Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Proposals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page.
Archives: 1

WikiProject Council

General information
Main page talk
   To-do list
   Templates
Contacts talk

WikiProject guide
Introduction talk
   WikiProjects
   Task forces
   Technical notes

Resources
Assessment FAQ
Directory talk
Proposals talk
Newsletters talk
WikiProjects Portal
edit · changes

Contents

[edit] Frisians Project

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)

[edit] Wikiproject Central Pennsylvania

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)

[edit] Automatic time and date stamp

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)

  • If pages were transcluded here from subpages it would be very easy to determine when they were created and they would be easier to archive (or in the case of a created project - redirect).--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How long should proposals stay here?

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)

Generally, they stay for four months before being archived, so that we can give them enough time to be seen. I'm not sure if you've left messages on any relevant talk pages, or with any relevant related WikiProjects, but if you haven't you might want to do so, to let more people know that the proposals are here. Otherwise, if you really did want to, you could probably remove them at any time. John Carter (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject "Weird Al" Yankovic

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)

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that being listed here is officially required. Lord knows lots of projects get created the way this one did, although many don't survive very long. I'll see what I can do. John Carter (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The category also includes the other band members' talk pages as well right now. It should be removed from them as well. --Geopgeop (T) 15:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars

I was looking in the list of projects why has this dissapered? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 21:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the project has now been created - removal diff - and therefore a proposal that it be created isn't needed. Foxhill (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Radical plea to reject my own plea

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)

[edit] Removing "stale" markers

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)

Meant no offense, there's just a bunch of stuff that hasn't seen movement for two months or more. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New proposal instruction changes

  • Proposals are archived whether they succeed or fail. Necessary because previously there was nothing saying what happens to the proposals that succeed, so they just hung out on this page til someone decided to get rid of them. No reason not to archive them all.
  • Early archiving possible based on common sense. Inappropriate proposals, overly specific proposals for WikiProjects, proposals that encourage violation of policy, or proposals that have been around a while and won't realistically garner significant support, can all be archived early.
  • Proposed project name to go in header as link. This way, anyone can easily tell whether or not the project has been created yet based on whether the link is red or blue. Also lets people more easily find the project once it's created - just click the header/link, rather than checking through the discussion to find the title of the created page.
  • Proposal includes signature with date stamp. Necessary so we can more easily tell which proposals are old and need archiving.
  • New proposals go to top of list, rather than alphabetical order. Necessary because the page is very large and creating the proposal in the right place was not easy alphabetically. Also, alphabetical order made it exceedingly difficult to find proposals based on age, to determine which need to be archived. Efficient archiving is important in a page this large. There was really no reason for alpha-sorting anyway. The TOC and browser text-find functions make it easy enough to find the proposal you're looking for. Most other proposal-type pages are sorted by age as well.
  • Duration for proposals to stay on this page to 2 months instead of 4. If a proposal hasn't gained 5 measly participants in 2 months I think it's safe to say it won't. 4 months is just way too long, and is probably the reason this page got so out-of-control.

I've already made these changes. Any objections please feel free to voice them. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:18, 29 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with most of the above changes, and think it is extremely poor judgement to unilaterally make any such changes to such a page without seeking consensus before the changes are made. On that basis, I am reverting them so that those which have met the five person minimum can stay and people will have a chance to know that their proposal has succeeded. I do believe that such a change should have also sought consensus before being made, and no such consensus was even sought, let alone made. Not everyone who makes a proposal checks on it that frequently. I will myself archive those which have lingered for four months without meeting the 5 person threshold, and am starting a new section below regarding whether or not to change the archiving period. John Carter (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
BRD my good man. It's all too easy to ignore mere suggestions. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:32, 29 Mar 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Early archiving

