Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inclusion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DISCUSSION:

RESPONSE:

WITTY RETORT:

PERSONAL ATTACK:

Contents 1 Underhand Deletionist land-grab 2 How do I sign up? 3 Merge 4 Nice goals but... 5 Some extra eyes? 6 Project directory

[edit] Underhand Deletionist land-grab

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Expansion of CSD A7

Trollderella 22:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't expressed an opinion yet, but how is it underhanded when open discussion is ongoing at both WP:CSD and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)? Superm401 | Talk 20:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How do I sign up?

I'm a staunch inclusionist, every Joe, Tom, Dick, Harry and Bill gates should have their own article. How do Isign up for this project? And how can we advertise this project as it seems to have so few members? Loom91 13:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I stubbed this a while back, and Im glad to see it working somewhat. But I think it needs a lift and that requires a repurposing toward what its really about. I supported and still do support inclusion of facts, rather than censorship. Too much inclusion means divergence unfortunately, and I think we need to work to converge certain things for the sake of organizing them. I think people can get behind that. Integration isnt exclusive, but instead focuses on cross-linking and merging redundant articles in a way that makes development easier, and forking less interesting. Comments ?-Ste|vertigo 02:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

IMO those are completely different topics that shouldn't be combined. Good linking and splitting/merging is. if I'm not terribly mistaken, clearly described and little debated. In some cases it can form a workaround disagreements between "inclusionists" and "deletionists" by moving less relevant subjects out of articles to pages of their own. But it doesn't deal with the final question: to delete or to keep. Harald88 12:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion may in fact be different than Integration, which implies merging, and some reduction of redundancy. I was among the first outspoken "inclusionists" and was also the one who stubbed this project as a local outpost. This project doesnt appear to be goal-focused and therefore isnt doing anything. I suggest integrating into Integration, because in reality these arent so different, and inclusionism must be intelligent anyway, requiring careful editing, etc. -Ste|vertigo 15:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice goals but...

This project sounds less fix-focussed than [1], and I think of participating.

IMO, the currently applied deletion-by-vote is riduculous, resulting in deletion of stubs with potential, as well as maintaining articles that according to policy don't belong in Wikipedia (I'm against inclusion of subjects that are themselves inherently against WP policy).

It would be nice if the deletion process could be changed to a process that is stricly based on Wikipedia policy, together with one or two precisions of policy. But how to make that happen? It appears that none of the participants knows how this may be achieved. I fear that without a detailed action plan not much (if anything) will be achieved. Harald88 12:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, AfD is not a vote - that's why the old "votes for deletion" page was deleted! If consensus (as judged by the closing admin) has formed to delete the article, then it gets whacked. That's what "stricly based on Wikipedia policy" means! There is no definitive guide as to which articles should stay and which should be deleted, except for consensus in individual cases. Original research and dictionary definitions go, of course, but even there some debate is needed to determine whether something is really OR or if it's just incredibly obscure, or alternatively, to decide whether an entry has any potential beyond being transwikied to Wiktionary. For some suggestions about possible reform of AfD, there have been signs of movement at Wikipedia:AfD reform.

As for this project, I agree, it hardly seems a project at all. In fact it seems nothing more than an association. Now, WikiProject AfD Salvage I could sign up for - I've done a couple of AfD saves before. But there's a fine line here. If this project seeks to pursue its goals through a co-ordinated attempt to push inclusionist policies and flood AfD votes, then I don't think it would be too long before it arrives at WP:MFD. WikiProjects are meant to build article content, not be launch-pads for policies and vote-stacking, and the WikiProjects that have got into hot water have been precisely those. If, on the other hand, it aims to promote inclusion by encouraging editors to write the type of article unlikely to get nominated for deletion (verified and reliably referenced would be a good start), making rescue attempts of salvagable articles on prod or afd (and the simple truth is that a lot of nominated articles are junk, whether you are inclusionist or deletionist... but others are potentially valid, even if they need a complete rewrite), and integrating unexpandable substubs, then that's great by me. The only evidence I can see of any co-ordinated activity on these fronts, though, is over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Integration. I don't think the merge request was a bad idea at all - unless this "project" actually starts doing something then it isn't a project at all and ought to be renamed to reflect this. TheGrappler 03:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC) (In fact I'd strongly suggest renaming it even if it stays as a "project". It's utterly unacceptable to use WikiProjects to promote factions, whether on- or off-wiki. We already generate more heat than light when "keep" and "delete" votes collide... then by labelling ourselves as "inclusionist" vs "deletionist" - rather than acknowledging that there may be deeper or subtler underlying issues - we degenerate further. Building up Wikipedia structures and institutions to support particular factions and expecting no harm to come of it is naive. I have to say that AfD often infuriates me, and I can understand people holding grievances from the results. But to "fight back" under the reasoning that the best organized "team" is going to "win" is to turn Wikipedia into a battleground. This place is stressful enough as it is... TheGrappler 04:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Some extra eyes?

I'm worried that there are some underhanded tactics going on on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeon Majesty - I'd appreciate some more eyes on the problem, please take a look if you have time, yours, Carfiend 22:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 13:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)