Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Description

[A Wikiproject solely devoted to nominating and providing support for AFDs.

Rationale:

• Make WP look more "professional".
  
• Clear up bandwidth
  
• Provide more debate in AFDs
  

Goal For 2008 will be the deletion of 50,000 articles. ]

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. User:Librarianofages

Discussion

I have very real reservations about the proposed goal. Any group setting up a goal of deleting 150 articles a day is running a very serious risk of putting that goal before wikipedia's own goals, of providing verifiable information. I cannot necessarily believe that with such a goal in place, all the articles being proposed for deletion will be reviewed as thoroughly as they should be. John Carter (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why, try pressing "random article" 100 times, count the number of articles that don't seem to belong on Wikipedia due to being advertising or not meeting notability guidelines, then multiply that number by 21,000 and you have a rough average of the number of articles that should be deleted. --

talk

) 02:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• strongly oppose, this is a horrid idea and meanspirited at its core. Bad articles automatically find their way into AfDs, an WP dedicated to deleting them with a daily scorecard is an idea that should be fought. Deletionists are but one part of the Wikicommunity. Boo. Chris (クリス) (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

talk • contribs

)

No. Self-serving pedantry and hugely divisive. Chris (クリス) (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - While I agree with Librarianofages’s goal of clearing some of the rubbish from Wikipedia, I disagree with this proposed solution. There are too many articles brought to AfD with little thought or research of the subject as it is. Combine that with too few users willing to make an informed decision about a nominated article and this proposal becomes a recipe for disaster. —
  ^talk
  14:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• This has to be a joke, so I will oblige: lol! --kingboyk (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Kingboyk, I think it is a joke. Ha, ha, ha... OPPOSE. Basketball110 21:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This makes a mockery of a Wikiproject, its foul.I'd have wanted to have seen animalistic Projects I would have gone to the Wikiproject Zoo.Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 17:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability serves the purpose in a balanced way. Tyrenius (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to the "clear up bandwidth" part, I would like to direct

Librarianofages's attention to this link: Wikipedia:Don't_worry_about_performance. Bandwidth, server load, MySQL database size, etc, that's not your job. Leave that stuff to the developers. Phuzion (talk

) 02:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Is this a kind of joke? I mean, a WikiPrject is about improving and expanding articles. It is not about deleting articles. --
  Steinmetz
  23:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Not really consistent with Wikipedia's goals, is it? --Tony Sidaway 14:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• There is a case for original writers of articles to request deletion of early versions, especially where there is only one writer and other contributions have been minor edits, which can be very helpful. Example, mine on
  H B Kendall where I left a note that I intended to add some photos, and then picked up and deleted that note after finding the article listed on the Did you know list. Similarly for updates of images with better quality versions of the same. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, and perhaps there is such a facility which I have yet to discover. IS there some tag to request deletion of previous versions? Robert of Ramsor (talk
  ) 22:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly: see above comments.. LukeTheSpook (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: Bandwidth on Wikipedia is not an issue and far to many disagreements occur with articles nominated for deletion. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Such a project encourages deletions of useful articles. While I can agree there is some requirement to stop and cleanup rubbish topics, this project encourages an eagerness that may go to far. If anyone is genuinely interested in reducing editors mistakes then consider.
  talk
  ) 17:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Dangerous idea, and what everyone else said. ---G.T.N. (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose This proposal is essentially a request for creating an organized "stacked deck". This violates the very heart of building concensus. The best word to describe this idea is EVIL! -- Low Sea (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And another thing... there are already 15,000 articles pending deletion (forgot where I saw that) and you want to add 50,000 to the backlog. Holy Crap! -- Low Sea (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is ridiculous, and quite possibly
  Talk
  17:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Description

[A project to organise, categorise, and sort out all things related to weaponry]

A possible Userbox:

This User supports the WikiWeapons Project

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. User:BernhardFischbein

Discussion

So sort of like, I don't know,

WP:WEAPON? ;-) Kirill

19:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, why not make it a project to manage pages covering the use of firearms? You know, sort of a list of firearm-related laws?? BernhardFischbein (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:GUNS? Kirill

17:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Already have guns and fire arms. Basketball110 21:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Recommend proposer kill this idea and join the task force and/or the project mentioned above by

talk • contribs

) 18:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Jcwf (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
2. --
   Amaltheus (talk
   ) 02:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC) But what is a portal? Can we call it Portal for characterization techniques in the physical sciences?
3. Srnec (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC) — willing to help organisationally and Jcwf's rationale makes sense

Discussion

Oppose This place is for WikiProject, not portals. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know that this matters. There is no obligation to bring Projects and certainly not Task Forces here to begin with, if someone wants visibility for a proposed Portal here, that's fine and may help keep it from becoming just another unmaintained portal. Besides, to disallow it would be overly bureaucratic and Portals don't have a formal place for proposal. I take no position on the Portal itself being created, but the proposal is welcome here.--
  talk • contribs
  ) 18:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You can do that at

Village Pump OhanaUnited^{Talk page}

20:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Basketball110 (talk · contribs)
2. John Carter (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
3. talk · contribs
   ) - assuming it's a task force and not an independent project

• You've actually listed this under
  talk • contribs
  ) 19:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Alternately, if you're thinking only about the historical state, it might work as a joint task force with Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries. It would certainly help the portal if it could have separate assessments one way or another, though. John Carter (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Should be joint task force of WikiProject Romania and WikiProject European history (and Former Countries if desired), although there was a period when
  talk • contribs
  ) 18:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed above. Seems fine with me. Basketballone10 23:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• talk • contribs
  ) 16:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

--**macph***-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by **macph*** (talk • contribs) 22:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• I completely disagree with this concept. Wikipedia is for editing, and the social aspect of it... should be limited to user talk pages and that's all. If people want to socialize a lot more, they need to use an actual message board or a chat room. A social forum would just distract from the actual purpose of Wikipedia: building and editing an encyclopedia. Many people would be coming here to just chat, and not help with the encyclopedia, which isn't acceptable in my view. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - Please see
  What Wikipedia is not for a clear explanation on why this is not a good idea. - Absolon S. Kent (talk
  ) 15:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose This is a Bad idea, it would give those an excuse to use Wikipedia as a Forum, we have a policy which strictly states that Wikipedia is not a Forum such discussions will be removed and the user warned, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a Forum site. Terra 18:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Description

The Wikipedia: Police Department will monitor wikipedia for vandalism, simular to the counter-vandalism unit but will perform different tasks and follow strict rules which will hopefully lower the amount of vandalism. The police department will work closely with the counter-vandalism unit and share information to each member's either editors or Adminstrators. They will obey all rules of wikipedia even if the rules get's changed, if user's try and make their talkpages into a forum the Police department will intervene if it continues then the member's will report it as a violation of the Wikipedia Policy. Wikipedia is here to create an encyclopedia, as such the Police Department will make sure that the policy is respected, and that user's shouldn't make it into a forum website. →Dust Rider→ 21:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible userbox for the Department.

This user is a member of Wikipedia: Police Department.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. [your name here]

Discussion

• I'd need to have some idea what the strict rules this group is supposed to be following are, and exactly how they would be different from the counter-vandalism unit. Nothing against the idea, but I think most people would want to see exactly how it's proposed they get carried out. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The rules will be created by member's of the Department, mainly through the tasks simular the counter-vandalism unit, but it'll be based on the rules of Wikipedia and there five piller's, they'll patroll new creation logs of pages, and monitor different articles for vandalism. I'm still thinking of more idea's for the Department, but the Department i hope will be more active, also they'll watch articles talkpages and user's talkpages to see if they're not trying to make wikipedia into a forum website which some user's have been trying. →Dust Rider→ 22:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"The rules will be created by member's of the Department" - quis custodiet custodies?

