This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
This page was moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Archive 1 and thus may be out of chronological order in terms of the preceding and subsequent archives. |
Does anyone mind if I archive the proposals up to April 1? -- Yarnalgo 04:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
What is the proper archive method for this page? The article says to just delete projects that have started, is that the current practice or are they supposed to be copied elsewhere? I don't mind doing the work so long as I know what to do. Argash | talk | contribs 11:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I see some proposals being added to the top of the list and some to the bottom of the list. Perhaps some consistency is warranted? There needs to be an explicit notice at the top of the page saying where to add new proposals. -- StuffOfInterest 13:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm interested in creating a proposal for a WikiProject devoted to volcanoes. I'm not sure if I can propose it because I'm what you Wikipedians call anons. Also, I'm not sure if there's another WikiProject out there that relates to volcanoes, so can I propose a Volcano WikiProject even though I'm an anonymous user? 74.225.117.237 17:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I just made a Wikiproject Korea. But I didn't know that there was this project page? What should I do? Good friend100 18:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I hope that it meets with the approval of the rest of you that I have added a section to the page regarding requesting projects. There are probably a number of fields which are not yet covered by an existing project which seem to call for the creation of one. If any of you believe that this is an inappropriate use of this page, however, please feel free to remove the section. Thank you. Badbilltucker 18:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Er.......
I was proposing to set up the WikiProject of Transport around Edinburgh and Glasgow but the proposal has already gone wrong. I was hoping to set this up for the management of 5 systems, 3 of which were rapid transit but now 've got editors thinking this will cover the Scottish rail network plus motorways, ferries and everything else associated. Perhaps i should have chosen a better title but am not sure what to do now, or if i should get rid of my proposal...
Simply south 18:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
If I improve this page to the process structure similar to WP:Editor review, would anyone oppose to that? AQu01rius ( User • Talk) 04:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
What is it attempting to accomplish? XYZ CrVo 02:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually more a query than proposing one. Would i be allowed the propose another user's WikiProject but give the credit to them? Simply south 16:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I craeted and piped Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland to WP:PWNB which has been acting as such wikiproject for many months. I did it so our Template:WikiProject Poland wouldn't look out of place.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 01:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
An idea, what if we just made a sub-page for task force proposals directly? I suspect that many people would be fine with a task force, but don't know what existing projects it should be under or how to go about doing it. We could also easily bump over very narrow ideas to the sub page and help clean the main proposal page up faster. -- Ned Scott 00:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there any way inactive projects of similar scope can be absorbed or renamed into some of these projects proposed, so that work is not duplicated? Chris 08:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you could. Alternatively, one could simply join the {{ inactive}} project and get it going again, I don't know why, one couldn't then change the name to a broader topic if it made sense.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 02:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know who monitors this page, but instead of proposing and creating a whole new project here I decided to start up a Frank Lloyd Wright project as a division of the National Register of Historic Places Project. It is slow getting going {part of the reason I posted here) but has begun as a cross project collaboration between NRHP, Architecture, and state projects. Is there somewhere around the Council to let people know about new projects that have started as divisions or task forces of other projects instead, perhaps linked from the proposals page so as not to cause overlap in new proposals, recommend reading, I don't know, was this even a good idea? Any thoughts? IvoShandor 11:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, all. I need some help in maintaining WikiProject Shannara. There are a few members, but they didn't seem to be doing anything anymore. I hope someone would be kind enough to go through the bother of checking it out. Thanks in advance! Cheers!! Zachary crimsonwol f 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 14:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It's been suggested that I list WikiProject buses on here to ensure that people know about it. Is that a good idea? -- NE2 18:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
A WikiProject:Veterinary Medicine was proposed over 4 months ago, and there hasn't been much interest generated in it. My concern is that newcomers won't know that the idea for this project even exists. I'm biased in this regard, but I feel that this project is an important one, and most of the articles in veterinary medicine need a great deal of work. So here are my questions:
Thanks for your time, and please let me know if this should have been posted elsewhere. -- Joelmills 22:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to the two people have added their name since I posted this. I think what I will do is leave messages for people that have seemed to show interest in vet med articles and direct them to the proposals page. In the meantime I'll work on the temporary page, in anticipation of this project coming together. -- Joelmills 20:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Why has Ned Scott removed all the templates and blanked the template, without the slightest discussion? How did the proposal suddenly, magically become an "inactive project", without consulting any of the interested parties? Chris 04:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Although it does "overlap" these things, it is a separate place with a separate culture, a separate history, and a separate dialect. It's no different than doing separate states, or having a project or task force on cornwall or brittany. -- -G.T.N. ( talk) 01:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I've am seeking members for a MARC train task force. Anybody can join but I would like people who live (or work) in Maryland or West Virginia. I need some pictures and some infomation. Also anyone who knows about Amtak or CSX would be helpful. People who are good at creaing articles about train stations. Thanks -- Plyhmrp 23:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Plyhmrp
The sprawling list needed some maintenance. I have removed old and neglected requests from the page. Requests with no posting in over a month has been removed. I have generally left any request with comments or additional member listings posted within the past month. I left requests intact with sufficient members for the project to begin. The list may need further cleanup, but I thought starting with old and neglected requests was a good idea. Vassyana 02:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to have a go at cleaning up too, looks like it needs it again. I'll just delete things over two months to start with. I am a lemon 23:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, listing proposals in alphabetical order is very counterproductive (read: makes no sense at all). How will people know which are new? What about people who check the page from time to time, and are looking for recent additions? The newness is more salient than the title.... BETTER YET create a sortable wikitable with links to all projects listed, and columns for Title and Add Date. The wikitable itself can be located on a separate subpage of project, updated by bot, and transcluded to main page.... hmmm.... Ling.Nut 19:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
This list is quite large. Perhaps a split would be in order? I was thinking of using general categories such as Humanities, Sciences, Culture, Wikipedia and Miscellaneous. (And yep, I'm willing to {{tl:sofixit}} myself if people are OK with the split.) Thoughts? Vassyana 17:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Should I start a project under this title? It seems to fit under Christian Liturgy. Laleena talk to me contributions to Wikipedia 18:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It is a huge mess. To aid in cleaning up:
1) Could we put them in order of date rather than alphabetical? Newest proposals up the top. Old ones would drift to the bottom where they can be easily and quickly deleted.
2) Can we suggest an approximate number of articles that would require a wikiproject rather than a task force? I was thinking maybe about twenty?
