few articles.. Perhaps this would fall under the musicproject?GavinTing 07:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, the Davies brothers don't have good articles in my opinion. In terms of influence and musicality and stuff, the articles are simply undermining them. That's what I think. So, I would like to enlist the help of some fellow editors, that's all, on expanding the articles of the albums, including, the Davies brothers as I've mentioned and a couple of more. They are highly influential band and it is just very undermining to have such small articles. Painbearer 21:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The Kinks is a "B", Ray Davies and Dave Davies are both "Start"s, so you're right they're not very good. But there are only 53 total articles in the Category:The Kinks, which might not be enough for a stand-alone project. I think contacting either WP:MUSICIANS or some other group and requesting a task force might be the way to go, as 53 articles really isn't enough cause to create all the project pages, templates, etc., involved in the creation of a project. John Carter 22:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Language education

The scope of this WikiProject includes any current or prospective articles related to education related to second language acquisition. Beyond the scope of general information on language education, related articles include, but are not limited to, those dealing with language teaching pedagogy (in theory/research and in practice), employment in language education, as well as programs, organizations and schools dealing with language education.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Roehl Sybing 17:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Chris (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The rationale for this proposal is that I have yet to see an organized collaboration in an area that I believe certainly needs one. First, many related articles are edited and contributed to by non-native English speakers. Their contribution is most certainly welcome, but articles in this case still need to be assessed for style and syntax, to say nothing of NPOV. Second, certain important discussions need to take place regarding the prospective re-organization of a number of articles that may be too broad in scope or require merging with other articles. Third, linkspam and even articles inappropriately pointing to websites or resources not necessary for reference have run rampant in this area (Teaching English as a foreign language is a vulnerable target for linkspam to ESL websites, and at least a few articles for ESL websites and schools have been deleted in the past for non-notability). To these and other concerns, a major effort is necessary to improve the quality of articles that fall under the scope of language education. --Roehl Sybing 17:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't this be good as a task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Education? --Lquilter (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Last of the Summer Wine

Every article to do with Last of the Summer Wine
Interested Wikipedians -- 16
01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. -- 16:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If the scope of your project idea is very narrow (such as a TV show, music band, video game, etc), or your idea is a variation on a common theme, consider starting a task force of an existing project instead of a whole new WikiProject. Chris (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
That would go under WikiProject British TV Shows. Basketball110 18:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


This is a proposed project dealing with the subject of biographies of people in the legal professions, be it lawyers, law enforcement, judges, or others involved in the practice of law and law enforcement.
Interested wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. John Carter 17:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Newyorkbrad 19:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. .V. 20:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Psdubow 15:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. DebashisM 00:14, 13 November 2011(IST)

Would it also include professors of law? --Legis (talk - contributions) 19:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Am I wrong in thinking most professors also function, in at least a "sidelight", as practicing lawyers as well? If that is true, then clearly it would. Where that isn't true, that would be a question for the members to decide, but I would see no inherent reason to say "no". John Carter 19:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I like this idea, as well as including law professors. .V. [Talk|Email] 20:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It's also that many lawyers are associated in some way with a law school, and do part time teaching or group projects or clinical work--I've seen th term "clinical faculty" more and more. This is parallel to the very well-developed medical structure.DGG 02:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Layout


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; another example: (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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 (talkcontribs) 09:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


This WikiProject, if given the OK, would be to add the lyrics to articles about songs, if any. I feel it would give readers a better idea about the songs if they have not heard it before... of course, the lyrics would have to be referenced from a realiable source.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Mario Sonicboom Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! 16:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Be very careful with this one, and follow Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry. Chris 04:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "adding the lyrics to articles about songs" is definitely not OK. Quoting a line or two in a commentary is acceptable, but copy/pasting the whole thing is a copyright violation. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Although some older songs which either never had or have had copyright lapse might qualify, like maybe John Barleycorn, I agree that for most songs inclusion of lyrics is a great way to get the lawyers rushing the metaphorical door of wikipedia with summonses in hand. John Carter 00:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. With the type of songs that could have their lyrics added, this would almost be best as a task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject World music. -- TimNelson 01:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Use Wikisource:WikiProject Lyrics. You also can add *.Kar (Karaoke) MIDI files to Commons. --HybridBoy 10:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


This project would be to further expand the Maccabiah Games. Researching results, the history of the games etc.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. NYC2TLV

Madagascar (country)

The goal of this WikiProject would be to describe the animals, geography, climate, people/society, and government of the African country Madagascar. It would aim to clean up (edit) articles relating to the country, expand articles such as stubs, and to create articles in need of creation. This WikiProject would enable a better understanding of Madagascar.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

Proposer of WikiProject: Swannie

  • Chris 10:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Madhya Pradesh

A project, probably working with Wikipedia:WikiProject India, to work on articles relating to the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. [your name here]


I've noticed that many, if not most, articles on malware are very poorly worded and written. I know a thing or two about Wiki markup, and can write fairly well, so if anyone would like to help. Thanks :) *Zeratul grins insanely. Zeratul En Taro Adun!So be it. 01:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Zeratul En Taro Adun!So be it.
You also posted to Wikipedia:New contributors' help page#A question on WikiProjects and Wikipedia:Help desk#WikiProject Malware? within 30 minutes. I will copy my reply:
Are you aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Malware? It appears inactive but trying to revive it may be the best. PrimeHunter 02:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