• Just seems to be an duplication of existing functions - moreover, the name is problematically because a) many of our contributors come from regions where "police" has various negative connotations (and indeed, it seems that one of the proposed official functions of this group would be watch users...) and b) it suggests that they have some official function. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  I have to agree. My impression is that this proposed group is redundant with at least two others. Additionally, it seems to me that the name "Police Department" suggests that such a group has an official status that it doesn't. – ClockworkSoul 15:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm still waiting for any fundamental difference from the CVU. +
  t
  ) 03:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Description

To create, edit and improve articles on

GuitarFreaks. The project also serves to improve existing articles on Bemani musicians such as Asaki and BeForU and any music related to Konami's music games. The project will be under Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games

.

Fireblaster lyz (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. fireblaster_lyz
2. AeronPrometheus
3. Phuzion
4. Coredesat
5. dj ralph
6. ViperSnake151
7. tsugaru7reveng —Preceding comment was added at 08:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I deCAPitated the task force name. --

As a staff member of a few websites whose topics concern Bemani, I would very much like to see Wikipedia's coverage of Bemani topics improved, and will do what I can to help. As I am a sysop on Bemanistyle's wiki, I will put a notice on the front page linking to this taskforce to rally support for the cause. Phuzion (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the assistance rendered. Now, I will most likely wait and once enough attention has garnered, we will create a page and discuss on what we will do next. Do talk to me on the talk page. CAN SOMEONE CREATE A BETTER BANNER FOR ME? Thanks. Having a plain BEMANI isn't going to help, plus non-free images can't be used. xD Fireblaster lyz (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a suggestion, make this the "Konami music video game Taskforce" instead. There are a lot of music-based games released by Konami that are not a part of Bemani (Karaoke Revolution, Dance! Dance! Dance!, Toy's March, Dance 86.4, etc...) and they would be good to include in our efforts.

g.m.d. stands for Konami's Game Music Department, what was later relabeled Bemani. In this case I use it to signify all Konami music games. Also I see no reason why either box MUST have an image, it looks tasteful this way. Thoughts? --

It seems great! However, my recommandations are to focus on the current Bemani's lineup of games before the older ones come in. We will most likely wait for another week before I am willing to take any action. Thanks. Fireblaster lyz (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Karaoke Revolution is a currently running series of games, the entire timeline of Konami games is dotted with music-based ones that don't fall under Bemani. I agree that Bemani should be our parent concern but there no reason why we'd have to wait to start on the others as well. I'm already doing major additions and overhauls to the DDR and Beatmania articles as we speak, so I guess I'll see you in a week. --

talk

) 01:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually brought the idea up

talk

) 01:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps now that there's a discussion on the topic, it might get a little more attention. --

desat

02:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm an editor from WP:WikiProject Video games. Some questions for you guys are below. The purpose of these questions is to give this task force some direction, not to criticise it.

• What will this task force do beyond what a talk page like
  Talk:List of Bemani series
  could do?
• Are you going to have a common opinion on 'controversial' issues relating to these articles. For example, as a
  WP:VG/A
  assessor, I've noticed that the question whether track lists belong on articles themselves, separate lists, or nowhere at all, is subject to some controversy.
• What are you going to do to make sure this task force isn't a 'one night stand'?
  WP:VG
  has many task forces, none of which are very active.

User:Krator (t c) 11:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• What will this task force do beyond what a talk page like
  Talk:List of Bemani series
  could do?

Like what I have stated, though the main objective is to commit members to push up the quality of BEMANI pages, the project also serves to improve existing articles on Bemani musicians such as Asaki and BeForU and any music related to Konami's music games. However, this information is very vague as no action has been done or taken place at this moment.

• Are you going to have a common opinion on 'controversial' issues relating to these articles. For example, as a
  WP:VG/A
  assessor, I've noticed that the question whether track lists belong on articles themselves, separate lists, or nowhere at all, is subject to some controversy.

I require some feedback from members in the group on how this should be resolved. Once confirmed, articles must follow the guidelines set by the task force.

• What are you going to do to make sure this task force isn't a 'one night stand'?
  WP:VG
  has many task forces, none of which are very active.

I have been to the Final Fantasy Wikiproject and I seen a nominal rollcall on a monthly basics. To ensure the task force is successful, at least one edit of any article related to Konami's gmd must be done in a week. Again, I prefer to hear on members' opinion on how can the task force remain active.

Fireblaster lyz (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to continue to improve and add to the articles as I have been regardless of whether or not I have a button on my user page. The advantages to having an established task force would be to garner support and raise interest in aiding the cause. As we now have five signed members interested in helping perhaps later on there will be more that makes it less of a cliff scaling for those of us already in the trenches. --

talk

) 18:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI: "Once confirmed, articles must follow the guidelines set by the task force." and " at least one edit of any article related to Konami's gmd must be done in a week." are bad ideas. The reason for this is that WikiProjects and task forces are about collaboration and discussion, and are not some kind of elite club that sets the standards. There's no real 'power' or 'group' in a task force - even a member's list could be controversial. Projects have been deleted in the past for being too "closed". The same logic applies to the notion of "applications" as written on

I understand Krator, as a new user of Wikipedia, I am currently unfamiliar with things happening here or how things work here. As of date, I am currently busy with my personal work and am only be able to contribute from time to time. With already five members in the team, I hope we can quickly start off with some guidelines to follow on and IMPROVE PAGES!!! Fireblaster lyz (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally think maybe just a general Music Gaming task force would be better, but still, Konami was the innovator here, so what's not to object? ViperSnake151 15:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

With much support from Wikipedians here, I would greatly apprrciate guidelines on how to start a Taskforce and get things running. (: PLEASE GO TO MY TALK PAGE!!! Thanks. Fireblaster lyz (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Description

Medical schools located in the Caribbean islands which cater primarily to American students seeking medical education.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. bstone Bstone (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
2. PaddyM (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Description

Articles related to Yellowstone National Park, including guysers, basins, water bodies, animal species, etc.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Juliancolton (Talk) 19:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• I'm not sure an entire project would be needed for this; the articles could fit under
  Eustress (talk
  ) 22:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theerasofwar (talk • contribs) 11:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Description

This would be a project specifically designated to books, places, items and characters that are connected to Raymond E. Feist’s novels such as:

Kelewan Raymond E. Feist

.. Feel free to ask any questions below or on my talk page – Thanks

1. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 06:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
2. - LA @ 08:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Salavat (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
4. 24.72.109.227 (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
5. hmoul - I think I've read everything he's written multiple times. —Preceding comment was added at 19:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

just wondering - whether the scope should be as a task force or a wiki-project because I don't know what parent project it should go under. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 04:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The page is up and ready - Im just making some refining on it. Check out WP:RAY thanks Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 23:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of ways people are making connections between Wikipedia and objects and locations in the real world. See

Description

This task force would be used to greatly improve their articles, and source the pages. They would be necessary to keep DEP related things interesting, factual, and informative. Their pages are dull, and the one I wrote is unsourced, and I feel people could help would make it a solid article. The reason I feel it is necessary for a better DEP page is because of their growing importance, and influence. Thanks.

Participants

All you DEP fans sign up!

Discussion

Hi! Please look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Taskforce for BEMANI. Konami has obtained a licence for the song "Pansonic Youth" from The Dillinger Escape Plan to be released and made playable on

;Description

• Sickero (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC), great idea! i'd be willing to help out in the law enforcement aspect of it.

Discussion

What Wikiproject would theTaskforce Be under? --Iwilleditu^{Talk :)Contributions} 23:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Presumably one of the projects dealing with crime or criminal justice. John Carter (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Description

This task force would attempt to improve the articles about maritime shipwrecks like RMS Titanic, Lusitania, and many others! I hope you will join and it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Participants

Discussion

So, something like

Description A Task Force for improving articles related to the university, specifically the sports ones.