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 it should basically be a common sense decision. That's how these things usually work. This page has gotten longer than any other of its kind because it works on its own archaic rules that have gotten very different from all others. The most interesting one is that proposals have 4 months to gain 5 supporters. 4 months?? This is unheard-of in any other place on Wikipedia. And yes, any other such page would allow for removal of proposals based on common sense. The changes I made were to make this page more in-line with other such processes, which would've made the page more user-friendly. Now we have to wait for people to chime in here. I shudder to think how long this will take, if it ever does indeed happen.
I honestly don't think this discussion is necessary -- just look at any other similar page and migrate their instructions here. Doesn't that make sense? Equazcion •✗/C • 00:33, 30 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Oh and how about successful proposals? I had added instructions to archive those too, but you reverted those, so that now the instructions don't say what we should do with them. Which is why we had the Deorphan proposal which gained enough support back in November of last year and hadn't been touched since (I archived it again just now, sue me). So what now? Are we really against removing these or may I add this back into the instructions? Equazcion •✗/C • 00:37, 30 Mar 2008 (UTC)
The reason four months was initially selected was because several of the people proposing projects don't really advertise the proposal very well, or maybe primarily on pages which don't get frequented by that many people. By giving longer for people to reach the 10 person threshold, this allows the projects which would have support, but haven't had much publicity, a chance to take off. Regarding archiving successful proposals, in many cases, they're archived on the talk page of the project already. There wouldn't be the need to necessarily make the archives longer than really required. However, one rule this page, like all of wikipedia, abides by is consensus, barring your own unilateral revisions of course. If it is determined by consensus that the successful proposals should be archived as well, then they will be. John Carter (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
K, let's deal with the archiving first and get some consensus. What's the counter-proposal? Equazcion •✗/C • 14:00, 31 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I am far from clear what you are saying. The extant procedure is to allow them to be in place for 4 months, and to, in general, archive the discussion regarding the creation of the project on the talk page of the new project. You are the one who seems to oppose that, therefore, the "counter-proposal", if any, would be incumbent on you to make. John Carter (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The point I'm trying to make is that there is no counter proposal (as far as the archiving of successful proposals). Or more accurately, my question is: what happens if a proposal reaches 5 to 10 participants but then just stays dormant on the page? Surely they can be removed -- I just removed the Deorphan proposal, as stated above, due to that. So why can't that be expressly allowed in the instructions?
And as far as consensus, I just don't think that's necessary or realistic. This page just doesn't get enough attention. There's already consensus on most other similar pages to do things a certain way, and this page is the only "straggler". If there were more general participation here, especially on the talk page, I would say fine let's wait til we get more opinions, but I just don't think much will come of waiting. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:17, 31 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Please realize, however, that it is not your place, or anyone else's, to unilaterally make those decisions. In fact, it could even be taken as being a violation of the vandalism policy. The structure of this page, whether you yourself have reviewed it or not, was arrived at by a consensus of a number of editors. Now, one person has come along and both unilaterally changed those previously agreed-upon guidelines and then changed the content to reflect his own opinions. I have placed a comment on the talk page of the WikiProject Council to invite more discussion. I would strongly urge you to refrain from any further unilateral alterations to the page as well. Unfortunately, one thing that is rather common is that groups will discuss for some time what the correct naming and or relationship with other projects is. There is also the matter of in some cases finding someone to set up the project. Evidently, you never considered either possibility. While I, as the primary maintainer of the page, would welcome any assistance in doing either, I do find that your own actions to date have been, at least to a pronounced degree, problematic. John Carter (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no way this could be considered vandalism, as vandalism is intentional disruption. As for everything else, BRD. There's no problem. If I'd edit warred with you then I'd agree there's a problem. But I edited, you reverted, and now we're discussing. There is no problem and there is no vandalism. Thanks for making the request for more attention here. Now we'll wait. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:55, 31 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you made a number of changes unilaterally without even bothering to determnine whether anyone agreed with you. That could reasonably be counted as vandalism, and any similar actions hereafter made without prior agreement could also be counted as vandalism. However, if you refrain from such behavior from this point, I don't think there would be any need to really consider the issue. John Carter (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no, they really can't, since again, vandalism is intentional disruption. My actions were the result of doing what I thought was best for the page, which can never be considered vandalism. In fact, you accusing me of vandalism is a violation of assuming good faith (I'm not normally one to make such accusations, but since you opened the door...). There's no evidence of bad-faith intent here, so you should be assuming otherwise. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:02, 31 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Very well. There is no evidence of bad faith, although you are now formally informed that any further attempts on your part or anyone else to change the content of the page in any way without prior consensus being established will qualify as disruption, as they will have been done in furtherance of one individual's own opinions which have not even remotely received the consensus of the majority, although any prior actions will be forgotten for these purposes. Of course, once consensus is reached, than any further actions on any party's part which agrees with that extant consensus will be perfectly permissable. John Carter (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
And you are now formally informed that any further accusations of bad-faith without actual evidence will qualify as disruption. Don't even try to pull the admin card in a one-on-one dispute. You're not an objective observer. Don't act as mediator here. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:20, 31 Mar 2008 (UTC)
And do not accuse others of bad faith when all they are seeking to do is ensure that the existing consensus is agreed to by individuals who have displayed little if any knowledge of or regard for that consensus. You have only been told that the page is being maintained in accord with the existing consensus, and that your actions to date have shown little if any regard for or even curiosity for knowing that consensus. If that ceases, there will be no further problems. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I accused you of not assuming good faith. There's a big difference. I didn't accuse others of bad faith. That was you. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:46, 31 Mar 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ordering