A project, probably working with Wikipedia:WikiProject India, to work on articles relating to the Indian state of Manipur.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Maquahuitl 11:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Masters of the Universe

The original 1980s series He-Man and the Masters of the Universe still has a huge following, and the revival of the seris in the early 2000s saw a resurgance of interest in the franchise. There are currently around 200 articles relating to the various aspects of Masters of the Universe and the related He-Man and She-Ra TV series. All pages can be accessed via the category page. Overall there are some really good articles, but others are lacking in information and citaions. The purpose of the WikiProject would be to coordinate the expansion and improvement of the articles so that they meet Wiki standards with regards to verifiability etc.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. NeilEvans
  2. Annie D

If the scope of your project idea is very narrow (such as a TV show, music band, video game, etc) then you should start a task force of an existing project instead of starting a whole new WikiProject. Chris 20:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


A project, probably working with Wikipedia:WikiProject India, to work on articles relating to the Indian state of Meghalaya.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. [your name here]

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)


I have now found on the website:

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

Milton Keynes

This WikiProject aims to cover all articles connected to Milton Keynes
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. SeveroTC 15:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Concrete Cowboy 16:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Zorro77 19:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neostinker 19:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)]]

Parent WikiProjects:

SeveroTC 22:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


A project, probably working with Wikipedia:WikiProject India, to work on articles relating to the Indian state of Mizoram.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. [your name here]


This WikiProject would be for the improvement and development of Mongolia and Mongolian language-related articles. Mongolia-related articles are currently in WikiProject:Central Asia, and if they have their own WikiProject, I'm positive that it will contribute to the expansion of Mongolia-related articles.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. --ChinneebMy talk 14:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Chris 07:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Also check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia. Chris 07:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


Description : This project would create episode data for the Monk episodes, as well as character updates, and other things of that sort.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. WTRiker-Talk to me
  2. GavinTing
  3. Psdubow

If the scope of your project idea is very narrow (such as a TV show, music band, video game, etc) then you should start a task force of an existing project instead of starting a whole new WikiProject. Chris 23:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, certain TV shows have their own projects, such as The Simpsons. Monk seems popular enough to me, so I think it should deserve it's own project. Correct me if I'm wrong. =D GavinTing 10:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Better a Task Force. --HybridBoy 11:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Articles for individual television shows seem unjustifiable to me. Few individual episodes are noteworthy in any way, and are only included on Wikipedia to prevent fan revolt. The inductive logic that says an episode is noteworthy just because its actors or show is noteworthy is inherently flawed. -- Mikeblas 12:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


A project, probably working with Wikipedia:WikiProject India, to work on articles relating to the Indian state of Nagaland.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. [your name here]

National economies

This would be a subproject of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Business and Economics focusing on the several national economy articles, like Economy of the United States. One goal is to increase application of Template:Infobox Economy with fresh data (currently it is only used 53 times, the other pages taking a disorganized approach). Another goal would be to organize and update the text of the national economy articles, many of which need to be cleaned up, separated into proper sections, and expanded. WikiProject Economics and WikiProject Business and Economics are not really working on national economies, instead focusing on articles about businesses and the study of economics.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. LittleDantalk 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nautical Project

I have noticed there is no broad parent Nautical project. The idea has been very briefly discussed at Portal:Nautical. There seem to be areas that are falling through the cracks, like say, Sailing which is really just outside several projects, doesn't fall under Ships except for a limited portion of the historical aspects and the tall ships still afloat, "small craft" in general which are on the margins of Maritime Trades as so many are now purely recreational, Historical Novels like the Aubrey-Maturin series series and the Hornblower Series which are not top of the list at Novels Project or their authors which are in the same situation at Biographies Project. Both could use more attention. Most of these areas have little coverage or very few editors and need information and badly need sources. A few, like Sailing, appear to have gotten out of control and could probably stand a few new editors to at least comment on how things might be brought back into focus as an Encyclopedia. This would be a general parent project but with a primary intent of covering all those areas that the current active projects don't? Certainly not intended to step on the toes of those who are working hard on talking about military vessels, merchant shipping topics, or other things that are clearly within existing projects.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. --Doug.(talk contribs) 23:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. John Carter (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


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)
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. dramatic dramatic (talk)
  2. Lanma726 Matt (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Liveste (talk · contribs) 00:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  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)
  5. I agree needs it's own, am willing to participate. - Shudde talk 00:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


A WikiProject devoted to the coverage of newspapers around the world.
Interested Wikipedians (-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17
39, 5 July 2007 (UTC) - I'm not actually very interested in such a WikiProject, but I thought it should exist.)
  1. DodgerOfZion
  2. Psdubow 13:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested in helping out with this. --DodgerOfZion 18:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe connected to Wikipedia:WikiProject Journalism? Chris 10:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


Wikiproject to create and advance pages related to Nicaragua. Also, in helping advance the Portal:Nicaragua that i recently created. There are alot of articles in need of expanding and creating.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. User:LaNicoya\talk