Participants

1. ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I think that these things should go in alphabetical order. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 04:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

...and this message is not directed only at this proposal. There are others that are not in alphabetical order. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 04:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Description

This Wikiproject will be in Charge of deleting Moving Trivia Sections to the talk page in Wikipages since the are discourgaed by

WP:Trivia

.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Iwilleditu^{Talk :)Contributions} 23:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• Oppose - POV fork, won't be allowed. See
  WP:TRIVIA specifically advises against deleting trivia sections outright. Equazcion •✗/C •
  23:12, 28 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• Whel then insteed of deleting we will move them to the talk. --Iwilleditu^{Talk :)Contributions} 23:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's also advised against in

WP:TRIVIA. I'd suggest you get a bit more acquainted with this topic before you propose a project that deals with it. Equazcion •✗/C •

23:22, 28 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• Whel
  WP:Trivia states "may fall outside Wikipedia's scope and should be removed altogether."--Iwilleditu^{Talk :)Contributions}
  23:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Some entries. Not entire sections. Read the whole sentence. Trivia sections are not to be removed just because they're trivia sections. Each item needs to be judged on its own merits -- which goes for any section. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:35, 28 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Removing trivia sections (generally by integrating their worthwhile content into the article text) is a good thing which I've commonly done. However, since removing trivia sections does not require any particular form of collaboration, and is not a topic on which an editor can have specialized knowledge, it is a goal unsuited for a wikiproject. --erachima formerly tjstrf 23:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Whel shouldnt there be a standerd Procedure.--Iwilleditu^{Talk :)Contributions} 23:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• No, not really. It's not like we're fixing typos here, evaluating whether information is irrelevant or just needs reformatted is a process requiring actual thought and often discussion between editors. So there's nothing you can really do to create a standardized procedure. (Also, the word well doesn't have an 'h' in it, just so you know.) --erachima formerly tjstrf 00:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose.
  pro-trivia WikiProject. / edg ☺ ☭
  21:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• No way. Fundamentally POV and
  t
  ) 03:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a Japanese anime project that includes manga, videogames, etc. But they have stated that animated projects from Korea or other countries should not be put in their project. Korea has produced a lot of manwha and animes themselves. I think we should have a Project Korean Entertainment. (Sorry if my explanation is so plain horrible and confusing.)Cardinal Raven (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

They've also produced a significant number of video games. NeonMerlin 13:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• IN FAVOR. I lived in the Republic of Korea (South Korea) for 4 years. It is a rich and dynamic nation. If we host pages specific to one country's arts and entertainment (Japan or the United States for example), then it's only natural (and neutral) to include other nations contributions as well. I am strongly in favor of this and all pages showcasing nations' unique (or unique variants of) historic, artistic, cultural, technological or intellectual achievements.Saseigel (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Description=This project would be about all of the Soul Calibur games

PAH Page

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

Discussion

Obviously we would want to add linksto all the other games, and manufactorers, on each page, so instead of this being one page, it would an interlaced series of pages. Obviously, ensure that all references are cited and accurate (but you probably are quite knowledgable in the Soul Calibur games, based upon your interest). Otherwise, I personally approve if that project. "--**macph***-- {{subst:dated adoptme}} (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)"

If the scope of your project idea is very narrow (such as a TV show, music band, video game, etc), or your idea is a variation on a common theme, consider starting a task force of an existing project instead of a whole new WikiProject. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: Should be a Task Force in WikiProject Games -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• I think it might be a better fit as a task force in
  WikiProject Video games. — OranL (talk
  ) 21:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

When a editor goes to create a new document they should be clearly informed that the article has to be

articles for deletion

, all of which is unnecessarily wastefully of all the people involved.

This is NOT about resolving conflict between people or individual incidents but reducing the chance of them occurring in the first place. Withdrawn, given the poor response it seems people are either apathetic, found some more important project or just enjoy the drama created by repeated conflict on wikipedia. So withdrawn.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. talk
   )
2. Low Sea (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• Oh, so you're after a cabal, then? Or a political party? Absolutely not. Proposed policy changes are to be discussed on relevant talk page, and what you've proposed requires admin powers, not a WikiProject/taskforce. You've misunderstood what they do. +
  t
  ) 03:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it is to be entirely consensual to the relevant talk page etc. Sorry I didn't explicitly state that above, thought it would be assumed.

talk

) 01:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

All my points remain valid. A political lobby is completely unacceptable. PS: Have a look at

t

) 05:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry you are mistaken. This proposal is nothing like

talk

) 04:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Description

[This would be a WikiProject to find pictures and other media for articles that need some or more ] Freshbakedpie ^{(Wanna talk?) \'_'/} 21:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Freshbakedpie ^{(Wanna talk?) \'_'/}

Discussion

Description

This would be a Workgroup under the Hinduism Wikiproject which will work to Expand and Maintain present articles and add new ones on the subject.;

talk

) 09:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1.    Juthani1    01:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Ism schism (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
3. talk
   ) 09:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Raj - सनातन धर्म (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
5. wildtornado - wildT (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
6. Wikidās ॐ 23:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
7. Ksoni (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
8. Harish
   - 02:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• Shall we begin by contributing new articles - like separate pages on Swaminarayan Philosophy, Theology, Current Structures within Swaminarayan followers/organisations etc. Since the first requirement we should fulfil is to have about 100 active pages. Then we can set about improving the quality / information in those pages. wildT (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, many new articles need to be created concerning Philosophy, Theology, etc. I am not sure how to go about creating a page to discuss these matters, but I feel that a consensus among the above editors can be found as to a starting point. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Swaminarayan sect can fall in the domain of Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Vaishnavism.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• It could - but its a bit too big for tht - there are 50+ articles and growing - a lot more need to be added and a lot expanded - hence a Swaminarayan Workgroup is the need of the hour.
  talk
  ) 22:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• added onto that, the articles under the project will be shared by the Swaminarayan and Vaishnavism Workgroups. It's getting too big for only Vaishnav editors to handle it.    Juthani1    00:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would at this point consider a separate work group to be a bad idea. In general, any group which doesn't have at least 100 articles is going to be, ultimately, doomed to merger or deletion. This group doesn't yet have 100 articles. As such, I would be opposed to creation of a separate group, unless there were at least five listed members, which is generally the minimum number for a group to remain active, and at least 100 extant articles. Maybe, when those minimum criteria are met, things would be different. But based on the situation today, there isn't yet either the number of articles or the number of editors for the creation of a separate work group. Particularly when there is already a main group which deals with all the relevant content that this more focused group deals with. John Carter (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There are already 5 editors signed on in just a few days. Also, there are hundreds of articles to be created, referenced, and wikified. ALSO, the Vaishnava work group has over 700 articles - a few subgroups will be necessary. The above proposal should be fully considered. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that there are several extant projects, also with roughly the same scope, which have become basically moribund.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Church of the Nazarene among them. And, in general, we don't talk about the necessity of dividing up projects until at least several thousand articles, possibly tens of thousands, has been reached. John Carter (talk

) 17:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There are also helpful workgroups (similiar to the above proposal) such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Unitarian Universalism work group. Such groups assist in facilitating discussion, group consensus, article creation and expansion. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

While I do not see a need of a separation of this project from the rest of the Hinduism, I would suggest piloting it for 2 months and if it to become extinct, merging it back into Hinduism project. I'm not sure if I make sense, as I'm not sure as of the structure of projects and sub-projects. Can a subproject have a sub-project? As for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Vaishnavism/Swaminarayan - is it acceptable? Or does it have to be Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Swaminarayan The cell structure of Hinduism as a tradition asks for both segregation and a unity at the same time. Wikidās ॐ 23:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the project should be given a chance - I believe it is a matter of finding a place within religion, as you have suggested above. There are already 6 editors who have both have a history of contributing to Swaminarayan articles and have signed on above to the Swaminarayan workgroup. Personally, I feel that 6 dedicated editors is enough, I hope others agree and we can find out a way to begin the work ahead. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Support the proposal to pilot the project - as mentioned above, it can always be remerged with the parent project if necessary. I think it should be a subgroup of

s

19:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Shruti14 - it needs to be under the Vaishnavism umbrella.

talk

) 19:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe we should hold off on this idea until a few more articles are created to be on the safe side. I would like to thank everyone who gave there opinion about this project. Thanks. If any think the project should be made now, please add your opnions under this    Juthani1   ^tcs 20:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Description

[A Project on the Fablehaven Series of books to expand the knowledge of these books, and the information in these articles or the related articles of the Fablehaven series of books.] ; --18:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Jabba78 (talk)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. --Jabba78 (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
2. --Jibajabba 20:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.81.77 (talk)

Discussion

Description

A task force of the

WP:ADVENTURE). Creating the task force under the Video games project will resolve the ambiguity and will allow editors to coordinate their efforts more easily. Currently, I am seeing over 50 articles that would qualify for the scope of this project, which is too many articles for one person to efficiently and judiciously reorganize and rewrite single-handedly. — OranL (talk

) 06:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

1. OranL (talk)
2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) - the cruft has to be cleaned up and the games polished, so why not.

