Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject RuneScape

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Concensus-Default Keep. — xaosflux Talk 18:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject RuneScape

This project has a very narrow scope and could easily be covered by it's parent

here (where there are also other comments for and against). Greeves 03:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

If I may, I will re-quote the Council guide. I am aware of
WP:DELETE
and the council guide is not a rule nor an official guideline. Some of it (such as the part which I am about to quote) is simply common sense.
"...we could create separate projects for every article should we wish to; but, just as obviously, we don't, as it would be much easier to simply collaborate on the talk page...if the topic is broad enough that some manner of formal organization is worthwhile, is an independent WikiProject the best answer? The best way to determine this is usually to look at other projects on similar topics, and at the "parent" WikiProject for the broader topic."
Collaboration on the talk pages of the specific articles can be happening more and
here. Greeves 00:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I would like to mention that the reason that
WP:MMO was on a user sub-page as opposed to a project page was because we were following the council's procedure before starting an new project; the project was proposed, we got support, and there were no objections. The temporary project page was a user sub-page. Greeves 17:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
It should be moved. Talk:RuneScape is for the article, not any project planning. - Mgm|(talk) 12:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! Look at the to-do list on Talk:RuneScape; it has way to much project coordination on it! Greeves 17:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it isn't offensive, and it will help bring Runescape-related articles up to better standards, provided enough people join.
    31415 (Review me!) 22:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - We're trying to write a damn encyclopedia, and deleting this Wikiproject isn't going to help. It's not doing any harm, and it's a good centralized location for improving the RuneScape series. The series needs some serious help, and this project is a great way for collaborative improvements. Sure, there may not be as many articles anymore, but some were deleted due to reasons which could have been fixed by a group work on the article(s). Agentscott00(talk) 01:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that there were never that many articles under the project's scope to begin with; I believe there were about 11. I will quote the guide again.
"In general, if there are less than a few dozen articles within the projected scope of the project, it would probably be more efficient to simply work within a larger project which includes them."
There could be progress in
WP:CVG as well (if not more, by spreading the word of RS articles to a wider audience). 'Nuff said. Greeves 01:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Would you make a comment/reason as to why you vote in this fashion to help the rest of us know why you believe in keeping it? Greeves 22:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough articles, memebers, and achievements to keep and can be covered by
    WP:MMO. Also others as said above.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 00:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
WP:MMO has even fewer members, has existed (as more than a short text string) a shorter time, as of 01:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC) it's talkpage is a redlink and it has seen only one new article (currently up for AfD) created and only copyedits, some referencing and its template added to existing articles. There is no minimum number of members for a wikiproject - informally the requirement is 'at least 2', the articles requirement is not a policy (it isn't even marked as an essay or guideline) and I can't find any 'achievements' requirement. CaptainVindaloo t c e 01:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
This is all because
WP:MMO. But to have a full separate project is unnecessary. Greeves 23:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I just don't think it makes sense to judge a project on percieved achievements, or lack thereof. All projects start out with zero achievements, so if having no achievements is a deletion arguement, then every project would be deleted as soon as they start. But
balletguide? Or someone replace a Horticulture and Gardening article with HORTICULTURE SUX LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!1111one? CaptainVindaloo t c e 04:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Merge. Okay, so its a nonstandard comment for a WikiprojectFD, but.... The thread at
    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject RuneScape#Is this WikiProject really necessary? went from "Hey, this project seems too small" to "Up at MFD, go join WP:MMO" pretty quickly; in fact, that happened before any possible project merger was broached or discussed, and before valid concerns like the one (overexpansive scope) raised by CaptainVindaloo could be addressed (aside: its handled elsewhere with subpages, which are permitted in projectspace, and are really darn handy, too!). Wikiproject:MMO is a great idea with no staff right now, and it (and its articles, seriously) could use help. I understand why the nomination was made, and I'm by no means questioning the nominator's intent, but I'm certain there's a better way than this (like maybe some form of phased merger plus some publicity requests to join?) to achieve consensus and to help editors work together on bettering the encyclopedia. Serpent's Choice 11:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Great idea with a sub-page! They could be separate from
WP:MMO to have their own workspace yet they are not their own project. In the case of delete, I think I might put up a sub-page for them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games/RuneScape. Greeves 23:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The MMO project can become a parent of the RuneScape project. I don't see how deletion is required here. - Mgm|(talk) 12:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:
WP:MMO is already it's parent. Greeves 23:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep-RuneScape has had frequent vandalising edits on itself and its related articles. This has led to frequent semi-protection and the necessity of vigilant watching of all RuneScape articles. The frequent Wikipedia editors on RuneScape are currently trying to attain GA or FA status, but their efforts are hindered by the frequent annoying edits made to the series. Having a centralized discussion relating to all RuneScape pages would allow us to debate over various articles and how to deal with vandals. This, in my opinion, is the purpose of the RuneScape WikiProject. I look forward to this WikiProject helping to improve all RuneScape articles.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 00:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too little content, too much fancruft. I think we should also delete the Portal.EMG Blue 14:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that if you think that, you should create a MfD for that. -Amarkov blahedits 16:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We still need one or the other. Without some form of main page, rogue subpages will keep popping up and the series will ultimately die off. Dtm142 23:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An admin should be coming soon enough. Greeves 16:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_RuneScape&oldid=1140201288"