North American football players

This proposed group would work with the existing Biography and footballl projects specifically on biographies of football players, coaches, etc., and other related articles. This group would specifically deal with college (and, potentially, pre-college), NFL, CFL, Arena Football League, and similar articles.
Interested wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. John Carter 13:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. RC-0722 (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Calling American football football is sticky enough when you are just referring to the United States, but when you bring in other countries (in this case, Canada), it really gets sticky. I think if you are going to have a project for this, you should broaden the scope to include ALL American football players. I'm not familiar with worldwide American football participation but I do know this would include NFL Europe players. I don't know how many articles this would add. This way, the project would simply be named American football players. Also, what is the precedent for a subgroup of a subgroup? Could this be a subgroup of WP:BIO/Sports & games? And for full disclosure, I am a member of WP:CFB.↔NMajdantalk 17:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
    • That's why I called this North American football, because of the differences between the Canadian and United States games. However, as many of us know, it is often the case when a player of one game goes to another. Warren Moon, Joe Theisman and Vince Ferragamo come to mind. The scope was described as it is to include all those who have played the game of Canadian and/or United States football in any of its forms, including AFL, NFL (which would include NFL Europa), CFL, USFL, WFL, Arena football leagues, college versions of the games, and all the other variant forms of these games. And, for what it's worth, it was intended that this be, in some form, a subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. However, given the breadth of the current Sports biography work group, I thought a more focused group dealing specifically with football might be ultimately a bit more successful. For purposes of full disclosure myself, I am a member of, among other things, the WP:CFL and WP:BIO. John Carter 17:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

North American Fresh Water Fishes

This project would be designed to complie information on the various fish and the ichthyology of fresh water environments of North (and possibly) central America (in an effort to narrow Wikiproject Fishes).
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. --Ryan shell 21:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oasis (band)

[Many of the Oasis Pages need major fixes]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Bobo6balde66
  2. Play Brian Moore
  3. Rocket000
  • OK, what meaning of the word Oasis is being used here? John Carter 20:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The popular English rock n' roll band.--Play Brian Moore 20:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
If the scope of your project idea is very narrow (such as a TV show, music band, video game, etc), or your idea is a variation on a common theme, consider starting a task force of an existing project instead of a whole new WikiProject. Chris 10:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
We could set up a taskforce over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music if enough people are interested. We've already got Be Here Now to FA status in the past month. WesleyDodds 04:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I definitely think this should be a task force and not a whole new project. Just look at this week's collaboration on Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music. - Rocket000 05:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - This appears to be much better done as a task force. Only a few articles (at most!) need be created: one for the band, one for albums, one for songs, maybe one for notable performances. --Lquilter (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject O.C.


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)


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



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



  • Oppose: Should be a Task Force in WikiProject Television -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)


  • 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)


This would be under the broader auspices of WP:MED, along the lines of WP:RENAL and WP:Rads. It would address standard of care and best practices in surgical, medical, and radiation oncology, along with maintaining and editing cancer related articles.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Djma12 (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Arcadian 01:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Many oncology articles are decent, but the topic area could use a more coordinated approach to both "conventional" and alternative medical approaches. My sense is that people get a fair amount of information on this topic from Wikipedia, so it would be worth putting in the effort. MastCell Talk 02:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Both WP:RENAL and WP:Rads are inactive, or close to it. Better coordination could be a good thing, but I would do it under WP:CLINMED. Cancer care is very much a team effort. --Una Smith 14:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. I am unconvinced there are enough Wikipedians to make this project worthwhile; it may be better to integrate it into Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. However if your group gathers support, please let me know. Axl 07:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Count me in.--Dr.michael.benjamin 03:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Operation: New Leaf

This would be a taskforce of the Counter-Vandalism Unit that would go to vandals and, through explaining Wikipedia's greatness and how much more fun it is to contribute, have them become new and trusted members of the community. In essence, it would have persistent vandals begin to constructively edit, and turn over a new leaf. With enough encouragement by patient and friendly individuals, I'm sure that a difference can be made. Arky¡Hablar! 19:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Phoenix741(Talk Page) 14:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I have created a userbox for the taskforce as well:
Torchlight button cancel.png