Discussion

• From what I can tell, ADVENTURE is just a sub-project of VG; therefore, wouldn't it be more worth your while to add the task force to ADVENTURE instead? Indeed, I am seeking clarification on reasoning for VG and not ADVENTURE. --Izno (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• You're right in that it is too much for a single person, but looking over those 50 articles I can see a lot of in-universe articles which may not even meet
  WP:ADVENTURE per Izno's argument.--十八
  06:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The main reason I don't want it to be a task force under
    WP:VG, but I wouldn't mind the collaboration if more people are interested in really cleaning out these pages. — OranL (talk
    ) 20:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll grant you that, however, what's to happen if people continue to think that ADVENTURE is actually inactive? I advise leaving a note on both WT:ADVENT and WT:VG inviting them to this conversation. I don't care either way where it ends up, as I think it a suitable task force for either, but it seems to me that the more focused Wikiproject would be the better choice for it. --Izno (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Description

A project aimed at improving all articles about organizations and people who exhibit an altruistic concern for human welfare and advancement, usually manifested by donations of money, property, or work to needy persons. Worthy articles like

Warren Buffet, Bill Gates) need an umbrella WikiProject. WP Human Rights is too specific while WP Organizations

is too general.

I have experience leading WPs and would be willing to be

Eustress (talk

) 01:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Eustress (talk
   )

While I'm not interested in joining such a project, I think it is a wonderful idea for a wikiproject. --Izno (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Description

A project aimed at creating and improving articles about Protestant Christian faiths and Messianic Judaism. Danielaustinhall12 (Go Wolverines!) 19:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Danielaustinhall12 (Go Wolverines!)

Discussion

• Interesting. You might want to check with
  Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Iglesia ni Cristo work group to see what they think of the idea. John Carter (talk
  ) 20:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Description

A project aimed at maintaining and creating arcticles on barbarians. Includes such tribes as the Huns, Visigoths and Ostrogoths, Alans, Vandals, Mongols, and many more. Please visit the project page at WikiProject Barbarians.--Pecopteris (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to define barbarian a bit. If you are referring to those who contributed to the downfall of the Roman empire, you might add the Picts, Scots, and Irish. By the way, I saw on the page you listed them as "tribes," which probably doesn't apply to groups such as "Scythian," and several others, as each refers to a group of tribes. Just some sugesstions. If you work on it a bit, I might be interested. ---G.T.N. (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok -G.T.N., I will work on this some. Thank you very much for your suggestions! Hope to see you there!--Pecopteris (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

All right, take a look now, I made some improvments.--Pecopteris (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm in. ---G.T.N. (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Everyone! It's me again. After I decided to speedily delete this, because of the controversy of the name "barbarian", I decided on a different approach. Make a seperate WikiProject for each of the main tribes/civilizations.

The Huns were nomadic warriors who terrorized the Roman Empire during the 4th and 5th centuries A.D., eventually leading to it's fall. This WikiProject will work on all Hunnic articles. People, places, and events associated with the Huns will be included. We will work on Hun ancestry, but not as much on descendants of the Hunnic people. Please send any questions to me. Thanks!

• Wikipedians interested
• Pecopteris- the bulk of my historical knowledge is Hunnic, and I am happy to contribute to anything! —Preceding comment was added at 13:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Description

This group will fill the gap left by engineering and architecture for people interested in improving Wikipedia topics related to the construction/built environment field. The scope might include: construction materials, notable people & companies, specific projects, construction methods, construction management, safety, and equipment. Mr. Welsh (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Mr. Welsh (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Timurite (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• Oppose - Project would be too narrow in focus. Recommend a Task Force in WikiProject Business and Economics or WikiProject Employment]] if it is approved (see below). It may be expanded to a full WikiProject later, if interest develops. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Why would you consider placing construction under "Business and Economics?" I fail to see how construction materials, methods, and practices could logically be placed in that category. A glance at academia revels that there are schools of construction all over the world. They don't teach construction in business school, and the valuable construction professionals that I hope will join this group would not logically look for construction buried underneath such broad topics as economics or employment. Mr. Welsh (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I fail to see why "too narrow in focus". It is hardly narrower than, say,
  wikipedia:task force within the latter one, which may evolve into a WikiPrj. Timurite (talk
  ) 18:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. As an active member of
  WP:NRHP and the architecture project, and also because our house is being worked on at the moment, I see a clear need for a coordination on topics related to the actual act of building things. Too many articles in that vein are either nonexistent or stubby. Daniel Case (talk
  ) 19:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - a great deal that could be covered by the project. I'd suggest a task force of Wp:Architecture and Business and Economics
  White cat
  12:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Yes it would be a good idea to give information like this. Go for it. I support this 100%. Bmoc2012tms (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Description

Maintain, improve, and expand articles relating to emergency medical systems and prehospital care. -- JPINFV 02:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. JPINFV
2. Brentoli
3. Jclemens - I may be one of the few active editors in Wikiproject First Aid.

Discussion

Would be interested in an offer as a Wiki:Medicine task force as well.

• Oppose: Should be a Task Force in WikiProject Medicine -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral: I could see this being a task force, but if done properly there is quite a bit of information out there specific to EMS. I think a task force first, and if it does become a large project, spinoff into its own? Brentoli (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• neutral: I'd suggest getting in contact with Wikipedia: WikiProject Fire Service for further support/comment --Shaggorama (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • EMS has much more to do with medicine than the fire service. JPINFV (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• WikiProject - It should be Services, not Systems. The category for this topic is at Category:Emergency medical services and there is enough material for a WikiProject. Here is where your proposal fits in:
  • WikiProject Society
    • WikiProject Security
      • WikiProject Safety
        • WikiProject Public Safety
          • WikiProject Disaster management <-- Should be renamed WikiProject Emergency Management
            • WikiProject Emergency Services
              • WikiProject Emergency Medical Services
                <-- I agree with this one.