3) Can we also encourage people to delete their proposals once they reach a decision either to form a project or not? There are lots in the list that sound resolved.
4) Can we have a task force proposal page? There are so many things on that list that are definetly task forces, and two seperate pages would be so much easier to manage than one.
I have just been trying to tidy the whole list, deleting proposals inactive for over two months. In an hour, I got as far as the DaimlerChrysler proposal. Perhaps we need a task force to manage the page :-P I am a lemon 00:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- This would become a pain to search if it were not alpha ordered, IMO. -- Doug. 17:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Was this project approved? In my opinion it is much too small and topic is too small to make a WikiProject on. - Sox 207 19:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe that there should be a Star Ocean: Till the End of Time Wikiproject because it is a good game; did I say good?... I meant GREAT game. If a wikiproject is created, i would be the first to join!. castlevaniamaster1 11:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Please note that based on a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council the time for archiving project proposals which haven't reached the recommended size for creating a project has been reduced from 6 months to 4. This change has been reflected in the information at the top of the Proposals page.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 22:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be good if proposals were set up as on XfD pages and archived the same way, that way links to old proposals wouldn't simply lead to the this page with no further information.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 15:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I opened the revision of the page from Aug 11, and the following proposals are at least that old. I only had time to compare up to the letter M, inclusively. Although I don't know if any of these proposals have enough interested editors to approve. I'll work on it some more tomorrow, if I'm doing this the right way. Can I be Frank? (Talk to me!) 06:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
(list removed)
After giving the proposals of interest a scan-through, I've come up with a crude list of recommendations:
* 1.39 Former Featured Articles WikiProject (start it?) * 1.68 M*A*S*H (start it?) * 1.96 Pixar (more discussion needed?) * 1.108 Revolutions of 1848 (start it, or WP European History?) * 1.110 Robotics (start it?)
* 1.10 Austrian Economics * 1.11 Autism * 1.17 Cellos * 1.21 Costa Rica (WP Central America?) * 1.25 Daft Punk * 1.28 Desperate Housewives (WP Television?) * 1.32 Edgar Allan Poe * 1.40 Frisians * 1.41 Global Warming * 1.43 Guitar Tunings * 1.49 House, M.D. (WP Television?) * 1.54 Intelligence Agencies (funnel to WP Intelligence Agency?) * 1.55 Inter-religious content (funnel to WP Religion?) * 1.65 Law & Order (WP Television?) * 1.74 Milton Keynes (WP England?) * 1.77 Mobile Phones (WP Cellular Devices?) * 1.86 Oasis (band) * 1.99 Pop music (WP Music?) * 1.115 Skateboarding * 1.118 Steely Dan (WP Music?) * 1.133 WikiProject 1990s (WP Decades?)
* 1.8 Athens (archive?) * 1.13 Beanie Babies * 1.16 Bowling (archive?) * 1.36 Event venues * 1.44 Gymnastics * 1.47 Hominids * 1.52 Indiana Jones * 1.64 Latrobe Valley * 1.66 Lead Paragraph Cleanups (already started?) * 1.69 Madagascar (country) * 1.71 Malware * 1.85 Newspapers * 1.95 Pittsburgh Pirates * 1.102 Project Management * 1.106 Religious leaders (already started?) * 1.109 Roads in New York City * 1.120 That's So Raven * 1.121 Thrash Metal * 1.125 Trucks (already started, WP Transport?) * 1.130 Winnipeg Blue Bombers * 1.131 Wizard Rock * 1.132 World Heritage Sites (already started?) * 2.5 Global Perspectives Task force
If I added a parenthetical commentary, that means I looked at the proposal twice: once when I grouped them by number of interested people, and a second time when I examined those proposals with 4-12 interested people. How bold should I be in moved these things around? Can I be Frank? (Talk to me!) 07:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Anyone willing to volunteer on the Frisian Project, please vote for it on the main page! -The Bold Guy- ( talk) 18:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to start a Wikiproject for Central Pennsylvania, which includes the cities of Altoona, Pennsylvania, State College, Pennsylvania, Johnstown, Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, and other cities and communities in the central Pennsylvania region. Although there are individual articles about these cities, and in some cases articles about neighborhoods and buildings in these cities, I strongly believe that a Central Pennsylvania wikiproject that covers most of what's between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia would be very useful for those who want to learn about Pennsylvania's interior. Articles such as those about Weis Markets and Sheetz, which are based in central Pennsylvania, would also be covered under the Wikiproject. MVillani1985 ( talk) 04:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there any way to make this article have the time and date and messages added automatically placed? It would make it a bit easier to know when a proposal has been here for four months, particularly as several people forget to put the time and date on their proposals. John Carter ( talk) 20:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I made two proposals, one for a project on gerontology, one for a project on transpersonal studies, which seem to have met with zero interest. Can I, as the author of these proposals, suggest that it it is OK now to detete them? ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone review this project just made on 2007-12-31 by Dantheu2man? The WikiProject banner associated with it was typed inline and not as a template, resulting in the inclusion of the talk page for Talk:"Weird Al" Yankovic in Category:WikiProject banners. I didn't see anything that suggests that Dantheu2man talked to anyone before creating this project all by himself. -- Geopgeop ( T) 11:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I was looking in the list of projects why has this dissapered? Police,Mad,Jack ( talk · contribs) 21:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
In November 2007, I made a plea for WikiProject on gerontology, but as I see that it has had no response what so ever, can I be radical and suggest that it is now rejected? I do not mind if some one now deletes it - by all means go ahead! ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 21:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I now have deleted this - I have the proposal for a transpersonal project group,though.