This user is a member of Operation: New Leaf

Torchlight apply.png

Arky¡Hablar! 23:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a very noble Idea, but I dont see it working. sry Phoenix741 23:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, Phoenix. I can see where you are coming from, and this is a thing I hear very often. However, it must be understood that vandals of Wikipedia aren't really on a vendetta to destroy the 'pedia, or that they hate Wikipedia, and are trying to bring it down. In most or all cases, they are bored, and need something to do with their time, or perhaps they crave attention on an international scale. When they are warned to stop, this just encourages them to keep going, so they can get warned again, or blocked, and receive even more attention. Either way, kind and very patient editors can go up to them and say that if they have time to kill, they can gain a lot more from contributing to the encyclopedia than vandalizing it. They need to be told that, if they contribute constructively, they will be loved and embraced by the community. After all, with vandals, it's not about assuming good faith, but about not assuming bad faith. They don't hate the wiki--they just need something to do. That's where this task force comes in. Happy editing, Arky¡Hablar! 01:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I get what your saying, I really do, and I respect the idea, just I am not sure if they will get the message, and then they may go to vandalizing your user page. I would joint, just I have no patients for them 8-/. I hope this works, I really hope it does and I wish you the best of luck, but I can see this ending badly.Phoenix741 01:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, then I thank you at least for your moral support; it is much appreciated. There is always the fear of a terrible end to all this, but if it means that maybe even only one vandal gets the message, I'll be satisfied. Then, at least, it's one less user to have no patience with =P Thanks again for your comments, they are much appreciated, Arky¡Hablar! 01:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems like a good idea, perhaps you should leave a message at CVU page and the WP:VANDALISM page to gain a broader view of what the community thinks. --Hdt83 Chat 08:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Arky I really don't see this working out. I mean, let's face it: some people enjoy destroying the work of others simply because it can be fun to garner a negative reaction out of them. And who can say they haven't laughed at someone when that someone was mad? Good luck, but don't get your hopes up. --MKnight9989 13:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, MKnight, I wholeheartedly agree. The main reason vandals vandalize is because they crave attention for their "handiwork". However, this does not in any way mean they are deliberately destroying the work of others merely for the sake of destruction. If, through patience and kindness, they can understand that they'll receive even more attention by constructively contributing, there is no doubt in my mind they can be reformed. Just take a look here and see the progress that's been made already. Imagine how big this list could be with this taskforce in operation. That's the kind of thing worth working for. Arky¡Hablar! 22:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Most vandals are just school age people of little intelligence. There might be the odd one that could contribute something useful, but I think for most of them editing Wikipedia seriously would increase rather than reduce their boredom. I don't think we should be wasting time with them, I don't see that it's worth the effort. If I see something I can reasonably call blatant vandalism, I give them the bv template then have them blocked if they continue. If I see people giving vandals soft warnings for deliberate or continued vandalism I often override them myself with a higher level warning. It's nice that you want to help them but I just don't think it's worth it, both because there is little to be gained and much to be lost, both in terms of our time and the delay in blocking that will allow more vandalism to occur. Richard001 08:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, Arky, not every vandal is an attention-whore. Some people enjoy destroying things. Some people are naturally malicious. others just enjoy badgering others. In school these people are called bullies. --MKnight9989 12:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, MKnight, not every vandal seeks attention; some simply enjoy destruction. However, these extreme cases are in no way equal in number to those in which the vandal merely seeks attention. Secondly, to address Richard's concerns, in my opinion, it is never a waste of time to help someone, even if you don't think you'll succeed. Also, there is much to be gained from another constructive contributor, and little to be lost if they refuse. After all, as you said, you can upgrade their warnings, have them blocked, or any other sort of punishment if they continue their vandalism. If the correct effort is put in, there is much to be gained from a reformed vandal, but, yes, I understand your argument. Arky¡Hablar! 01:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You know, you say vandals are bored and need something to do. Well, tell them to edit wikipedia productively. That's what I do when I'm bored. Smartyllama 17:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
An alternate proposal. I can reasonably understand that editors who are on strict probation might not want to advertise that fact too loud. Sometimes, however, those editors are given as one of the requirements of being unblocked being adopted (or supervised) by a more experienced, respected editor. That can be at times difficult, particularly if none of the available "adopters" want to help a given party. I can definitely see the userbox above being used instead, for editors who are on a sort of "community-supervised adoption", maybe with a link to a page where any misconduct they might be accused of could be mentioned and addressed as required. But "New Leaf" or the equivalent sounds a lot better than "probation" or any of its equivalents. John Carter (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I like the sound of this idea but I don't see it working that well; maybe if you do something like John Carter suggested, but as I said before I don't think this would work. I will try to help though; however I don't go on Wikipedia for hours at a time as often as most users do(I tend to go on in short bursts) so I may not be that much of a help. Good Luck and I'll help out were I can, even if it is just using a slightly modified template that mentions Operation: New Leaf. You may have some luck with unblocking users who have been a {{2nd chance}} and you might be able to help out there, Good Luck and I'd like to see how this turns out. --Chris 09:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


A project, probably working with Wikipedia:WikiProject India, to work on articles relating to the Indian state of Orissa.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. [your name here]

OS Development

A project to create a clear and concise set of articles on computer operating systems
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

Jatos 09:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


I been looking around some of the operating system articles, I would say a lot of them could do with some serious work. I know this is already covered in the scope of the an existing wikiproject on computing, but I think it could do with its own WikiProject, owing to the amount of information people might want to know on operating systems and their development, and the fact this is a fairly specialist area. Also operatinhg systems are fairly important thing in the modern world that really do make the modern world go round, on the grounds that they are essential for computers to operate, and computers are key to our modern life. Jatos 09:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am only an occasional editor with OS stuff, more so Radio & TV Broadcasting. I will probably not be of much help, as current pages seem OK. Eyreland 02:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a tak force of WP:TECH?--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 15:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire

A project to centralize work on articles related to the Ottoman Empire.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Hemlock Martinis 06:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Deliogul 08:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Hiberniantears 21:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. OwenBlacker (Talk) 08:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • By creating such a project, we can carry the article of the empire to the featured level. We can also solve the conflicting stories in different articles. Deliogul 08:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Why would this not fall under the existing WP:Turkey as a workgroup? Chris 09:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, it would be nice if we have a specialized squad to work on Ottomans. This is not just about the main article of the empire. It is also about the rulers (Sultans, Askeris etc.), social structure and events, culture and war history. Turkey project can be more effective if we take the responsibility of six centuries from their shoulders. Then they can work on present day issues and modern structure of Turkey. By the way, we can reach this goal by creating a specialized team under the Wikiproject Turkey if people want it that way. Deliogul 13:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
A specialized WikiProject would assist us greatly in focusing on the Ottoman topics and coordinating our efforts towards improving them. This would not be accomplished as easily within the framework of the Turkish project, and we would be doing them a disservice by distracting them from their improvements while we try to conduct ours. --Hemlock Martinis 19:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a great idea, and one that will benefit the article, and its branch topics tremendously. As for the WP:Turkey suggestion, I think a differentiated Ottoman project is the way to go. Looking over both Turkey and Ottoman Empire you will see that the edit history of both articles contains numerous disputes wherein editors cannot make the distinction between an Ottoman timeline (and definition), and a Republic of Turkey timeline. Hiberniantears 17:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
There already is an extant Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries, which already has a few task forces dedicated to individual countries. I think they may be receptive to taking this group on as a task force if the degree of interest justifies it. John Carter 17:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe this is a good idea, and I hope the existence of this project – whether on its own or as a subproject or task force of WikiProject Former countries – will contribute to attracting quality editors for this important area. Some form of liaison with WikiProject History also seems in order. (I'm not listing myself above because I do not have access to the kind of sources needed for an active role, but I'll be happy to copy edit what I see can be improved, and perhaps from time to time signal problems I spot.)  --Lambiam 23:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I definitely think this is a good idea. There's no reason people from WP:Turkey (and WP:WPFC) can't join in on such a WikiProject, after all. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 08:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • A specialized task force within WikiProject Former Countries would give this effort autonomy to focus on the Ottoman Empire, but also to coordinate with other WikiProjects and task forces. In that role it would be able to take the initiative of developing provisions on how WPFC should handle the various aspects of historical empires. There has generally been a lack of coordination between sets of articles related to different former countries, and when it comes to empires there are many additional levels of complexity to take into account. By associating this effort to the WikiProject Former Countries there is a better chance of achieving a lasting structure to the Wikipedia content that relates to the Ottoman Empire, and quite possibly set the standards for other empires. -- Domino theory 15:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
So, how many people is needed if we want to form such a Wikiproject? Who will give the permission to do so? Will we form it? There are many questions to be asked as the time passes. Deliogul 20:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
There isn't a hard and fast rule. However, it generally works best if a group has five or more members to be recognized as a task force/work group, 10 for an entirely separate project. While technically it is possible to create things with smaller numbers than that, the results often don't turn out as well, and projects often wind up being deleted, tagged as {{inactive}}, or turned into task forces of other projects anyway. John Carter 20:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this could become a joint WP:TURKEY - WP:HIST task force?--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 15:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology is running so can be deleted.


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)
  1. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Lurai (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. USer:Skyler13 (talk) --Skyler :^| 22:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Big Support - I can't believe this doesn't already exist. – ClockworkSoul 01:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Big Support - I would love this wikiproject.
  • Support Da'jhan 23:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support -surprised it didn't exist The Bald One White cat 12:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


I propose a project concerning the work of Charles Schulz, particularly Peanuts.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Faithlessthewonderboy 23:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Bernstein2291 03:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. John Carter (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Comic strips, though not very active right now, covers pretty much all the same territory. Maybe it could be made a task force and, maybe, help revitalize the parent project? John Carter 22:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. Since there doesn't seem to be any interest, perhaps I'll look into that. I personally feel that a WikiProject is justified for Peanuts, as it was the longest running and most popular comic strip of all time, and there are plenty of articles on Peanuts on WP. But if the interest isn't there, what can one do? :P Thanks for the suggestion! :) faithless (speak) 01:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Considering school is just starting, I'd wait a bit before saying there's no interest, and definitely still keep the proposal here. John Carter 17:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • No reason a task force couldn't be just as effective as a "project". It's not about the merits of the topic, it's more the size of the topic, and while Peanuts is a very notable comic, there probably still can't be more than a dozen articles to write about it. --Lquilter (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
More like 124 in the Category:Peanuts (comic strip) and its subcats. John Carter (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


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

Philadelphia Phillies

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)
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)
  6. Fantusta (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Philippine collegiate leagues

This task force would standardize the articles and other templates pertaining to the University Athletic Association of the Philippines (UAAP), Philippine NCAA, and other Philippine collegiate leagues.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Aeron Valderrama 04:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. [your name here]
  • Support if this is expanded to include the Philippine NCAA and other Philippine collegiate leagues. --Howard the Duck 16:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC).
  • UAAP was singled out due to the presence of sports like judo, softball and baseball that does not exist in other leagues, but needs to be standardized like use of templates for judo medallists and boxscores for baseball and softball. Aeron Valderrama 10:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I think only those 3 sports are "UAAP-exclusive," other college leagues have other sports. Also, I really don't think sports events of these 3 sports and about half-a-dozen other events are notable enough. Only basketball and volleyball, and even soccer IMHO are that notable. --Howard the Duck 13:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Photo Requests

Description: Make it easier to find articles needing photographs by sorting and categorizing requests in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