-- GregManninLB (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support: However,
  Wikipedia:WikiProject Emergency medical services and going from there. There is no need for both an EMS and a First aid project. The first aid project seems to be a bit narrow in scope, and expanding to EMS should draw more participants. --Scott Alter
  05:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I left a note about this proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject First aid#Change of project name and scope, but I don't expect much activity there. --Scott Alter 06:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Whatever we call it, I would like to see a single Emergency Medicine project/task force, subordinate to BOTH Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine and whatever the Wikiproject ends up being for Emergency Services. Can you put a task force in two places? If not, then I'm advocating this be a separate Wikiproject from both Medicine and Fire Service. EMTs and Paramedics walk in the space between clinical medicine and strict fire/rescue, and I think this wikiproject should too. Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that it should be a descendant of both
    WikiProject Emergency medical services as a subordinate/descendant of WikiProject Fire Service. Also, since Wikipedia:WikiProject First aid already exists, I'd think it would be easier to rename that than create either a new project or a shared task force between WikiProject Medicine and a non-existent project. --Scott Alter
    06:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • In reality, while not all emergency medical responders are firefighters (nor should they be), most American firefighters are emergency medical responders, especially on the West Coast. I'm not sure how this plays out in other countries, but the strong connection between fire service and EMS underlies my suggestion. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I recognize that in some areas, there is a strong connection between fire and EMS. I don't necessarily agree that most American firefighters are emergency medical responders. However, even if that were true, I would say that most emergency medical responders are not firefighters. Given that logic, and the fact that most EMS-providing fire departments probably do many more medical jobs than fire jobs, you'd think that fire should be a subset of EMS (not that I would ever actually suggest that, but I think the two services should stand separately and EMS should not be a subordinate of fire). --Scott Alter 06:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
        • That's an amusing and logical conclusion. I'll elaborate on your talk page. Jclemens (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• I just renamed WikiProject First aid to create
  Wikipedia:WikiProject Emergency medical services. I've began to change the templates to reflect this. --Scott Alter
  04:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This proposed WikiProject is meant to organize, improve and expand all articles related to Education in Malaysia at all levels, including adult education, vocational education, etc. A lot of the articles in this category need work. - Bob K 07:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Bob K Bob K 07:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Chan Yin Keen | ^UT_C 07:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Steve F. 17:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Pass the word around. If we can get more than 5 people on board, we can get started. - Bob K 09:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• I support the idea of this project, but I think it will be better suited as a taskforce under
  U
  05:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Recommend a Task Force in WikiProject Malaysia as noted above. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I would like to note WikiProject Malaysia would benefit from a wee bit of attention after sputtering out after a mere year of activity. Starting another WikiProject when the root WikiProject is barely alive is ridiculous. This is almost similar to the way BN does things. - Two hundred percent (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Description

This Project would be dedicated to improving, organizing, and expanding articles relating to Spanish conquest and exploration of Mesoamerica and South America. Please sign below if you wish to join.

Support

1. Debate dude (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

SWPP

• WikiProject WikiProject: Spanish Exploration
• Wikipedia:WikiProject: Spanish Exploration

Discussion

Support

Oppose

• Oppose - Far to narrow in focus for a WikiProject. Recommend a Task Force in WikiProject History or one of its many subprojects. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Description

This project would help organize work on the information theory-related articles on Wikipedia. I don't know how many people are interested, but we currently have over 100 articles in Category:Information theory, and many of them need significant cleanup and maintenance. Furthermore, it would be nice to have a place to discuss, standardize, and formalize some of the policy unique to information theory that has developed in an ad-hoc manner as these articles have been edited, especially concerning how information-theoretic mathematical formulas are written. Such a WikiProject would also be helpful to bring new and/or occasional contributors to the information theory articles up to speed. The main information theory article is currently included in numerous other WikiProjects that are either too broad or only tangentially related. It would be nice to have some more focus in this area.

Update: the front page, Information theory, just got added to yet another Wikiproject. It is in all the following Wikiprojects:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Statistics
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer Science
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Telecommunications
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems

Deepmath (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Deepmath (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Hetelllies (talk
   ) 06:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Wikiproject Information theory

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Description

Wikipedia topics on Sino-Japanese-Korean topics all too often, and unfortunately, reflect the tense, exaggerated, embittered and often politically nationalistic debates currently prevalent in the popular presses of these three great nations.

In many case, these polemics are immature, propagandistic and unencyclopedic in nature and causes being promoted by unethical editing habits. Japanese-Korean topics appear to be amongst the more problematic topics on the Wikipedia.

At the same time, within each nation and academic circles there are moves to create pan-national understanding and document an accurate account of history. It is therefore proposed to establish a Sino-Japanese-Korean workgroup interested in establishing good working relations to improve the academic nature of these articles and encourage normal editing.

For the sakes of honesty and transparency, this pan-national workgroup was sincerely proposed precisely in response to the mode of operation used by many such the editor below,

talk · contribs · logs

), in this topic area.

It is hoped that by bring together authors from across the spectrum of parties, interested in rising above existing conflicts, that standards, understanding and sensitivity can be improved; just as they are in academia at present. --Ex-oneatf (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ex-oneatf (talk · contribs), such personal attacks of yours could not warrant your allegation. I take a strong offense by your repeated personal attacks again. What a wast of my and many people's precious time. The above editor who claims as a newbie (2 days old) is bashing me here and there and not surprising knowing my changed name. So what has something to do with the proposal? --Caspian blue (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Now Korean war crimes which the nominator created was deleted for the massive plagiarism. The related AFD, the article is also pointed out on its seriously POV and total mess. His statement contradicts to his disruptive practices. Per this experience, Ex-oneatf shows what these are : immature, propagandistic and unencyclopedic in nature and causes being promoted by unethical editing habits. Japanese-Korean topics appear to be amongst the more problematic topics on the Wikipedia.

Besides, the three people are from Japanese project, so if the project proposal would be accepted, editors from "China" and "Korea" should support it too. --Caspian blue (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Ex-oneatf (talk) 07:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
2. I'm not certain that this works (could be possibly a disaster), but it's still worth a try. -- Taku (talk) 05:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
3. I would support this as a task force of multiple projects. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 14:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
4. I can see why editors would loath to get involved but standards need to be improved. At present many topics look like propaganda wars going on to me. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

SWPP

• Wikiproject Sino-Japanese-Korean relations

Discussion

Support

Oppose

• STRONG Oppose. First of all, at this point I could not trust the suggester who created his own account one weeks ago and
  WP:NPV and holds his political agendas. This project proposal is his own contradiction as he practices "tense, exaggerated, embittered and often politically nationalistic debates and promoting unethical editing habits" by himself. Japanese-Korean topics appear to be amongst the more problematic topics on the Wikipedia. - It is irony to see the opposite movements by the proposer. His edits based on anti and pro sentiments concern me a lot that the suggester seem to take advantage of the Wikiproject for his own sake. --Caspian blue (talk
  ) 11:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Its going to be a magnet for flaming. And from a user who`s only purpose here is to make false claims left and right, its going to be a venue for him to direct his attacks against Korean-related articles. Good friend100 (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• STRONG Oppose. I think this is a bad faith edit. maybe he pick a fringe theory by POV content forking. and make korea image as bad to chinese. ALSO I don't think we need Wikiproject Sino-Japanese-Korean relations. Korean, Chinese, Japanese strongly disagree each other. This will make many disruptive edit wars.
  talk
  ) 02:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Maybe something on inter-Asian relations in general, but picking these three countries seems too narrow. bd2412 T 16:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

• I think this would be better if it were Wikipedia: WikiProject East Asia, since some of the Sino/Korean/Japanese relations involve part of Manchuria in Russia, or Mongolia, or Vietnam. 70.51.9.121 (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Description

This WikiProject will focus on maintaining and reducing the backlog of

09:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I only contacted a few people from the list of members of the now-defunct WP:LOCE and various other Projects, and we already have six people! I am going to begin shifting the project portal from my userspace into the wikispace so that we can better coordinate our efforts. -

Tan

00:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have shifted the contents from my userspace to

Tan

02:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Tan
   09:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
2. talk ~ edits
   ) 12:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Erythromycin (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
4. AnnaFrance (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
5. MeegsC | Talk 15:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
6. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 17:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Enigma ^message 04:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
8. U
   18:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

SWPP

• WikiProject Articles Needing Copy Edit

Discussion

Support

• This will work if it gets exposure on the Community portal page, and maybe one of those messages that pop up on people's Watchlist page? (the ones you can 'dismiss'). I believe we should start with the earliest tagged articles and work our way up from there. Maybe an extra workforce could focus on the current month, to ensure the backlog doesn't keep growing at a ridiculous rate each month. —
  talk ~ edits
  ) 12:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Good ideas. I've been wondering how to increase the project's exposure. I'm hoping that the number of editors working on this project will become so large that some day we can start encouraging people to tag their articles for copy editing. *grin*-

Tan

13:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Wikiproject Peanuts

Description

I propose that something be done about the

Peanuts television specials

}} templates.