ACEOREVIVED (
talk) 20:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see any point to having these markers included, particularly as the documentation page for the template in question indicates that it is to be used on talk pages, which this proposal page isn't. As noted, all projects which haven't reached the 5 member threshold or are independently activated anyway are removed after four months, so there's no particularly requirement to adding the marker. If anyone has a reason for the tags to be included, though, I would welcome seeing it below. Right now, though, it does give a slightly prejudicial look to the proposals, and I can't see any reason for still including them if they're marked "stale". If people wish to discuss changing the length of time before archiving, that would be a separate matter. John Carter ( talk) 17:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've already made these changes. Any objections please feel free to voice them. Equazcion •✗/ C • 02:18, 29 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Personally, at least by now, it seems to me that it is the case that just about any new project to be proposed will fairly clearly fall within the scope of an already extant project. On that basis, I do tend to think that some changes to the lead of the page to indicate that unless a proposed project is such that it does not have a clear logical parent, it should be primarily considered as a task force of that project. Certainly, it might be the case that the time period for proposals to stay on the list could also be adjusted if the number of parties indicated drops only to 5, but I think that decision should have the consensus of some of the other editors involved on this page before being made. Any responses? John Carter ( talk) 16:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that wikiprojects Should be ordered by proposal date not aphabetical becuase my third proposal isnt getting alot of attention and like many other proposals is on the back half of the alphabet. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Useless_Random_Facts_:.29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwilleditu ( talk • contribs) 17:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I was just about to write a comment here asking why this is no longer in alphabetical order, and then I saw the above comment. I still preferred the alphabetical order myself, but that was just my own preference. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The following changes to the structure of the page have been proposed:
Agree With 1,2,3 Oppose 4 1 will make 2 easier (even if two isnt aproved) 3 will show new proposls a sucsefull proposal. But 4 some pjojects are more broder than others on the same topic. Iwilleditu Talk :) Contributions 15:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with all of them Seems like a good way to make this page less cluttered and the process more consistent. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 15:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with all four proposals – The first one is actually overdue; as far as number four is concerned, I don't think there are many areas worthy of a WikiProject but left without one. All the fields of science and art have been arguably covered, and for most remaining areas and sub-areas of popular culture's vast domain task forces are far more suitable than entire projects. Waltham, The Duke of 22:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with 1 and 4 As for 2, I think four months is reasonable. -- -G.T.N. ( talk) 17:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Is a Propsal nescery to start a wikiproject? Iwilleditu Talk :) Contributions 22:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we should get rid of the Taskforce section, taskforce proposals should really be discussed on the relevant WikiProject and not here. Ideas/thoughts? + Hexagon1 ( t) 06:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I wish to suggest a few changes:
Finally, a q:
May I archive the page, for example those passed four months and those withdrawn? If so which archive?
Thanks,
Opposed to shortening the archive time. This is not a high traffic page, and advertising for interest in any given WikiProject can take quite a bit of time. Messages on high-traffic talk pages may be swiftly archived, while those on low-traffic pages (like this one) may not be seen by many editors for long periods of time. Four months is adequate.-- otherlleft ( talk) 10:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
User:GregManninLB (first edit 2008/03/17) has been telling users in a number of ways that new projects must conform to the Wikipedia category tree in a manner that doesn't quite make sense to me. First, he insists with an air of authority that projects are required to be based on a subject that has category and an article. While this can be defended, it certainly would make for a major policy change, and would need to be seriously discussed before being implemented. What really concerns me, however, is a series of posts he made to the proposals page itself in which he not only asserts that new projects must mirror an existing category, but that they must also descend from a project that also mirrors that category's parent even if it doesn't exist. To illustrate, he draws trees sometimes seven projects deep, chock full of redlinked nonexistent projects. Some representative samples are:
This seems to be confusing newer users [1] who just want to come here to propose the creation of a new project, and at least one exasperated user left Wikipedia entirely [2] because of these antics. I've posted some queries on his talk page related to this and other issues, but haven't received a reply. [3] [4] [5] I'm thinking that we should put an end to this immediately. – Clockwork Soul 01:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there a page which displays Wikiprojects stats like highest no of articles, FA/GAs, no of members etc ?? -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 09:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I was looking through a list of video hosting websites on wikipedia and very few are that detailed. i propose a wiki project to amend this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.78.166 ( talk) 06:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we Should make a template similar to Request page protection template.If you give me a Minute I will make one. Electrical Experiment 23:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Note:SWPP is similar wikiprojects.
Can IPS propose a project because theres are proposals proposed by ips. E E 18:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
What does "SWPP" mean? 68.148.164.166 ( talk) 06:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course!
There really is no approval process. Start your project for whatever you wish. 68.148.164.166 ( talk) 07:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I want to make an X-files wikiproject, encompassing the albums and movies, but am unsure where to place the suggestion. Some Semi-Random Dude ( talk) 23:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way to tell when and if WP:CHICAGO ever officially became a project.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 23:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget that projects don't actually need to be proposed here to exist regardless. Given the tendency of some editors to park here and just reject project after project, I wouldn't be surprised if smarter organizers just circumvented proposing here entirely!-- otherlleft ( talk) 10:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Um. I was about to post a proposal, but couldn't work out where. Some wikiproject proposals are under the taskforce header, and some are at the top and some at the bottom. Some instructions say post chronologically, others (in the edit window) say alphabetically! Help! :-) Carcharoth ( talk) 14:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Surely the whole idea of the page is to gauge support for a proposal? It isn't even necessary to list a proposal here before creating a project. So what does an oppose mean? What is the point of giving people an area to say "thanks for listing the fact you want to start a project on X, I notice you have a bunch of people that want to actively contribute to articles about X, but I think it's a bad idea and will never ever help you, but this oppose doesn't mean anything anyway since all you need are 5-10 people who want to help you start your project and away you go". Is there any point in even having the sections? Nanonic ( talk) 15:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not clear on where opposition really fits in. The introduction to the page indicates that garnering sufficient support is necessary to start a project, and is silent on the role of opposition; however, the template itself provides opportunity to oppose. Is the function of the proposal page to determine if there are sufficient editors to start a project, or to determine if consensus exists as to whether it should happen at all? Looking over the proposals, I note that some editors are more than happy to weigh in with opposition on multiple projects. Of course, those in support only include editors interested in participating pretty much by definition, but those in opposition draw upon everybody else. I could easily vote "oppose" on every current proposal that I don't expect to be involved in, but I don't think that those votes should carry much weight, and I'm not clear how much weight they actually carry.
I would humbly submit that the "oppose" line be removed from the template - editors with clear, specific reasons why they feel a specific project is not a good idea should provide their views in the discussion section. I would expect that if good enough reasons were given, that the amount of support the projects garners would be reduced by those sound reasons.-- otherlleft ( talk) 17:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Although it says that taskforces are better with 5 members, does that mean that you could start a project with 2 or 3? I am just wondering as my proposal ( WikiProject Football/Taskforce on youth football) only has 2 members, but I think it is important as there are many youth competitions that lack coverage on Wikipedia, and I have seen taskforces with 2 members, and I wondered if I should start it.
Also, what is the point of running a taskforce from your userpage? It does not matter where it is, as it is always going to be a taskforce, no matter where it is.