  1. Tim Pierce
  2. Traveler100

Project page User:Twp/Drafts/WikiProject Photo Requests


  • Maybe you should consider becoming a task force of the newly revived WikiProject Photography. NauticaShades 15:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the suggestion! I don't know why I missed that before. I'll go talk it up over there. Tim Pierce 13:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I have noticed that image requests that are included in WikiProject templates on talk pages do not appear anywhere in the Category:Wikipedia requested photographs pages. being involved in the Ireland WikiProject article assessments, we have included a photo needed tag in out template but the articles listed here Category:Ireland articles needing images don't appear to get included in your current setup. Perhaps a simple link to this category on the Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Ireland page will be enough to satisfy or maybe something else is needed or maybe the current category should be redirected to the WikiProject Ireland category page. I am sure that there are other project where the same issue applies. ww2censor 13:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    The Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Ireland category is filled by placing on an article Talk page the {{reqphotoin}} template. Work is under way to show on a map all photo requests for which a geographical coordinate can be found. So a photographer can find nearby subjects no matter what the topic (if the subjects are at a specific location, rather than just a request for a picture of a flower). (SEWilco 14:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC))
    I know quite well how to place a stand alone photo request template into a talk page but we already include it in our WikiProject Ireland template as do many other WikiProjects. Do you want duplication? I doubt it. So what practical solution do you have because we are not going to revisit (currently) 400+ article just to remove one template parameter and then replace it with a separate template - that is double work - those articles are already tagged as needing photos. Some combination solution is what I was suggesting so that they would be included. ww2censor 14:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It would certainly be possible to put Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Ireland in the Category:Wikipedia requested photographs. That would place them all in the main category in a way. John Carter 16:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I trid doing that but could not get the cat to appear on the page. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can do it. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


Description: This will bring a group of interested wikipedians together to work on and improve anything pitbull related. This includes history, famous pitulls, breeders, ect.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

  1. Busboy
  2. User: Majestysquest

So far as I can tell, there's only one article we currently have about pit bulls per se, 12 listed owners of pit bulls who have their own articles, 2 individuals (Michael Vick and DMX) who've been charge on related cruelty charges, and 2 articles on real or fictional pit bulls. I'm not sure that's really even remotely enough cause to set up an entire separate project page, templates, and whatever else needs to go into the creation of a project. Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs and Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds already deal with the subject. Maybe you'd be better off creating and developing a larger number of articles on the subject first before creating an entirely separate project. John Carter 21:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I could create a taskforce instead? The wikiproject Dog breeds seems to be lacking ii the pitbull breed...

Sorry, I was wrong. In addition to Pit Bull, we also have articles on at least seven more specific breeds, according to the first paragraph of that article. And, to create a task force of another project, you'd have to get the agreement of the main project. You could move this section down to the "task forces" section and see if there was enough interest, though. John Carter 23:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Pirates

A group of dedicated Pittsburgh Pirates fans focus on the expansion of current and historic items spanning Pirates history.
Interested wikipedians (please add your name below)
  • This would be a sub-project of WikiProject:Baseball. -- ThirdPoliceman 19:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Police Academy

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)
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. EclipseSSD (talk)

Politics of Northern Ireland

A project to develop the coverage of Northern Irish politics. The project would work alongside Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republicanism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Unionism, on articles where there is overlap with one or both. In addition to expanding our coverage of this field, it could potentially focus on promoting discussion and locating reliable sources.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Warofdreams talk 19:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. — --Padraig 19:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. — --Valenciano 18:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. — --Traditional unionist 14:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Posturology


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)

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 Articles on reflex posturology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HansMassage (talkcontribs) 04:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


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 (talkcontribs) 06:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose -seems to be few editors who would actively work on such a project The Bald One White cat 12:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy and childbirth


Articles on pregnancy and childbirth are surprisingly lacking in both quality and quantity. I've been working on them a bit, but could use help. Many topics are not clinical or entirely clinical in nature and tend to be neglected by other hard-working projects such as WP:MED. I am not sure if it would be better to create a task force within WP:MED or a full-fledged WikiProject. I have created a couple of draft pages in my user space (sample project page, navigation template). --Ginkgo100talk 15:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians
  1. Ginkgo100talk
  2. Ferrylodgetalk
  3. Kuronuetalk
  4. epetersotalk
  • This is an important topic and it's been embarrassing that it hasn't had better treatment before now. I'd like to suggest also that in addition to medical & biological aspects, this project would really help deal with the issues of pregnancy and childbirth on other fields -- arts, literature (Reproduction and pregnancy in science fiction), mytho-religion (virgin births); social aspects of pregnancy & childbirth (Pregnancy Discrimination Act, surrogate pregnancy, "illegitimacy" which although nominally about the child is fundamentally about maternal marital status at childbirth); religious & cultural taboos and rituals -- just to give a few examples. --Lquilter (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Prison Break


A WikiProject for articles about Prison Break 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.--Shadyaftrmathgunit (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


  • Strongly agree, but it should be taskforce, not a project. Still, articles about "Prison Break" are much weaker, than articles about "Lost". --Nagasheus (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support It should not be a task force as part of the TV Project, it should have its own Project and I support it all the way. Andre666 (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. While I probably won't participate, I agree that there should be a taskforce. Prison Break articles are horrible; much work is required. / 07:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support This subject needs strict management and a better discussion place. I would join it without hesitation and help as much as I can --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Created the Wikiproject please check it out and help if u can