Support

1. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Bernstein2291 (talk) 03:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

SWPP

• WikiProject Peanuts
• Wikipedia:Peanuts

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Oppose - I love the idea as a Peanuts fan, but this would be to narrow in focus for a full WikiProject. Recommend a Task Force in WikiProject Comics or one of the many animation projects. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland

Description

A project that covers Britain's great diversity of species and their conservation. There is a great amount of information currently unclassified and inaccessible which could do with wider support such as: British National Vegetation Classification, List of UK sites recognised for their importance in biodiversity conservation, List of bees, wasps and ants recorded in Britain, Category:Lists of British animals and everything within. For an example of how it would work see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian biota.

Support

1. Jack (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
2. jimfbleak (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
4. SP-KP (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

SWPP

• WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland
• Wikipedia:Biota of Great Britain and Ireland

Discussion

Support

Oppose

• I'm unclear why it's "British Biota", rather than "British biota" can this be clarified with respect to MoS (or changed) Looking at the cats above, and on the
  WP:BIRDS talk page should it be "United Kingdom biota" or "Biota of the British Isles" anyway? British Isles, UK and Great Britain are not synonyms. Is it intended to include Eire and/or Northern Ireland? Too vague jimfbleak (talk
  ) 05:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops it should be lowercase biota, I'll change that. I thought 'British' includes everything within the United Kingdom? That is: England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and associated islands. I'm up for a name change if neccessary though, and am open to discussion. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Terminology of the British Isles is a minefield! From a biogeographical point of view, however, I feel that a UK biota wikiproject would be the worst option. Either a single "Britain and Ireland" wikiproject, or separate British and Irish ones would be better. SP-KP (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Your proposed categories include Category:Ecology of the British Isles and Category:Fauna of the British Isles which is inconsistent with the UK-based definition above. Also, if you really mean the UK, rather than the British Isles or Great Britain, why not Biota of the United Kingdom? jimfbleak (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to Biota of the British Isles, this will mean the project will cover all categories and lists mentioned in the proposal. What does everyone think about that? Cheers, Jack (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - see below for reasons. --

HighKing (talk

) 18:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me, although I'd prefer Britain and Ireland, as "British Isles" offends many residents of the Republic of Ireland (see

British Isles naming dispute). SP-KP (talk

) 09:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The controversial fork page

WP:BITASK for proposed guidelines on the matter. --Matt Lewis (talk

) 15:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That view is not shared by everyone - simply check out the first paragraph of the British Isles article for the view of the greater consensus. --

HighKing (talk

) 18:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I was only using that article to draw people's attention to the issue. I certainly wasn't recommending that it gives an accurate picture of the level of offense. What I know however, from experience away from Wikipedia, is that the term British Isles does cause is a significant degree of offense to some people. SP-KP (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Right I've changed it for, hopefully, the last time. The project will be called: WikiProject Biota of the UK and Ireland. This incorporates all the land mass of the British Isles, while keeping offence at a minimum! Jack (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You have to keep to the technical term British Isles (per other similar Wikipedia articles) - those offended by the geographical use of "British Isles" (rather than a political use) are a tiny minority even on Wikipedia! Opposition to the 'political' use of the term is currently being addressed at . --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose (unless "British Isles" is used): It couldn't be called "..in the UK and Ireland" as the island of
  WP:BITASK - a taskforce that is soon to be a BRITISH ISLES workgroup. The geographical name 'British Isles' is the common technical term for the archipelago re 'geographical' matters like flora and fauna etc, and is the term Wikipedia has been using for articles like the one you are proposing here. If you stick to the standard 'British Isles' when referring to the whole archipelago, you'll be okay. --Matt Lewis (talk
  ) 15:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As long as we interpret "and" as a Boolean operator for Northern Irish locations, "UK and Ireland" is fine, and doesn't cause offense to anyone, unlike "British Isles". 22:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as flora is not scientifically classified according to "British Isles". Also, the lists and articles you've listed are all British lists, not one Irish lists. Your original naming of Great Britain and Ireland, to name it after the islands, is more in line with the flora classification. @Matt above, I thought you were aware that flora is not classified in this way (see the notes in
  HighKing (talk
  ) 18:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The

WP:BITASK (it actually said "flora and fauna" once, and I changed it to "natural history") - did you include any? -I didn't notice if you did. 'British Isles' is still an option alongside 'Great Britain and Ireland' regardless. The decider could be whether it is normally used for flora or not - I honestly thought it was used in the world of plants etc.--Matt Lewis (talk

) 19:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Check out the

HighKing (talk

) 19:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BITASK

says this:

Note on 'technical' use of the term "British Isles"

This guideline often refers to the 'technical' use of the term British Isles. Generally, the term 'technical' here covers the sciences and disciplines of physical geography, geology, natural history (including fauna but excluding flora) and archaeology. When used in a 'pure' technical sense the term is always acceptable.

How difficult will it be to come to a consensus naming wise? Even if flora isn't classified specifically as belonging to the BI, it is still within that term right? A plant found in the United Kingdom will come under the British Isles parentage, just as a species belongs to a genus which is within a greater taxon. Ireland wasn't included in any of the lists just because it was some quick examples I was giving. As ROI shares a land border with NI it seems sensible to include it within the project. It's best that we address these issues now, thought we should be careful red tape doesn't take all our efforts. Jack (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

We do need to address this now. I hadn't notice the recent "excluding flora" change to the proposed guideline - it was originally 'flora and fauna'. I'll look at this today - though I fully agree with your 'red-tape' point, if it really isn't used for flora we could rethink here I suppose. I'll also look what else WP does with flora regarding the BI, and on the web too. I have a feeling I've seen 'British Isles' used for plants - we need to check that 'no-flora' is clear and unambiguous. "British Isles" can still be used of course (and certainly 'Great Britain and Ireland' would be the only alternative) - but I think we need a research break here, or I do at least.

Nothing is stopping anyone from at least creating the article you want, by the way - whatever the outcome in this poll. None of these terms are illegal. It would then be down to the resulting consensus if someone chooses to propose a form of 'name change'. If you choose to use British Isles, it wouldn't normally be removed - but the

WP:BITASK guideline (which people are holding a lot of faith in) currently saying "excluding flora" could be a problem for the future, and certainly is an immediate 'guideline issue'. I've been working on the guideline intently, but somehow the small but important 'flora' edit here slipped past my notice, or I'd have looked fully into it before. --Matt Lewis (talk

) 23:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There are many books which cover the distribution of species of Flora over the entire British Isles, but the scientific community has different ideas of "regions", and it could also be argued that many of the books were designed to be "accessible" rather than scientific. I agree with Matt that "Great Britain and Ireland" would be an acceptable (and uncontentious) alternative. --

HighKing (talk

) 00:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Before the name is changed, I want to be clear of the consensus: it seems WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland would be the most accurate and uncontentious. If anyone is opposed to this name, leave a comment saying so, otherwise I will change it on Saturday 23rd August. Jack (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Right it's been changed again. Hopefully now we can just get on with it. Jack (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Distribution of flora and fauna by region is not something that the WikiMedia software does well. There are problems with defining quite what the regions are, national boundaries are often not observed by nature. Then there is the problem of categorisation. If there were to be a category for each region then species such as

Brown Bear begins to illustrate such problems with some very specific categories Category:Mammals of Romania

.

Being Islands some of the problems are minimised. But I'm not keen on a mass categorisation initiative. I'll support any name which focuses on the land masses WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland seems fine to me. --Salix alba (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wikiproject Wikipedia Outreach

Description

This would be an umbrella project, to serve the following purposes:

• Reach out to new editor constituencies; go off-wiki to recruit new editors, especially experts and older people who have more time, experience, and less likely to be interested in the minutiae of popular culture and more interested in obscure/niche subjects;
• Coordinate & serve as parent to related projects such as
  WP:WPCC
  ; coordinate & work with with local chapters, WikiMania, Welcoming Committee, etc;
• With the above, conduct classes and training sessions (probably online, but could be expanded to live depending on location) for 'recruited' editors to give a crash course in how WP operates on a peer-to-peer level and basics of article writing,
  WP:5
  , MOS, etc. This is especially important for recruiting academics, as their mode of writing and discourse is a different paradigm;
• Also conduct training sessions for incoming school projects, and set some policy/guidelines around how we handle them, assigning experienced mentors to keep an eye on their contribs, etc.
• Work with meatspace orgs to get the word out. Talks in libraries would be great, and maybe even something like The Learning Annex;
• Coordinate all of the above with whoever at WMF handles PR; they can provide materials, legitimacy, point of contact for any off-wiki groups we speak to.