These famous, heroic words were created by 2o-DeMoN-o8 t* c* a* wp 16:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I have just copied a good deal of the 2008 information into the existing archive file.
Since nobody seems to be dealing with these things, I'm also setting up a 90-day automatic archiving template. (Hopefully, I'll even have done it correctly). That should save some trouble in the future. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I've come up with what I think is a better looking and more accessible template for WikiProject proposals: {{ WikiProject_Proposal/Proposed_alternative}}. I would love to hear people's input on this, as I think it could make the page a lot more readable. Discussion lies here. Greggers ( t • c) 12:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi
I just placed a proposal, can someone explain to me what the SWPP section is and how to use it, also what to do about the red links to pages.
I think perhaps some cutting down of content should be looked at - why not just a subpage for each proposal ? That way it would be a concise page of proposals instead of a page that is so big that it takes one second per character when I am typing (and I have a 20Mb connection !)
thanks-- Chaosdruid ( talk) 04:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I find it odd that seemingly no one has even touched this page in the past few days, especially considering how many proposals there are. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
One possibility would be to have a 2-step structure: first step is a listing on a Suggestion page, and once the proposal gets, say, 5 approvals it's moved to the main proposal list for full debate. Or, perhaps simpler, require proposals to be made with, say, 5 initial support votes from editors of good standing. Equally, as I suggested below, categorising proposals RFC-style would help (in addition to the AFD-style subpaging under discussion). Rd232 talk 12:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
In the proposal about Wikiproject Capital District, it seems to me (and i have tried to express there), that it is a serious problem for the future of the wikiproject, if its geo-scope is not well-defined. In particular there is weird overlap with WikiProject Hudson Valley. Both projects have areas that are not included in the other. I actually think it is the latter one which should redraw its borders, but the founder of the HV wikiproject sees no problem with the overlap, and I don't see that accomodation happening. Could others more experienced in these matters comment, about what duplication or other difficulties might ensue? I am not meaning to canvas for one particular view, i would like to see the proposers get something that is more workable. doncram ( talk) 05:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I realized I proposed a project that actually should just be a page. Is there any way I can take down my proposal? Thanks Ealcoop23 ( talk) 18:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
This page is a mess. Besides the page's size, the most glaring problem is the fact that some users are adding proposals to the top of the page and some are adding them to the bottom. We should specify where to add proposals and order the ones already on the page by date. Should new entries be added to the top or the bottom, then? And what is the process for removing proposals? ~EdGl ★ 01:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
It would seem to be stating the obvious, but the page really needs some kind of categorisation. The WP:RFC categories would probably do. Initially just section headings, but maybe later sub-pages. Rd232 talk 18:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
How about we put this on the top of the page:
Instructions
1. Copy the following code for step 2: {{SUBST:WikiProject Proposal |ProjectName = The proposed project's name |Description = A description of the proposed project. |USER1= ~~~~ }} 2. Create a new subpage by typing in the name of the proposed WikiProject/Task Force in the input box below (after "/Proposals/") and clicking "create page." Then, paste the code and add a description of the proposed project: 3. Add to the top of this page the following: * [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/<insert name here>|<insert name here>]] |
Note we can turn that last step into a template, for example {{proposal | parameter}}, where the parameter is obviously the name of the proposed WikiProject. Can someone create this template for me or direct me to an already-existing template that performs this same function? I'm probably going to "be bold" and implement this (although it will be a nightmare to create subpages for the already-existing proposals); does anyone object? ~EdGl ★ 20:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
<span class="plainlinks" style="font-weight:bold">[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Peer review/{{PAGENAME}}/archive{{{archive|}}}|action=edit&editintro=Template:PR/editintro&preload=Template:PR/preload2}} Language and literature]</span>
<span class="plainlinks" style="font-weight:bold">[{{fullurl:User:Alistairjh/Sandbox10/Test Drive|action=edit&editintro=Template:WikiProject_Proposal/Guide&preload=Template:WikiProject_Proposal}} Create page]</span>
Looks good, well done! It's a big enough change that it probably should get more input though, so I've put a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. Rd232 talk 12:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Creating a proposal
This box is to propose WikiProjects or Task forces that you wish to create. Please make sure you have read the relevent guides that are listed below: Create a new subpage by typing in the name of the proposed WikiProject/Task Force in the input box below (after "/Proposals/") and clicking "create page." Then, follow the instructions at the top of the page to add a description of the proposed project: |
Well this is such a big step forward I think we could be WP:BOLD and go ahead and do it. On the other hand there's only been input from a couple of people so it might be better to wait a full week from when it was first mentioned (26 March). Also I'd like to put RFC-style categories for the proposals, if only as section headings - how easy will it be to do that with the sub-page system (assuming no-one objects)? Rd232 talk 17:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys in case you didn't know I put the new directions on the proposals page and started "subpaging" current proposals last night (EST). Hopefully it will be completed by today :) ~EdGl ★ 13:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Specifically removing the "SWPP" section. Please reply here. ~EdGl ★ 17:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Look at it! People barely contribute even though this can be an important thing on Wikipedia! The page is messy and hard to navigate, make sense of and contribute to! Surely there must be some ways to make this better?
Honestly, apart from the subpage idea and publicising it, this page doesn't look like it can get better. This is supposed to separate the good projects from the bad, and when (if there is a small chance people would ask) people ask me "How do I create a WikiProject?", I think I would have to say that instead of going here, I would just say "Create a UserProject" (click to see what it actually is). So maybe the best way would be to send a bot to all projects to publicise it, but (if we are going to make the subpage idea) not until this page has been drastically improved. DeMoN2009 15:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems like often, someone will propose a WikiProject, only for people to oppose by saying "scope too narrow -- this should be a task force instead." I was wondering if we could be more flexible with the WikiProject/task force thing, meaning the proposer will propose something, which can be either a WikiProject or task force, they don't decide. The voters (most likely the "WikiProject Council/Proposals regulars") make an educated decision whether it should be a WikiProject or task force, and come to an agreement with the proposer and everyone else involved in the discussion section.
