Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|||
Project navigation links | |||
---|---|---|---|
Main project page | talk | ||
Portal | talk | ||
Watchlist | talk | ||
Noticeboard | talk | ||
Departments | |||
→ Assessment | talk | ||
→ Collaboration | talk | ||
→ Jumpaclass | talk | ||
→ Translation | talk | ||
→ Peer review | talk | ||
Useful links | |||
Infoboxes and templates | |||
Open tasks | talk | ||
Project category | talk | ||
Africa categories | |||
Stub templates | |||
edit · changes |
[edit] Scope
I've just added the related country wikiprojects. I am not sure as well how we'd deal with the project. On one hand we have country projects and the general Africa project. It would seem redundant but i believe we can redifine the scope of the African project in a way or another. I'd suggest though that we limit the project to general articles which are not country specific (i.e. Military history of Africa Vs. Military history of South Africa). -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 11:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- That's a good idea. What about countries that don't yet have separate projects? Should they be included? — Emiellaiendiay 21:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- There doesn't seem much point in including a long list of red links. This, however, might well prove to be a useful place for people interested in setting up new projects to find interested editors. Warofdreams talk 00:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] task template
I've added the collaboration to Portal:Africa/Things you can do, which is used as a tasks template at both WP:AFR and WP:CSBOT, last I checked. The Project may just want to use this as well, rather than creating a separate tasks template. Cheers, BanyanTree 22:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! — Emiellaiendiay 07:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List class
Hi, I just created Category:List-Class Africa articles, hope this is ok. Belovedfreak 18:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Africa discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals
Description WikiProject Africa would be dedicated to improving the African related articles, such as, country pages and history pages, which are among the most lowely rated country pages. Wikiproject Africa will also address diputes over controversial topics, for exapmle Ivory Coast vs. Cote-d'Ivoire. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and could use help setting up the temporary page and templates among other things that I am ignorant of. XYZ CrVo 02:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Temporary Project Page: User:XYZ CrVo/WikiProject Africa
User: XYZ CrVo
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name if interested) :
- Badbilltucker 01:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC) - will probably help primarily in the assessment area.
- Chris5897 (T@£k) 17:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Enlil Ninlil 05:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 18:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments:
- I registered strong opposition to this idea in May here. While I certainly only spoke for myself, it may be worth making a post at Wikipedia talk:Africa-related regional notice board addressing some of these concerns. - BanyanTree 23:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- One noteworthy difference with this proposal is that, according to the project page, it expects to engage in assessments, which are generally not done on most of the articles in the Africa category. I too expect that editors would only work on articles within their own sphere of expertise. However, it may well be that one or more editors may be knowledgable in more than one field. Certainly, that is the case in the United States, where several editors work on articles from a variety of states, myself among them (Missouri and South Dakota, both of which I have resided in.) Also, the creation of one umbrella project does not rule out the creation of smaller projects later. In fact, if successful, it would probably make the subprojects more likely than they would otherwise be. Badbilltucker 01:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- I also must advance some objections; in particular I'm afraid we're building too many wikiprojects in the area, with national wikiprojects (Chad, South Africa, Ethiopia, Eritrea et al.), subcontinental wikiprojects (that are being launched now) and a continental wikiproject, that would have to compete also with Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board, as the board is not only a talk, but also has new articles and has a peer review sections. Isn't the area becoming a bit too crammed?--Aldux 21:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is actually the oldest proposal. The others all came later. I guess what will happen is just that the first ones to get sufficient support to get started will be created, and then whichever others don't will probably eventually fall by the wayside. Badbilltucker 21:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm the sixth person to register support for #Middle Africa (although I would vastly prefer the name Central Africa). Is that one about ready? Or should we wait for ten people? Picaroon 22:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is actually the oldest proposal. The others all came later. I guess what will happen is just that the first ones to get sufficient support to get started will be created, and then whichever others don't will probably eventually fall by the wayside. Badbilltucker 21:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I find myself in agreement with Aldux. Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa should just be redirected to the noticeboard. Geographical regions are one thing, seeing as they actually house related countries. But continental ones are far too wide. The people of Senegal and those of Mozambique and those of Sudan are no more similar than those of Armenia, Thailand, and Mongolia - which would be grouped together under WikiProject Asia, would they not? I appreciate your interest, XYZ CrVo, but this isn't going to work out. Geographical regions are the way to go; they can peacefully co-exist with country projects and eventually be split up into them when there is enough interest (sadly, as with many things Africa on Wikipedia, that'll take a while.) Picaroon 22:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WatchllistBot article/category tagging
I've been tagging categories for your project with User:WatchlistBot, and you now have over 1000, with lots more still untagged. This is by far the largest project I've ever worked with, and I wonder if it's useful to tag that many categories and articles. Your watchlist will end up split onto so many different pages (wikipedia can only handle about 9000 links/page). I'm going to take a break until I hear back from you that this is really what you want. Ingrid 03:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] African art discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals
Description WikiProject African art would be dedicated to creating and improving a battery of articles on African art, art movements, artists, curators, collectors, and museums. The area's woefully undercovered on Wikipedia, and while I've been trying to put a few things together, there's only so much I can do. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 19:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Temporary Project Page: User:AlbertHerring/WikiProject African art
User: AlbertHerring
Interested Wikipedians (please add your name if interested)
- General Eisenhower (t·c) we need something like this for a WikiProject
- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 18:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments: I think that this project should be included in WikiProject Africa, that is to say if WP Africa becomes an official project. // PoeticDecay 00:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- addendum, which it now is, Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa Chris 08:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Botswanan
Hi. As someone who worked and lived in Botswana for several years, I know this form to be wrong. Before I went on my wikibreak I had successfully eradicated the mistaken form from our encyclopedia. When I came back I was horrified to see someone had reinstated it! I changed them back again, but User:Number 57 has informed me they have reinstated the incorrect form. The authority? Wiktionary and dictionary.com!