The bottom line is that while our need isn't necessarily for more editors, it's for more quality editors, preferably older and/or expert editors.

Support

1. // roux   07:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Providing Attracting more older doesn't degenerate into "fewer younger" ϢereSpielChequers 08:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Very good idea for a project, this also helps to generate a balance of what one might call "experience" in things on en.wiki.
   ^WS _(contribs)
   14:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Very solid idea. Though how is this going to work anyway? I assume through interwebs messages? - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
5. Great idea. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
6. The general idea is sound, yes. I can't say I agree with the idea of attempting to recruit specifically older wikipedians- some of our best editors and administrators are quite young. Furthermore, younger folk are more likely to understand computer and internet technology and "get" the Wiki concept- leading to less frustration. Of course, I'm not suggesting we target primary school students, but upperclassmen in high school and college students surely have much to offer? I first discovered Wikipedia whilst researching for a high school chem project. l'aquatique || talk 02:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

   Just to clarify... the thoughts about recruiting older participants came from Secret's page where s/he proposed recruitment in general. The ideas behind recruiting older people are: older (specifically retired) people have more time and many tend to be interested in learning new things and/or passing on knowledge; less interest in ephemeral pop culture; although less likely to be as hip to web2.0collaborativeajaxygoodness are more likely to quickly grasp collaboration in general and need for thoughtfulness in adding information; more likely to know dead-tree resources and possibly own them; etc. None of this is intended as a slight to our younger editors--hell, two of my best wikifriends are admins half my age! I absolutely think we should reach out to university campuses, high school classrooms, etc. I just also think that our demographic skews young, with interests likewise skewing young. We should balance that out a bit, I think. // roux   05:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

7. Attempts to help expert users come to Wikipedia are always a good idea and the reasoning that older users are more likely to have the time, expertise and deadtree sources to be helpful is well thought out. Would also fit well with my own proposal for a adopt a user style article writing course. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
8. There is strong need of experts in obscure and specialized areas. A project on this line could be good way attract such people. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 12:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
9. Support; participation from academia is a Big Win, and we should extend every effort to ease their way in. — Coren ^(talk) 13:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
10. Strong endorsement. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
11. Support. With my discussion of the idea with him before. bibliomaniac15 18:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

SWPP

• WikiProject Wikipedia Outreach
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Outreach

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The O.C.

Description

A taskforce for articles about the

Lost and clean up articles and make them more encyclopedic. Rambo's Revenge (talk)

23:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
2. B

Discussion

The O.C. was a very successful show and hopefully there are interested followers out there who want to get on board. I originally listed this as a WikiProject, but have now changed to list as a taskforce under WikiProject Television. Feel free to put forward suggestions at a

provisional page

.

Andrew McMahon

Description

Would include all articles related to musician Andrew McMahon, like Something Corporate, Jack's Mannequin, Treaty of Paris (band), and other things of that sort. Could probably be a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. --The Experimental Film (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. The Experimental Film (talk)

Discussion

Arrested Development (TV series)

Description

A taskforce focused on improving articles relating to

WikiProject Comedy as its parents. The main article is already an FA, but I think that alot of the other articles relating to series could be greatly improved, especially the main character articles. Article scope is probably 60-70 articles. Joelster (talk

) 23:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Joelster (talk)
2. Was thinking of starting this ages ago! The Dominator^Talk_Edits 00:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Bill shannon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
4. TheSnowApe is interested, but can bring British eyes only to the taskforce... TheSnowApe (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Broooooooce (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.232.52.103 (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
6. Duggy Duggy 1138 (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
7. L (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Thanks to everyone that expressed their interest. The taskforce has been set up

here. Anyone who is interested is welcome to join. Joelster (talk

) 06:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Australian aviation taskforce

Description

Proposed as a taskforce to

WP:AVIATION

. All about Australian aviation!

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Littleteddy (talk · contribs) March 10, 2008

Discussion

You don't need approval from here, but from the folks at

t

) 03:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Battlefield (video games)

Description

Proposal for task force under

WP:VIDEOGAMES. Relating to Battlefield (series) games. Eg. Battlefield 2142, Battlefield 2, Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield 1942

, and supplementary pages.

Proposed By:

talk

) 00:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. talk
   ) 00:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Previously turned down as soveriegn Wikiproject.

talk

) 00:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Etruscans

Description

I propose a taskforce to work on the articles related to the Etruscan civilization. There are quite a lot of articles, but a large amount of them are stubs, so I think coverage could be improved greatly and quickly. The taskforce could be setup under Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology or even Wikipedia:WikiProject Italy (or a combination). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
2. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Neddyseagoon - talk 21:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Dave (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Pecopteris (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
6. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I'd personally favor making it a task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject European history over Classical Greece and Rome, as it doesn't really deal with Classical Greece and Rome per se, but think that the subject certainly merits focused attention. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

European history at the top, sure, but keep some parentage from Greece and Rome too - same time period, related issues (relations with

Magna Grecia, descent of the Etruscan kings, Rome seeing its ancestry in Etruria - or not ....), etc Neddyseagoon - talk

21:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd favor Italy or Classical Greece and Rome. So much of it is archaeology it would rather fit European prehistory than European history but then much is in fact history told by the Greeks and Romans. Insofar as the populations assimilated to the Italics in the Roman period and Roman culture took elements from the Etruscan it is in fact an element of classics; classical history is for the most part European history. It is nearly all Italian as most of it took place on Italian soil. Why do we have to go with someone else's task force, why not our own?Dave (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

PS I'm pleased to be in the company of such distinguished editors, all of whom have many more edits than I. If I start to collide with you let me know. If you have any issues at all with me or I am not following the conventions we decide on let me know. I think I will start on Etruscan cities last-first so as not to collide. Best wishes.Dave (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Methodism

Description

A group, possibly a work group of

Methodist

churches, their history, people, theology, etc.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
2. User:Robert of Ramsor (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
3. I'll be happy to design the project pages if there is demand for the group, but the subject is not one that I could contribute a great deal to. -- SECisek (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Wsanders (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
5. –RHolton≡– 21:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC) (though my time is somewhat limited, I'd be glad to help as I'm able)

Discussion

Now active at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Methodism work group.

National Express West Midlands and Coventry bus routes work group

Description

A group to focus on creating, improving, standardizing and maintaining articles on the National Express West Midlands, National Express Coventry bus routes and the wider bus routes. WP It would be in the WP:WESTMIDS and WikiProject:Buses

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Dudleybus (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Oakland Raiders

Description

Fixing

Guel

00:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians

• Louis Alberto Guel
• Shapiros10

Discussion

• Comment: Maybe this Task Force would be a fit under WikiProject American football -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree this would better be served as a task force under the above project. As would the Chicago Bears one. -Djsasso (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This project should be a subproject of
  WikiProject NFL. RC-0722 ^361.0/1
  21:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that this should be a subproject of
  WikiProject NFL Blackngold29
  22:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism in Great Britain

Description

This task force (connected to

Roman Catholicism on the island of Great Britain (where England, Scotland and Wales are situated). This includes the modern day structure of the Church on the island, including the five provinces of England and Wales, as well as the two provinces of Scotland.[1]