Benefits:
Support or oppose? ~EdGl ★ 15:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Just wondered what the procedure is for this, as I may need to do it myself and it would be good if there was some kind of guideline for it. OnHoliday 20:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm going through the list right now and will flag on this page any that have been created after reaching a consensus. I'm not up to par on the archival techniques, so I'll let someone else do that. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 07:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 08:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
This page was moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Archive 1 and thus may be out of chronological order in terms of the preceding and subsequent archives. |
Does anyone mind if I archive the proposals up to April 1? -- Yarnalgo 04:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
What is the proper archive method for this page? The article says to just delete projects that have started, is that the current practice or are they supposed to be copied elsewhere? I don't mind doing the work so long as I know what to do. Argash | talk | contribs 11:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I see some proposals being added to the top of the list and some to the bottom of the list. Perhaps some consistency is warranted? There needs to be an explicit notice at the top of the page saying where to add new proposals. -- StuffOfInterest 13:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm interested in creating a proposal for a WikiProject devoted to volcanoes. I'm not sure if I can propose it because I'm what you Wikipedians call anons. Also, I'm not sure if there's another WikiProject out there that relates to volcanoes, so can I propose a Volcano WikiProject even though I'm an anonymous user? 74.225.117.237 17:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I just made a Wikiproject Korea. But I didn't know that there was this project page? What should I do? Good friend100 18:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I hope that it meets with the approval of the rest of you that I have added a section to the page regarding requesting projects. There are probably a number of fields which are not yet covered by an existing project which seem to call for the creation of one. If any of you believe that this is an inappropriate use of this page, however, please feel free to remove the section. Thank you. Badbilltucker 18:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Er.......
I was proposing to set up the WikiProject of Transport around Edinburgh and Glasgow but the proposal has already gone wrong. I was hoping to set this up for the management of 5 systems, 3 of which were rapid transit but now 've got editors thinking this will cover the Scottish rail network plus motorways, ferries and everything else associated. Perhaps i should have chosen a better title but am not sure what to do now, or if i should get rid of my proposal...
Simply south 18:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
If I improve this page to the process structure similar to WP:Editor review, would anyone oppose to that? AQu01rius ( User • Talk) 04:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
What is it attempting to accomplish? XYZ CrVo 02:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually more a query than proposing one. Would i be allowed the propose another user's WikiProject but give the credit to them? Simply south 16:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I craeted and piped Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland to WP:PWNB which has been acting as such wikiproject for many months. I did it so our Template:WikiProject Poland wouldn't look out of place.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 01:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
An idea, what if we just made a sub-page for task force proposals directly? I suspect that many people would be fine with a task force, but don't know what existing projects it should be under or how to go about doing it. We could also easily bump over very narrow ideas to the sub page and help clean the main proposal page up faster. -- Ned Scott 00:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there any way inactive projects of similar scope can be absorbed or renamed into some of these projects proposed, so that work is not duplicated? Chris 08:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you could. Alternatively, one could simply join the {{ inactive}} project and get it going again, I don't know why, one couldn't then change the name to a broader topic if it made sense.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 02:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know who monitors this page, but instead of proposing and creating a whole new project here I decided to start up a Frank Lloyd Wright project as a division of the National Register of Historic Places Project. It is slow getting going {part of the reason I posted here) but has begun as a cross project collaboration between NRHP, Architecture, and state projects. Is there somewhere around the Council to let people know about new projects that have started as divisions or task forces of other projects instead, perhaps linked from the proposals page so as not to cause overlap in new proposals, recommend reading, I don't know, was this even a good idea? Any thoughts? IvoShandor 11:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, all. I need some help in maintaining WikiProject Shannara. There are a few members, but they didn't seem to be doing anything anymore. I hope someone would be kind enough to go through the bother of checking it out. Thanks in advance! Cheers!! Zachary crimsonwol f 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 14:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It's been suggested that I list WikiProject buses on here to ensure that people know about it. Is that a good idea? -- NE2 18:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
A WikiProject:Veterinary Medicine was proposed over 4 months ago, and there hasn't been much interest generated in it. My concern is that newcomers won't know that the idea for this project even exists. I'm biased in this regard, but I feel that this project is an important one, and most of the articles in veterinary medicine need a great deal of work. So here are my questions:
Thanks for your time, and please let me know if this should have been posted elsewhere. -- Joelmills 22:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to the two people have added their name since I posted this. I think what I will do is leave messages for people that have seemed to show interest in vet med articles and direct them to the proposals page. In the meantime I'll work on the temporary page, in anticipation of this project coming together. -- Joelmills 20:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Why has Ned Scott removed all the templates and blanked the template, without the slightest discussion? How did the proposal suddenly, magically become an "inactive project", without consulting any of the interested parties? Chris 04:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Although it does "overlap" these things, it is a separate place with a separate culture, a separate history, and a separate dialect. It's no different than doing separate states, or having a project or task force on cornwall or brittany. -- -G.T.N. ( talk) 01:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I've am seeking members for a MARC train task force. Anybody can join but I would like people who live (or work) in Maryland or West Virginia. I need some pictures and some infomation. Also anyone who knows about Amtak or CSX would be helpful. People who are good at creaing articles about train stations. Thanks -- Plyhmrp 23:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Plyhmrp
The sprawling list needed some maintenance. I have removed old and neglected requests from the page. Requests with no posting in over a month has been removed. I have generally left any request with comments or additional member listings posted within the past month. I left requests intact with sufficient members for the project to begin. The list may need further cleanup, but I thought starting with old and neglected requests was a good idea. Vassyana 02:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to have a go at cleaning up too, looks like it needs it again. I'll just delete things over two months to start with. I am a lemon 23:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, listing proposals in alphabetical order is very counterproductive (read: makes no sense at all). How will people know which are new? What about people who check the page from time to time, and are looking for recent additions? The newness is more salient than the title.... BETTER YET create a sortable wikitable with links to all projects listed, and columns for Title and Add Date. The wikitable itself can be located on a separate subpage of project, updated by bot, and transcluded to main page.... hmmm.... Ling.Nut 19:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
This list is quite large. Perhaps a split would be in order? I was thinking of using general categories such as Humanities, Sciences, Culture, Wikipedia and Miscellaneous. (And yep, I'm willing to {{tl:sofixit}} myself if people are OK with the split.) Thoughts? Vassyana 17:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Should I start a project under this title? It seems to fit under Christian Liturgy. Laleena talk to me contributions to Wikipedia 18:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It is a huge mess. To aid in cleaning up:
1) Could we put them in order of date rather than alphabetical? Newest proposals up the top. Old ones would drift to the bottom where they can be easily and quickly deleted.
2) Can we suggest an approximate number of articles that would require a wikiproject rather than a task force? I was thinking maybe about twenty?