  • Strong Oppose Be part of WP:TVHereFord 15:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Far to narrow in focus for a WikiProject. Would support a Task Force in WikiProject Television. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - this should be changed to a task force proposal which I would support and possibly participate. Most of the articles will be assessed as TV articles and as such should it be part of WP:TV not a stand alone project. (See this). I would like to point out that having tried to make a WikiProject for The O.C. the current task force that now exists makes assessing articles easier than it would have been otherwise. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - A taskforce of WP:TV will suffice. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 07:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not enough there to warrant a project. bd2412 T 16:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


  • I don't actually oppose the idea, but do you not think it would be better suited to a taskforce of the aforementioned TV Project? Gavin Scott (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Product Design/ Technical Information

An attempt to create, better and categorise articles related to product design, but not exclusively industrial design. These would include information on designs/products, design theory and design tools/ resources. Emphasis given to technical information/data, such as:
  • specifications
  • manufacture process
  • diagrams, schematics and pictures

and any other legitimate useful information.

This resource would be useful to consumers, designers/engineers, DIY hobbyists and enthusiasts. There is a lack of quality technical information on Wikipedia, however there is a lots of knowledge out there that could be harnessed by the wiki format . I feel there is no reason Wikipedia shouldn't have better design resources.

I understand there are issues of pages may get bloated by “excessive” technical information/data and so a solution would be short summary in the main descriptive article with a complimentary detailed technical page. This technical page could link to relevant resources (manuals, guides and tutorials} in Wikisource, Wikibooks, and on external sites. It would link to various Wikipedia projects, portals and categories. A portal “Product Design” would be developed: [1]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Chendy 01:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Provide Alternatives to Technical Jargon (Divulgatiion)

There is an understandable tendency within any specific profession to use shortcut words to help make communication quicker and clearer between the experts in that profession. Unfortunately, in an encyclopedia, that's a bad thing, since the goal is for the encyclopedia to teach general consumers interested in self-educating about those specialized concepts, and that insider-driven jargon tends to alienate or intimidate outsiders.
The overall mission/goal for the project would be to keep technical articles accessible to non-expert readers. While technical jargon specific to any field can keep the prose concise and accurate, the unfortunate side-effect is to increase the amount of effort required for a non-expert, or a person not part of that scholarship to understand the topic and the encyclopedic prose.
My contention is that if Wikipedia truly is for the masses, as Wikipedia:Wikiproject Countering systemic bias and Wikipedia:About seem to imply, it's our responsibility to keep language clear and accessible for all of the people who would use it. I don't think it's necessary to stamp out the use of technical jargon, but I do think it's possible and would be helpful to provide parenthetical or footnoted alternate explanation for those who might not understand the technical jargon.
For example, while editing an article recently in the Medicine WikiProject, I was struck by the term, "Psychosocial Morbidity" used to describe a possible developmental symptom of Klinefelter's syndrome. While the term does not mean that a person displaying the symptom necessarily has a terminal illness, it would be easy to draw that conclusion from the terminology. It would be helpful, perhaps, to insert a parenthetical comment into the article, or a reference, that talks about how the "morbidity" of the term talks about the psychological self not developing fully and doesn't address the topic of literal death at all.
Similarly, it could conceivably be just as important to a new scholar of military history to know that there is a difference in accuracy and other traits between a musket and a rifle, or a bow and a crossbow.
Additionally, it's possible for the heavy use of technical jargon to hide NPOV issues in articles, and for that reason as well, it would be good to try to make the details of an article something everyone could easily understand.
As with all of these kinds of semantics issues, there are obviously poor ways to go about compensating for the issue and good ways, and it would be an interesting challenge with worthwile results, I think, to try to address dynamic this within Wikipedia itself.
Interested Wikipedians
  1. MalcolmGin (talk · contribs) 21:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. --HybridBoy 11:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I would create a (Science and Tecnology) Divulgation Project. --HybridBoy 11:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Psychopathic Records

This project would help to organize and expand the artists, releases, etc. of Psychopathic Records. I have been looking at the pages, and have worked on some, and they are very unorganized.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. JpGrB
  2. Juggalobrink 19:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. the juggreserection(ive been waiting forever for this wikiproject)
  • If the scope of your project idea is very narrow (such as a TV show, music band, video game, etc), or your idea is a variation on a common theme, consider starting a task force of an existing project instead of a whole new WikiProject. Chris (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Public speaking


A project for the improvement of articles related to public speaking and speechwriting, including debating, speakers clubs, the arts of oratory and rhetoric, as well as famous speeches through history. I haven't been able to find any existing project that includes these topics, nor any where this would fit well as a task force.