You might ask yourself why, if this were so, we do not have a "*Botswanan Defence Force", but a Botswana Defence Force etc etc. I would like to settle this matter here to give everyone a fair chance to contribute to the discussion. To be honest I thought this was such an obvious issue that it would not need a consensus-building exercise, but it seems I was wrong. So, any comments? --Guinnog 16:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Oxford English Dictionary (which includes dialects other than British) also says Botswanan. I don't think there is an authority on the language (in any form) better than this. Number 57 16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think the best authority on Botswana usage would likely be the Botswana government site at http://www.gov.bw/ on which I cannot see any trace of the erroneous form. I did find a list of political parties though: Botswana Congress Party, Botswana Democratic Party, Botswana Labour Party, Botswana National Front, Botswana Peoples Party, Botswana Progressive Union, Botswana Workers Front, Independence Freedom Party, Mels Movement of Botswana, Social Democratic Party, United Action Party, United Democratic Front, United Socialist Party. This seems pretty suggestive to me. --Guinnog 16:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Still on the government site, http://www.botswana-tourism.gov.bw/culture_and_his/culture_and_his.html gives ""Tswana" is used as an adjective - for example "Tswana state" or "Tswana culture"." I would accept this as an alternative in preference to "Botswanan", though I think just using Botswana as the adjective is more common there. --Guinnog 16:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I think using Tswana would just confuse people - I doubt many would know it was a demonym for Botswana. Having read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English (If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect), I guess Botswana might be the way to go if it is the locally-preferred term, though I'm not that happy with it. It would be nice to have some other knowledgeable people's input to the debate. Number 57 16:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It was with that (sensible) policy in mind that I made the changes I made. English is the official language in Botswana (although Setswana is the national language), and I think for that reason we need to have the input of people with experience of the usage in that country, like myself. Next best are official Botswana sources like the ones I quoted. I hope that we can settle this once and for all here. Best wishes, --Guinnog 16:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do you know of any Botswanan Wikipedians that could be asked to contribute to this discussion? Number 57 16:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- It was with that (sensible) policy in mind that I made the changes I made. English is the official language in Botswana (although Setswana is the national language), and I think for that reason we need to have the input of people with experience of the usage in that country, like myself. Next best are official Botswana sources like the ones I quoted. I hope that we can settle this once and for all here. Best wishes, --Guinnog 16:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
LOL, I do not know any Batswana Wikipedians but I do know someone else who worked there more recently than me. I will ask her to contribute here. --Guinnog 17:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Guinnog is absolutely right, "Botswanan" is a really jarring mistake to anyone connected with Botswana - like "Scotlandian" or "Walesish". I've been here before, so here's part of a previous discussion:
- Botswanan does not exist in Botswana English - as with Hong Kong or New Zealand, the adjective is just the country's name (or Batswana or Setswana, for people or language/culture), eg: "Botswana government", "Botswana territory"[1], "Botswana football"[2], "Botswana justice"[3], "Botswana authorities"[4]. Proper nouns (although individually not a good guide) are universally Botswana, not Botswanan: Botswana Housing Corporation, Botswana Defence Force, Botswana Democratic Party, Botswana Netball Association...
Botswanan does exist in UK dictionaries, but doesn't seem to be used by people who have anything to do with Botswana. Since one usage is wrong in the local English, and the other usage neutral in all Englishes, there doesn't seem any justification for going with Botswanan.