3) Can we also encourage people to delete their proposals once they reach a decision either to form a project or not? There are lots in the list that sound resolved.
4) Can we have a task force proposal page? There are so many things on that list that are definetly task forces, and two seperate pages would be so much easier to manage than one.
I have just been trying to tidy the whole list, deleting proposals inactive for over two months. In an hour, I got as far as the DaimlerChrysler proposal. Perhaps we need a task force to manage the page :-P I am a lemon 00:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- This would become a pain to search if it were not alpha ordered, IMO. -- Doug. 17:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Was this project approved? In my opinion it is much too small and topic is too small to make a WikiProject on. - Sox 207 19:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe that there should be a Star Ocean: Till the End of Time Wikiproject because it is a good game; did I say good?... I meant GREAT game. If a wikiproject is created, i would be the first to join!. castlevaniamaster1 11:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Please note that based on a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council the time for archiving project proposals which haven't reached the recommended size for creating a project has been reduced from 6 months to 4. This change has been reflected in the information at the top of the Proposals page.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 22:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be good if proposals were set up as on XfD pages and archived the same way, that way links to old proposals wouldn't simply lead to the this page with no further information.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 15:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I opened the revision of the page from Aug 11, and the following proposals are at least that old. I only had time to compare up to the letter M, inclusively. Although I don't know if any of these proposals have enough interested editors to approve. I'll work on it some more tomorrow, if I'm doing this the right way. Can I be Frank? (Talk to me!) 06:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
(list removed)
After giving the proposals of interest a scan-through, I've come up with a crude list of recommendations:
* 1.39 Former Featured Articles WikiProject (start it?) * 1.68 M*A*S*H (start it?) * 1.96 Pixar (more discussion needed?) * 1.108 Revolutions of 1848 (start it, or WP European History?) * 1.110 Robotics (start it?)
* 1.10 Austrian Economics * 1.11 Autism * 1.17 Cellos * 1.21 Costa Rica (WP Central America?) * 1.25 Daft Punk * 1.28 Desperate Housewives (WP Television?) * 1.32 Edgar Allan Poe * 1.40 Frisians * 1.41 Global Warming * 1.43 Guitar Tunings * 1.49 House, M.D. (WP Television?) * 1.54 Intelligence Agencies (funnel to WP Intelligence Agency?) * 1.55 Inter-religious content (funnel to WP Religion?) * 1.65 Law & Order (WP Television?) * 1.74 Milton Keynes (WP England?) * 1.77 Mobile Phones (WP Cellular Devices?) * 1.86 Oasis (band) * 1.99 Pop music (WP Music?) * 1.115 Skateboarding * 1.118 Steely Dan (WP Music?) * 1.133 WikiProject 1990s (WP Decades?)
* 1.8 Athens (archive?) * 1.13 Beanie Babies * 1.16 Bowling (archive?) * 1.36 Event venues * 1.44 Gymnastics * 1.47 Hominids * 1.52 Indiana Jones * 1.64 Latrobe Valley * 1.66 Lead Paragraph Cleanups (already started?) * 1.69 Madagascar (country) * 1.71 Malware * 1.85 Newspapers * 1.95 Pittsburgh Pirates * 1.102 Project Management * 1.106 Religious leaders (already started?) * 1.109 Roads in New York City * 1.120 That's So Raven * 1.121 Thrash Metal * 1.125 Trucks (already started, WP Transport?) * 1.130 Winnipeg Blue Bombers * 1.131 Wizard Rock * 1.132 World Heritage Sites (already started?) * 2.5 Global Perspectives Task force
If I added a parenthetical commentary, that means I looked at the proposal twice: once when I grouped them by number of interested people, and a second time when I examined those proposals with 4-12 interested people. How bold should I be in moved these things around? Can I be Frank? (Talk to me!) 07:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Anyone willing to volunteer on the Frisian Project, please vote for it on the main page! -The Bold Guy- ( talk) 18:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to start a Wikiproject for Central Pennsylvania, which includes the cities of Altoona, Pennsylvania, State College, Pennsylvania, Johnstown, Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, and other cities and communities in the central Pennsylvania region. Although there are individual articles about these cities, and in some cases articles about neighborhoods and buildings in these cities, I strongly believe that a Central Pennsylvania wikiproject that covers most of what's between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia would be very useful for those who want to learn about Pennsylvania's interior. Articles such as those about Weis Markets and Sheetz, which are based in central Pennsylvania, would also be covered under the Wikiproject. MVillani1985 ( talk) 04:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there any way to make this article have the time and date and messages added automatically placed? It would make it a bit easier to know when a proposal has been here for four months, particularly as several people forget to put the time and date on their proposals. John Carter ( talk) 20:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I made two proposals, one for a project on gerontology, one for a project on transpersonal studies, which seem to have met with zero interest. Can I, as the author of these proposals, suggest that it it is OK now to detete them? ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone review this project just made on 2007-12-31 by Dantheu2man? The WikiProject banner associated with it was typed inline and not as a template, resulting in the inclusion of the talk page for Talk:"Weird Al" Yankovic in Category:WikiProject banners. I didn't see anything that suggests that Dantheu2man talked to anyone before creating this project all by himself. -- Geopgeop ( T) 11:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I was looking in the list of projects why has this dissapered? Police,Mad,Jack ( talk · contribs) 21:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
In November 2007, I made a plea for WikiProject on gerontology, but as I see that it has had no response what so ever, can I be radical and suggest that it is now rejected? I do not mind if some one now deletes it - by all means go ahead! ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 21:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I now have deleted this - I have the proposal for a transpersonal project group,though.