  1. coldacid (talk|contrib) 06:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)



  • Perhaps you should try it as a task force, instead. AlexanderTG (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I've considered the task force angle, but a task force under what? As far as I know, task forces don't exist on their own, but as part of another project. And I can't figure any project that this would already fit within. If task forces can exist on their own, though, then this could work that way, with enough interest from others. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 02:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)



  • Hmm, I'm sorry but I just don't see it working- I would be surprised if you get a dedicated group of editors together who would work on this. Also, it seems to me that it would tread along the same ground as Politicians, History etc. Gavin Scott (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Concur that this is far too narrow in scope for a full project. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)



A project, probably working with Wikipedia:WikiProject India, to work on articles relating to the Indian state of Rajasthan.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. [your name here]

Recently Deceased Biographies

A biography on wikipedia gets a lot of attention right after a notable person dies. The purpose of this project would be to help get that article up to a high standard and monitor the site so that those that stumble upon wikipedia for information about the deceased person would see our best quality product.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Remember 14:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Tom M. 20:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. SailorAlphaCentauri 15:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. There's no topicality to bind users together is there? There's no way this is a viable WikiProject imho. What it could and perhaps should be is a page within WikiProject Biography. Just create a page for interested users to congregate at. You don't need any project banner or anything as you won't be claiming "ownership" of any pages ("recent" soon expires, after all). --kingboyk 14:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I disagree that it is viable. While there is no topic to bind people, there is a uniform mission (i.e., to make sure that all biographies of currently deceased people are up to a certain quality and maintain that quality during the period that they have the most traffic). Remember 02:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC
- I agree with Remember, that it IS viable.Tom M. 20:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
This should be a taskforce of the Biography project. A seperate project just for recently deceased people is a bit broad. RobJ1981 20:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Reggae Project

[To inprove apon and create articles related to Reggae, Dub and Ska. I feeel at current there are to many articles on the subject that are too short and lacking in detail, I do try and make inprovements myself but I think a project is needed]
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. AJUK
  2. User:Hailey C. Shannon

Relational Databases

There are many database topics on Wikipedia, but they are incosistently formatted, generally need cleanup for content, POV/neutrality, and are poorly referenced. They are also not very well organized and sometimes hard to find.
I'd like to get working at collecting them, but it's a task bigger than me alone. First, building a list of the involved topics is necessary. The project includes topics releated to database administration, database technologies, SQL programming, alternative languages, relational theory, database theory, and probably a few other areas.
The project strictly does not include non-relational databases (such as object stores, flat files, and so on). It does not include specific instances of databases, such as those found online or commonly used as services.
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Mikeblas 21:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. --Kevinkor2 00:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Diletante
  4. 08:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little mixed about the scope. Maybe "relational" is too limiting. I think the scope includes all of thes subects in {{databases}}, plus many more. -- Mikeblas 12:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I recently proposed a #Database project with similar goals, which would encompass non-relational databases as well. I too feel the scope should be broadened to include non-relational databases (hierarchical databases, object-oriented databases, XML data stores, and flat files to name a few). SqlPac 18:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
XML data stores aren't databases in any real sense; while some circles hold them in vogue, they have to be read sequentially, aren't relational, aren't OO, and so on. "Databases" alone also leaves the door open to instances of databases, as I mention above. I'm fine for increasing the scope to other viable technologies, but flat files just aren't interesting. -- Mikeblas 12:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I might also be interested, but I agree the scope should be refined. Perhaps one might want to distinguish between databases and DBMS? that would eliminate the problem of someone trying to add "The database containing My favorite colletion of Foo" to the project. Excluding OOPs, hierarchical, or sequential databases is a problem because many relational database systems are built on a non-relational core. The relational model refers to the human interface, not the underlying technology, a point often made by EF Codd, the founder of relational database theory. For efficiency reasons, many older systems, particularly on main frames, are hybrids - they provide an SQL interface but the underlying system is CICS-ISAM or some other hierarchical technology. Even more modern systems such as MySQL originally used ISAM alone as its core (now multiple storage mechanisms are supported). ODBC (and by extension any JDBC/ODBC bridge) provides an SQL front end to a wide variety of storage technologies: CSV and XML among them. Furthermore, there are several hybrid technologies out there that attempt to combine competing logical models into a single system, e.g. object-relational. Best, and keep me posted if you decide to start this project Egfrank 08:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Religious programmes


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)
  2. John Carter (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)


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 (talkcontribs) 18:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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


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)

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))

Wikiproject Template Appeal


This wikiproject would be how you appeal if you where templated.


  1. HereFord 18:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)





  • Strong Oppose - Admins responsiblity; not a WikiProject function. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


  • What? Gavin Scott (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral leaning on weak oppose same with Absolon it's admin's responsibility but i won't really say no if it has been accepted122.53.94.254 (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre


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)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. EclipseSSD (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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 (talkcontribs)
  • Strong oppose - not valid enough to even have its own WP:Films taskforce. The Bald One White cat 12:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - too narrow. Shirulashem (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support due to notability of franchise that has also been made into comics. --A NobodyMy talk 16:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Trolleybuses

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)
Interested Wikipedians (sign using 3 tildes (~~~))
  1. BG7
  2. Arsenikk (talk)
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)

  • Conditional support -I'd strongly recommend either reviving WP:Buses as a general project or having it as a task force of WP:Transport. The Bald One White cat 12:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject WikiLyrics


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
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)


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)
Look at User:Save the humans/Wikisafety
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. S.T.H. ( P/T/C )
  2. USer:Skyler13 (talk) --Skyler :^| 22:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)
I hope you spell "safety" correctly if the project ever gets going. --Eustress (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Opps. Srry lol. I changed it S.T.H. ( P/T/C ) 23:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
  • Comment. Change the name of it to WikiProject WikiPrivacy and have it focus on:
  • Strong oppose -ludicrous The Bald One White cat 12:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Annoying busybodiness, that assumes editors are morons. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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.
    • ^ 1