User talk:XYZ CrVo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feel free to post a message.

Contents 1 To do lists 2 Africa project 3 Merger? 4 Don't try adding any assessments at this stage 5 Definitly 6 Relevant talk channels 7 Re: Name? 8 Re:Assessments 9 standard 10 Subdivide Africa project? 11 User:XYZ CrVo:Mypage 12 WikiProject Council roll call

[edit] To do lists

The {{Todo}} can be used to create a to-do list. You would want to read Wikipedia:To-do list for information on how to use it. Badbilltucker 01:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Africa project

As you will know, assessment of articles, particularly with the new assessment table which is expected to be done by the end of the week, makes it a lot easier to see which articles are most important, which are in greatest need of improvement, and where the two overlap. I have added a section regarding assessment to the proposed project page, and my own name to the project list as an assessor. I hope that this meets with your approval. It is one of the things that the notice board does not do, and might help draw new members to the proposed project. Badbilltucker 01:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger?

Probably not a good idea up front, as they are generally established projects and will resist merging into a newer one. Also, quality assessments are generally constant across the board, so the Eritrea's project quality assessment would be basically identical to our quality assessment. We can just copy their assessment rating into our own banner, though. Lord knows I've done that often enough already regarding other projects' assessments. Badbilltucker 01:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment is pretty much where most of the assessment information can be gotten. Badbilltucker 02:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't try adding any assessments at this stage

If and when the project takes off, any article assessed by it will fall in the category Africa articles by quality. There would be no reason to try to add any of those categories until the formal assessment is begun, though. I'd wait until the project gets enough members to "take off" before trying to start assessments. It generally works better that way. Badbilltucker 01:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Right now, we wait a while until there are some names on the list. I think we would know best what the next step should be come Saturday, when some of the less regular editors will have had time to log on and maybe join. Until then, though, it's probably best to just cool our heels a bit. Badbilltucker 13:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definitly

Definitely not spelled correctly. ;) - Dudesleeper 03:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant talk channels

My mistake. There does appear to be an NFL Wikiproject. Go here. Or by American football, did you mean MLS? - Dudesleeper 20:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Then the answer is no, sadly. Your best bet would be to put the idea forward on the MLS talk page to see if there's any interest. - Dudesleeper 21:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Name?

Unfortunately, I think the word "soccer" is prevalent enough on Wikipedia to warrant its inclusion in the name WikiProject American Soccer or something similar. - Dudesleeper 21:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Particularly since there is already a Wikipedia:WikiProject American football, I think the name American Soccer would be all but required to prevent confusion. Badbilltucker 21:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The word is spelled definitely. I think I've seen it spelled definately more than the correct way (though tounge is in a league of its own there). And, not a problem regarding the help. I prefer working with those seeking enlightenment rather than the arrogant know-it-alls around here. - Dudesleeper 21:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Wha? You didn't do anything wrong. - Dudesleeper 22:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Nah, not you. You'll come across the know-it-alls soon enough, if you haven't already. - Dudesleeper 22:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

My guess would be, based on the names of the other projects shown in the sports section of the Project Directory, "Football (soccer) in America" might go over best. It may also be a decent idea to try to establish the project, at least initially, as an umbrella project covering all the Americas; further subdivision would certainly be possible if the project gained enough members to indicate such would be a good idea. Badbilltucker 22:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Only real said that because of the name I suggested. If you wanted to make it "Football (soccer) in North America" or anything like that, that would work too. And please don't take anything I say as being even close to absolute in any event. I won't mention the number and severity of times I've screwed up, but believe me it's enough to call anything I say into question. :) Badbilltucker 22:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Pesonally, I'd go with "Soccer in America". The name of the page isn't a big deal. If someone comes up with a better name at a later date, a new page can be created, with the old one redirecting to the new one. - Dudesleeper 22:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Although the words "American" or "America" are potentially ambiguous, for us in Canada, they never refer to anything but the United States. Canadians in general do not consider themselves part of "America". Because of the possibility of ambiguity, Canadians tend to avoid using the word "America" by itself. There are already articles Soccer in the United States and Soccer in Canada which are part of WikiProject Football. It is probably useful in some ways to consider Canada and the United States together for some purposes, especially because the best-known professional leagues, the now-defunct North American Soccer League and the current Major League Soccer included/will include both Canadian and American teams. While Canada and the United States are often referred to as "North America" for the sake of convenience, North America geographically also includes Mexico and possibly the Central American countries. See also Americas (terminology)#Geopolitical divisions. If you want to include North, South, and Central, you have to go with "the Americas" for clarity, but I think soccer has a different status in Canada and the United States than in Latin America. I hope that hasn't just confused things further. (Also, given what I've just said, I'm leaning away from "football (soccer)" for this particular title.) Canadiana 19:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If, as I think you were initially, you were just hoping to focus on football in the USA, then WikiProject Football (soccer) in the USA would be the name you're looking for. Including Central America, South America, and Canada might be going a few steps too far (especially if you don't get the support you need), and they would probably benefit from having WikiProjects of their own, if they haven't already. - Dudesleeper 04:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The project page is looking good. I noticed you didn't include yourself in the list of participants, but then I don't know if you're supposed to since the project is in your userspace? - Dudesleeper 18:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Enough with the cars - you're neglecting the project page! ;) - Dudesleeper 03:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Assessments

Certainly the assessments could begin. Ultimately, I guess what it boils down to is this: We don't want to spread around a banner for a group which will ultimately be deleted, with its banner, somewhere down the road. Right now, it still hasn't gotten many members. Maybe the banner could be put on the pages for each of the countries, and each of the capital cities. As those are probably the most frequently hit pages, that might do for a start. Badbilltucker 14:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] standard

I dig the project page so far - we'll hash out something more complete as we go along. (Another thing: we might want to have a specific to-do list for players in need of articles. There's a lot of historical figures missing one.) When it comes to the disambig standard, the main problem I see with tagging EJ, for example, as "Eddie Johnson (MLS and US National team)" would be that we'd have to move the page right away if Eddie went to play in England, as he's probably going to do. But you're right, I'm not sure that we want to get caught in the crossfire by picking either "soccer" or "football" definitively. Possibly a compromise ("soccer" instead of "football" and "footballer" instead of "soccer player") could work, but I dunno. Bill Oaf 21:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subdivide Africa project?

I just broke the Project Directory for Africa along the lines of the existing UN regions for Africa. I was wondering if you thought that, given the objections to an Africa project as being too huge applied to one project for Africa as a whole, whether you would want to subdivide it into multiple projects, one for each UN region of Africa. Badbilltucker 17:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We wouldn't necessarily sacrifice standard article format. All that would be required would be to have the section on article format be standard across all the regional projects, or, basically, to copy it into the project page of each project. Badbilltucker 15:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:XYZ CrVo:Mypage

I've moved User:XYZ CrVo:Mypage to User:XYZ CrVo/Mypage. Subpages in your User space use slashes. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)