ACEOREVIVED (
talk) 20:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see any point to having these markers included, particularly as the documentation page for the template in question indicates that it is to be used on talk pages, which this proposal page isn't. As noted, all projects which haven't reached the 5 member threshold or are independently activated anyway are removed after four months, so there's no particularly requirement to adding the marker. If anyone has a reason for the tags to be included, though, I would welcome seeing it below. Right now, though, it does give a slightly prejudicial look to the proposals, and I can't see any reason for still including them if they're marked "stale". If people wish to discuss changing the length of time before archiving, that would be a separate matter. John Carter ( talk) 17:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've already made these changes. Any objections please feel free to voice them. Equazcion •✗/ C • 02:18, 29 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Personally, at least by now, it seems to me that it is the case that just about any new project to be proposed will fairly clearly fall within the scope of an already extant project. On that basis, I do tend to think that some changes to the lead of the page to indicate that unless a proposed project is such that it does not have a clear logical parent, it should be primarily considered as a task force of that project. Certainly, it might be the case that the time period for proposals to stay on the list could also be adjusted if the number of parties indicated drops only to 5, but I think that decision should have the consensus of some of the other editors involved on this page before being made. Any responses? John Carter ( talk) 16:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that wikiprojects Should be ordered by proposal date not aphabetical becuase my third proposal isnt getting alot of attention and like many other proposals is on the back half of the alphabet. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Useless_Random_Facts_:.29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwilleditu ( talk • contribs) 17:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I was just about to write a comment here asking why this is no longer in alphabetical order, and then I saw the above comment. I still preferred the alphabetical order myself, but that was just my own preference. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The following changes to the structure of the page have been proposed:
Agree With 1,2,3 Oppose 4 1 will make 2 easier (even if two isnt aproved) 3 will show new proposls a sucsefull proposal. But 4 some pjojects are more broder than others on the same topic. Iwilleditu Talk :) Contributions 15:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with all of them Seems like a good way to make this page less cluttered and the process more consistent. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 15:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with all four proposals – The first one is actually overdue; as far as number four is concerned, I don't think there are many areas worthy of a WikiProject but left without one. All the fields of science and art have been arguably covered, and for most remaining areas and sub-areas of popular culture's vast domain task forces are far more suitable than entire projects. Waltham, The Duke of 22:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with 1 and 4 As for 2, I think four months is reasonable. -- -G.T.N. ( talk) 17:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Is a Propsal nescery to start a wikiproject? Iwilleditu Talk :) Contributions 22:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we should get rid of the Taskforce section, taskforce proposals should really be discussed on the relevant WikiProject and not here. Ideas/thoughts? + Hexagon1 ( t) 06:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I wish to suggest a few changes:
Finally, a q:
May I archive the page, for example those passed four months and those withdrawn? If so which archive?
Thanks,
Opposed to shortening the archive time. This is not a high traffic page, and advertising for interest in any given WikiProject can take quite a bit of time. Messages on high-traffic talk pages may be swiftly archived, while those on low-traffic pages (like this one) may not be seen by many editors for long periods of time. Four months is adequate.-- otherlleft ( talk) 10:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
User:GregManninLB (first edit 2008/03/17) has been telling users in a number of ways that new projects must conform to the Wikipedia category tree in a manner that doesn't quite make sense to me. First, he insists with an air of authority that projects are required to be based on a subject that has category and an article. While this can be defended, it certainly would make for a major policy change, and would need to be seriously discussed before being implemented. What really concerns me, however, is a series of posts he made to the proposals page itself in which he not only asserts that new projects must mirror an existing category, but that they must also descend from a project that also mirrors that category's parent even if it doesn't exist. To illustrate, he draws trees sometimes seven projects deep, chock full of redlinked nonexistent projects. Some representative samples are:
This seems to be confusing newer users [1] who just want to come here to propose the creation of a new project, and at least one exasperated user left Wikipedia entirely [2] because of these antics. I've posted some queries on his talk page related to this and other issues, but haven't received a reply. [3] [4] [5] I'm thinking that we should put an end to this immediately. – Clockwork Soul 01:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there a page which displays Wikiprojects stats like highest no of articles, FA/GAs, no of members etc ?? -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 09:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I was looking through a list of video hosting websites on wikipedia and very few are that detailed. i propose a wiki project to amend this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.78.166 ( talk) 06:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we Should make a template similar to Request page protection template.If you give me a Minute I will make one. Electrical Experiment 23:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Note:SWPP is similar wikiprojects.
Can IPS propose a project because theres are proposals proposed by ips. E E 18:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
What does "SWPP" mean? 68.148.164.166 ( talk) 06:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course!
There really is no approval process. Start your project for whatever you wish. 68.148.164.166 ( talk) 07:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I want to make an X-files wikiproject, encompassing the albums and movies, but am unsure where to place the suggestion. Some Semi-Random Dude ( talk) 23:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way to tell when and if WP:CHICAGO ever officially became a project.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 23:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget that projects don't actually need to be proposed here to exist regardless. Given the tendency of some editors to park here and just reject project after project, I wouldn't be surprised if smarter organizers just circumvented proposing here entirely!-- otherlleft ( talk) 10:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Um. I was about to post a proposal, but couldn't work out where. Some wikiproject proposals are under the taskforce header, and some are at the top and some at the bottom. Some instructions say post chronologically, others (in the edit window) say alphabetically! Help! :-) Carcharoth ( talk) 14:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Surely the whole idea of the page is to gauge support for a proposal? It isn't even necessary to list a proposal here before creating a project. So what does an oppose mean? What is the point of giving people an area to say "thanks for listing the fact you want to start a project on X, I notice you have a bunch of people that want to actively contribute to articles about X, but I think it's a bad idea and will never ever help you, but this oppose doesn't mean anything anyway since all you need are 5-10 people who want to help you start your project and away you go". Is there any point in even having the sections? Nanonic ( talk) 15:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not clear on where opposition really fits in. The introduction to the page indicates that garnering sufficient support is necessary to start a project, and is silent on the role of opposition; however, the template itself provides opportunity to oppose. Is the function of the proposal page to determine if there are sufficient editors to start a project, or to determine if consensus exists as to whether it should happen at all? Looking over the proposals, I note that some editors are more than happy to weigh in with opposition on multiple projects. Of course, those in support only include editors interested in participating pretty much by definition, but those in opposition draw upon everybody else. I could easily vote "oppose" on every current proposal that I don't expect to be involved in, but I don't think that those votes should carry much weight, and I'm not clear how much weight they actually carry.
I would humbly submit that the "oppose" line be removed from the template - editors with clear, specific reasons why they feel a specific project is not a good idea should provide their views in the discussion section. I would expect that if good enough reasons were given, that the amount of support the projects garners would be reduced by those sound reasons.-- otherlleft ( talk) 17:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Although it says that taskforces are better with 5 members, does that mean that you could start a project with 2 or 3? I am just wondering as my proposal ( WikiProject Football/Taskforce on youth football) only has 2 members, but I think it is important as there are many youth competitions that lack coverage on Wikipedia, and I have seen taskforces with 2 members, and I wondered if I should start it.
Also, what is the point of running a taskforce from your userpage? It does not matter where it is, as it is always going to be a taskforce, no matter where it is.