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)

Yeah I'll second that, of course. I'm not sure why this particular proposal page needs to be in alphabetical order when pretty much all other pages are either "post at the bottom" or "post at the top", for good reason. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:26, 30 Mar 2008 (UTC)
My impression is that it's because of the length of the page, making it very problematic to try to find a listing on the page if they're not in alphabetical order. I'd wait for a few more comments though before doing anything. A lot of people are, understandably, busy today reverting vandalism and won't have time to really notice this until later. John Carter (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response from a committed "alphabetical order" fan

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)

As you can see from the section below this most people are for chronological ordering. Save The HumansTalk :) 23:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New proposed changes

The following changes to the structure of the page have been proposed:

  • (1) that the proposals be added in chronological order, presumably with the most recent additions on top
  • (2) that the period before archiving be changed from four months to two months
  • (3) that all proposals be added to the archive page, while presently only those which have been unsuccessful are, and the successful proposals are placed, generally, on the talk page of the newly created project.
  • (4) that, given the number of extant projects, the content of the introduction be changed in such a way as to indicate that any new proposals should consider very strongly being proposed task forces, of one or more extant projects. In effect, it is proposed that the existing language of the lead be strengthened a little.
  • There may be other proposals later. I welcome any comments on the subject so that we can arrive at a consensus regarding the set up. Personally, I would have no reservations whatsoever about archiving task force proposals after only two months. However, if we were to create a differentiation there, we would find that everything would be listed as proposed projects, requesting the full four months, so I doubt any real changes would develop. But, the option should be considered in any event. John Carter (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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. IwilledituTalk :)Contributions 15:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I`ll personally put the proposals in Chronological Order. --IwilledituTalk :)Contributions 21:41, 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)

What about 3 IwilledituTalk :) 22:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Little Question

Is a Propsal nescery to start a wikiproject? IwilledituTalk :)Contributions 22:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not necessary. However, it is one of the few ways to determine if there is enough interest in a project to actually go through the effort of trying to start one. It has happened in the past that projects have been merged into other projects, and in some cases even deleted, because of inactivity, and I think most people would prefer to avoid having that happen to their work. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Get rid of taskforces?

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)

Not a bad idea. The downside to it is determining which project to be a task force of, and that isn't always necessarily clear. John Carter (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
We could indicate that the Taskforce section is only to be used when you are unsure of where it belongs and make it less of a formal proposal/vote and more of a Q/A format or discussion? +Hexagon1 (t) 01:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. How would people know that a taskforce is being proposed? ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 11:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a notice can be placed here that a full proposal is going on elsewhere? That would cover all of our bases by allowing potentially interested parties who monitor this page to be notifed while allowing the relevant project to host the discussion in their own manner? – ClockworkSoul 16:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] various proposed changes...