Since the argument's come up again, I'll add that you can further confirm how the term is used by following a link like Botswana Daily News (the Botswana government news service) and searching for Botswana. For many more Wikipedia examples of states/places where the noun is the same as the adjective, take a look at any Category: Foo by country (eg Category:Law by country). Cheers, JackyR | Talk 18:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
This is interesting. Please confirm the version of these sentences, replacing Botswana for the USA: "I am an American. My mother is an American of Native American descent. My father is American because he was born and raised here, though his parents were Chinese. We are all Americans." Would it be correct to Botswana-ize these sentences like this?: "I am a Botswana. My mother is a Botswana of Tswana descent. My father is Botswana because he was born and raised here, though his parents were Chinese. We are all Botswana." Malangali 11:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, I am now living in Gaborone and struggling to learn Setswana - see start of a wiki to help learners of Setswana. "Botswanan" is definitely wrong. The singular form of Batswana (people of Botswana) is Motswana (person of Botswana). So the sentence would be "I am a Motswana. My mother is a Motswana of Tswana descent. My father is a Motswana.. We are all Batswana, (and speak Setswana).
Jacobkn 13:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Is that the way an announcer on the BBC would say it, or should say it? Wouldn't that leave the average English-speaking radio listener in London or Sydney or Des Moines or Dodoma scratching her head and asking, "What in the world is a Motswana?" Malangali 13:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes, Jakobkn is exactly right. In my opinion we shouldn't dumb down our encyclopedia to the hypothetically low intelligence of a hypothetical "average listener"; rather, as policy prescribes, we should use the correct local usage, with explanation and footnotes where necessary. Maybe a short section in the main Botswana article would be in order? --Guinnog 20:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Jacobkn: in your comment, you use the word "Batswana" to describe the people of Botswana. Don't you mean "Botswana," with an o instead of an a? Picaroon 21:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- No, as I said he was exactly right.
-
- Botswana: the country, proper noun and adjective
- Motswana: person from Botswana
- Batswana: plural of Motswana
-
-
- --Guinnog 21:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Yup, check out Tswana. As for people around the world, we just have to learn the terms - as we've learned that a USAer is usually called an American, and speaks English, but a person from America might be an Argentine and speak Spanish; a person from the United Kingdom is a Briton, although if from Wales they might be a Welshman/Welshwoman; and someone from New Zealand is a New Zealander. And yes, Motswana is definitely what the BBC should say (not sure it comes up very often!). JackyR | Talk 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Thanks to all who contributed to this. User:Number 57 has very graciously self-reverted, and I think we have (for the time being!) established a consensus on the whole Botswana/Botswanan naming issue. I wish all disagreements on Wikipedia could be so harmoniously and collegially resolved. --Guinnog 17:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Princess Town or Princes Town (Ghana)
Several months ago, I put a query at Talk:Princess Town about the proper name of this city in Ghana. Different sources list it as Princess Town and Princes Town. The article is a tiny stub, and I don't think any active editors are paying attention to it — but I think that we can at least try to see whether it's named correctly. If anyone knows anything about this Ghanaian city, please reply at Talk:Princess Town. Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Possible hoax
I've prodded ButButtChu. Just in the interest of safety, could someone check over my reasoning? I don't want to see a valid article go, even if I'm pretty sure this is nonsense. Picaroon 19:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- The ISBN doesn't check out. I'd say you did the right thing. --Guinnog 19:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Only contributor was User:Butbuttchu. I'd say you definitely did the right thing. I'm going to speedy-delete the article as nonsense; what horrifies me is that it has been here since last October! Well done for spotting it. --Guinnog 19:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I considered speedying it, but the fact that it had been here so long made me think twice. I found it while expanding the list of stubs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Stubs - it was tagged with {{Gambia-stub}}, and its name stood out, so I clicked. Picaroon 21:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Only contributor was User:Butbuttchu. I'd say you definitely did the right thing. I'm going to speedy-delete the article as nonsense; what horrifies me is that it has been here since last October! Well done for spotting it. --Guinnog 19:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cameroon
Hey, folks. I've nominated Cameroon as a featured article candidate. Feedback of all kinds is welcome on the nomination page. Thanks, — Brian (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bilateral relations discussion
I would like to invite you all to participate in a discussion at this thread regarding bilateral relations between two countries. All articles related to foreign relations between countries are now under the scope of WikiProject Foreign relations, a newly created project. We hope that the discussion will result in a more clean and organized way of explaining such relationships. Thank you. Ed ¿Cómo estás? 17:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)