These famous, heroic words were created by 2o-DeMoN-o8 t* c* a* wp 16:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I have just copied a good deal of the 2008 information into the existing archive file.
Since nobody seems to be dealing with these things, I'm also setting up a 90-day automatic archiving template. (Hopefully, I'll even have done it correctly). That should save some trouble in the future. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I've come up with what I think is a better looking and more accessible template for WikiProject proposals: {{ WikiProject_Proposal/Proposed_alternative}}. I would love to hear people's input on this, as I think it could make the page a lot more readable. Discussion lies here. Greggers ( t • c) 12:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi
I just placed a proposal, can someone explain to me what the SWPP section is and how to use it, also what to do about the red links to pages.
I think perhaps some cutting down of content should be looked at - why not just a subpage for each proposal ? That way it would be a concise page of proposals instead of a page that is so big that it takes one second per character when I am typing (and I have a 20Mb connection !)
thanks-- Chaosdruid ( talk) 04:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I find it odd that seemingly no one has even touched this page in the past few days, especially considering how many proposals there are. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
One possibility would be to have a 2-step structure: first step is a listing on a Suggestion page, and once the proposal gets, say, 5 approvals it's moved to the main proposal list for full debate. Or, perhaps simpler, require proposals to be made with, say, 5 initial support votes from editors of good standing. Equally, as I suggested below, categorising proposals RFC-style would help (in addition to the AFD-style subpaging under discussion). Rd232 talk 12:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
In the proposal about Wikiproject Capital District, it seems to me (and i have tried to express there), that it is a serious problem for the future of the wikiproject, if its geo-scope is not well-defined. In particular there is weird overlap with WikiProject Hudson Valley. Both projects have areas that are not included in the other. I actually think it is the latter one which should redraw its borders, but the founder of the HV wikiproject sees no problem with the overlap, and I don't see that accomodation happening. Could others more experienced in these matters comment, about what duplication or other difficulties might ensue? I am not meaning to canvas for one particular view, i would like to see the proposers get something that is more workable. doncram ( talk) 05:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I realized I proposed a project that actually should just be a page. Is there any way I can take down my proposal? Thanks Ealcoop23 ( talk) 18:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
This page is a mess. Besides the page's size, the most glaring problem is the fact that some users are adding proposals to the top of the page and some are adding them to the bottom. We should specify where to add proposals and order the ones already on the page by date. Should new entries be added to the top or the bottom, then? And what is the process for removing proposals? ~EdGl ★ 01:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
It would seem to be stating the obvious, but the page really needs some kind of categorisation. The WP:RFC categories would probably do. Initially just section headings, but maybe later sub-pages. Rd232 talk 18:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
How about we put this on the top of the page:
Instructions
1. Copy the following code for step 2: {{SUBST:WikiProject Proposal |ProjectName = The proposed project's name |Description = A description of the proposed project. |USER1= ~~~~ }} 2. Create a new subpage by typing in the name of the proposed WikiProject/Task Force in the input box below (after "/Proposals/") and clicking "create page." Then, paste the code and add a description of the proposed project: 3. Add to the top of this page the following: * [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/<insert name here>|<insert name here>]] |
Note we can turn that last step into a template, for example {{proposal | parameter}}, where the parameter is obviously the name of the proposed WikiProject. Can someone create this template for me or direct me to an already-existing template that performs this same function? I'm probably going to "be bold" and implement this (although it will be a nightmare to create subpages for the already-existing proposals); does anyone object? ~EdGl ★ 20:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
<span class="plainlinks" style="font-weight:bold">[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Peer review/{{PAGENAME}}/archive{{{archive|}}}|action=edit&editintro=Template:PR/editintro&preload=Template:PR/preload2}} Language and literature]</span>
<span class="plainlinks" style="font-weight:bold">[{{fullurl:User:Alistairjh/Sandbox10/Test Drive|action=edit&editintro=Template:WikiProject_Proposal/Guide&preload=Template:WikiProject_Proposal}} Create page]</span>
Looks good, well done! It's a big enough change that it probably should get more input though, so I've put a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. Rd232 talk 12:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Creating a proposal
This box is to propose WikiProjects or Task forces that you wish to create. Please make sure you have read the relevent guides that are listed below: Create a new subpage by typing in the name of the proposed WikiProject/Task Force in the input box below (after "/Proposals/") and clicking "create page." Then, follow the instructions at the top of the page to add a description of the proposed project: |
Well this is such a big step forward I think we could be WP:BOLD and go ahead and do it. On the other hand there's only been input from a couple of people so it might be better to wait a full week from when it was first mentioned (26 March). Also I'd like to put RFC-style categories for the proposals, if only as section headings - how easy will it be to do that with the sub-page system (assuming no-one objects)? Rd232 talk 17:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys in case you didn't know I put the new directions on the proposals page and started "subpaging" current proposals last night (EST). Hopefully it will be completed by today :) ~EdGl ★ 13:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Specifically removing the "SWPP" section. Please reply here. ~EdGl ★ 17:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Look at it! People barely contribute even though this can be an important thing on Wikipedia! The page is messy and hard to navigate, make sense of and contribute to! Surely there must be some ways to make this better?
Honestly, apart from the subpage idea and publicising it, this page doesn't look like it can get better. This is supposed to separate the good projects from the bad, and when (if there is a small chance people would ask) people ask me "How do I create a WikiProject?", I think I would have to say that instead of going here, I would just say "Create a UserProject" (click to see what it actually is). So maybe the best way would be to send a bot to all projects to publicise it, but (if we are going to make the subpage idea) not until this page has been drastically improved. DeMoN2009 15:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems like often, someone will propose a WikiProject, only for people to oppose by saying "scope too narrow -- this should be a task force instead." I was wondering if we could be more flexible with the WikiProject/task force thing, meaning the proposer will propose something, which can be either a WikiProject or task force, they don't decide. The voters (most likely the "WikiProject Council/Proposals regulars") make an educated decision whether it should be a WikiProject or task force, and come to an agreement with the proposer and everyone else involved in the discussion section.
Benefits:
Support or oppose? ~EdGl ★ 15:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Just wondered what the procedure is for this, as I may need to do it myself and it would be good if there was some kind of guideline for it. OnHoliday 20:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm going through the list right now and will flag on this page any that have been created after reaching a consensus. I'm not up to par on the archival techniques, so I'll let someone else do that. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 07:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 08:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)