Hi, I wish to suggest a few changes:

  1. Archival should be done so that succesful are in one (if needed...) and unsucc in another
  2. Posts in Chronological order, with newest at the top
  3. Change archive time to 2 months

Finally, a q:

May I archive the page, for example those passed four months and those withdrawn? If so which archive?

Thanks,

BG7 22:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you give User:John Carter a >poke< (and User:Doug, et al. : )
And I'd support changing the 4 months to 2 months, but I'd really like to see a consensus for that, rather than a WP:BOLD change, for obvious reasons. - jc37 22:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
There are a few questions here. Like I've said before, it has happened more than a few times that people just list the proposals here, and then others have to add notices regarding the proposals to some of the relevant article pages later. Sometimes that doesn't happen very often or very fast. That would be one of the drawbacks to dropping it to two months. Alternately, they might leave it on only one page, and that one not particularly often hit. The question about archiving has also been at least addressed before. The discussions tend to be put at the top of the new project's talk page, so in effect they are archived already there. And I'm not particularly certain that there actually is much to be gained by seeing which proposals are and aren't succesful. Also, whether we actually admit it or not, this really isn't anything like XfD or any of the other comparatively formal processes of wikipedia. Maybe we could make it one, but right now it isn't. Several projects are created out of the blue, Wikipedia:WikiProject Hermetism being one of the comparatively recent ones. In those cases, there wouldn't be anything from this page to archive regarding the proposal, because there was no proposal. I personally think that it might be more important to decide whether to make this a formal process before trying to worrying about archiving things which are at best informally placed here anyway. Regarding chronological order, if the page could be altered to include an "add a proposal" link, I wouldn't mind that at all. That is a bit beyond me right now, though. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... i've got an idea of how to do that, but yes, I think we should discuss whether or not to make it formal first!
I would support it, as it also allows us to stop nonsense WikiProjects from being made. What do others think?
BG7 22:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Not I (said the fly). I think making this "process" anything more than an optional process goes contrary to the open-editing wiki-principle. In other words, I don't have a problem with someone boldly creating a WikiProject, while knowing that if the project doesn't get anywhere (3 or less collaborating members) in a couple months, it may be deleted at MfD.
That said, I don't see why we need endless (longer than 2 month) discussion here. If they can't get the impetus to start a project after 2 months, then the idea should be shelved (archived). While they are welcome to start the nomination process over at any time. (Though maybe we should suggest that they wait a month before renomination.)
So to summarise, Oppose requiring the process; Support 2 month shelf life. - jc37 00:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, I'm wondering if we'll get any further comments. Needless to say, this isn't a "high-traffic" talk page... - jc37 05:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, okay! :D I'm in favor of reducing the archive time to two months, but I'm not a fan of the rest of the proposals. – ClockworkSoul 06:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I could place a link on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council page, if others wanted that. Personally, I don't have any reservations to the 2 months for a task force, but because of the problems I mentioned above I'm not sure that in several cases 2 months might not be long enough due to inadequate if not nonexistent publicization of the proposal. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:GregManninLB

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:

  1. Embryology proposal
  2. Black Sabbath proposal: Recommends that it be the sixth sub-task force (sub-taskforce of a sub-taskforce of a...) of a nonexistent project.
  3. United Kingdom Supermarkets and Retailers
  4. Revolutions of 1848
and several more...

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. – ClockworkSoul 01:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been on the receiving end of this too. All I want to do is get a WP up and running to cover windmills, watermills etc. I thought I was doing something wrong by proposing a Mills wikiproject, rather than windmills or watermills. Mjroots (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject stats??

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)

Not that I know of, but that would be an interesting thing to see. Blackngold29 06:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Video hosting websites

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)