There are many articles which I feel would benefit from the attentions of such as taskforce and it would be useful to centralise them all (including the general history) as in the huge main project they could be harder to find and sort, the articles related to it are currently lacking.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Yorkshirian (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Robotforaday (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Neddyseagoon - talk 16:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• I can't contribute much, but I may be working on an article or two related to John Henry Newman in the near future, so I'll keep in touch. Dozenthey (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm trying to create a taskforce which may overlap with yours a bit. It's Sub-Roman Britain. During this time period many groups of people were Christianized and many of the important saints of Britain came from this time period. I don't know enough to help out in general, but we could collaborate on a whole lot of saints, monasteries, churches, etc. ---G.T.N. (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sakura Wars

Description

A task force dedicated to creating and improving the Sakura Wars articles. There was a suggestion on

WP:STARWARS, which I am also a part of. Greg Jones II

03:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Greg Jones II 03:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

You don't need to propose task forces here. If you want to create a task force, it should be discussed on the project talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right. I will make sure I will do that as well. Greg Jones II 02:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

September 11th

Description

This would be a task-force within

September 11th attacks; there are at least 175 articles

relating to the attacks (most needing attention). I was actually surprised there wasn't already a task-force/wikiproject about 9/11. Here is a possible userbox idea:

User:Noahcs/Userboxes/Sep11

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Noah¢s (Talk) 20:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
2. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Leobold1 (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 19:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
5. conningcris 00:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conningcris (talk contribs)
6. Hetelllies (talk
   ) 06:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
7. U
   06:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
8. talk
   02:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• The image for the userbox should definitely be changed, imho. "Studying attacks" is not the same as "Memorialising victims", one could write specifically about Atta, or the financiers, or the FBI failings that led to the attacks - somebody may even celebrate the attacks...a ribbon "In memory of the lost" is simply not neutral enough. But the idea for a taskforce sounds good to me. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical Fiction

Description

A task force of the WikiProject Novels that focuses on the Historical fiction genre

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. talk
   ) 22:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Dozenthey (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC) I'd mostly be interested in working on 19th century historical novels and theory, and I intend to develop a page for Georg Lukacs' The Historical Novel later this summer.
3. Liveste (talk · contribs) 22:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
4. the_ed17 02:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
5. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 18:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• Would this also include alternate history and counterfactual history ? 70.51.9.121 (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

  Good question - is normally shelved under speculative fiction and this lumped under Science Fiction, which seems a slightly barmy place to me although where history blends with future the notion gets even more brain taxing. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 18:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you think alternate history could support a task force or wikiproject by itself? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars video games

Description

A task force of

WP:STARWARS

. The category bearing the same name as this proposed task force shows that there are plenty of articles which it would cover: well over eighty.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Una Laguna^Talk 18:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
2. EEMeltonIV 18:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 14:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Polarbear97 01:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
5. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills —Preceding comment was added at 19:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Blackngold29 (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Freshbakedpie ^{(Wanna talk?) \'_'/} 21:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

It looks like you can go qahead and create this now, it has enough interest--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• There's WikiProject Video games and WikiProject Star Wars. Star Wars video games probably would best fit under WikiProject Video games. GregManninLB (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sub-Roman Britain

Description

This taskforce encompasses the history of Britain just before the Romans left until the Anglo-Saxons, Scots, and Danes conquered the formerly British lands. It will cover the Brythons, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Picts, and Scots. This will cover each of the kingdoms that emerged in this time period and the people who lived in this time. It will also cover the time of Arthur. This would be part of WikiProject European history.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. -G.T.N. (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Pecopteris (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
3. talk
   ) 09:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Hrothgar cyning (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
5. PKM (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I just put together a page

here for the taskforce. I didn't have time to make it very sophisticated, so now it pretty much amounts to an article and participant's list. ---G.T.N. —Preceding comment

was added at 02:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Tabla

Description

This taskforce will focus on creating a representative presence relating to the tabla on Wikipedia. The main tabla article needs revision and referencing and the many splinter articles relating to the tabla are either stubs, poorly written, or not written at all. This would perhaps be part of WikiProject Percussion. (Simon ives | talk) 04:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. (Simon ives | talk) 07:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Wikidās ॐ 09:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Deepraj | Talk 08:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
4. User:R Rajagopal

Discussion

There is a good amount of graphics that need to be added as well as other items to the relevant pages. Wikidās ॐ 09:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have created a temporary space at wikipedia: Tabla taskforce and wikipedia talk:Tabla taskforce until there is enough supporters for a dedicated project page. Please add your name in the section above and carry on the discussion in the temporary page.-Deepraj | Talk 09:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Deeprak. Simon Ives ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Rajagopal. I'll help you get started with Wikipedia if you like. Simon Ives ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Venus

Description

A task force of WikiProject Astronomical objects, this task force would focus on improving articles related to the planet Venus, its exploration, the astronomers who studied it, and its geology.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Shrewpelt
2. Dust Rider —Preceding comment was added at 18:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Auawise —Preceding comment
   was added at 09:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

This has quite a small scope. Too small to justify even a task force, I think--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 14:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• I counted 125 or so articles currently in the Category:Venus. If 80 is enough, 125 should be as well.
• I agree, it has a very small scope. But if such a task force is established, I am interested in joining.
  Operibus anteire
  ) 09:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Artist's books and multiples

Description

[I would like to see a series of inter-related articles on artist's books, creating a virtual library of the best and most interesting ones from the last 50 or so years. I have already written a few attempts;

talk

) 07:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. talk
   ) 07:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Nancycampbell (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• There is Category:Artists' books for the article Artist's book (note how the ' shifts positions. Take a look at The Apostrophe to figure out which is correct. There is Category:Artist's books and multiples, Category:Book artists, Category:Book arts, and Category:Books about visual art. It seems your best bet is to contact WikiProject Visual arts and ask them to form a Artist's book task force as Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts/Artist's book task force. GregManninLB (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Chicago Cubs

Description

Fan

23:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Fan
   23:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
2. RyRy5 (is helping with the project)
3. Shapiros10 Came Back! 00:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC) (it's a good cause)

Discussion

• You might want to look at
  WikiProject Chicago Bulls. Also seeWikiProject Baseball, which lists other WikiProjects dedicated to specific baseball teams. GregManninLB (talk
  ) 01:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Cleanup

Description

A less "incivl", "iffy", "unilateral" Solution to the debate around Wikipedia:Wikiproject Fancruft, which has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Fancruft, this was the page when it was nominated by User:TreasuryTag, however, the project page has since changed, and TreasuryTag's reasons for deletion are no longer relavant. However, I am neutral about the project being deleted, because several users have suggested that a

WP:OWN, I want to propose this project first, and have a number of people agreeing with each other before they or I start the project. T.Neo (talk contribs review me

) 18:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 18:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• I think this is certainly a huge improvement on the original, and indeed merits consideration on its own terms, regardless of the history (or fate) of the other-mentioned WPJ. OTOH, I do think it risks being somewhat too broad: many projects and work groups (etc) are already engaged in some sort of "cleanup", so unless this is intended to be granddaddy of them all, it could stand to be a tad more tightly focussed. I think if one were to cast it in terms either of a specific topic, or of some identifiable set of standards as made explicit in existing policies and guidelines, it might prove to be more effective. (That might not do everything the first project set out to do, but firstly, that may have been a tad ambitious anyway, and secondly, nothing precludes a series of such projects/task forces, if there's interest in each.) Alai (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• The only thing I would be worried about is that if its started by the same people as the Fancruft project, its just going to do the same thing as the Fancruft project but with a more "politically correct" title. Mr.Z-man 20:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That may be a reasonable concern, but I would imagine that if it only attracts the same two people, it will in any case "wither on the wine", for all practical purposes, whereas if it attracts many more, it will find its own way in any event. Alai (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• In response to your comment, Z-Man, The whole idea behind WikiProject Cleanup would be that I, or anyone else, would only initiate it if there was consent from other editors, to avoid accusations of it being a "police force" or unilateral. Again, this project could be split up into task forces or something similar.

I also think that TresuryTag found the critiscim of articles under WikiProject Doctor Who offensive, again, I would find that dangerously close to

WP:OWN. T.Neo (talk contribs review me

) 08:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think this name is too nebulous. Cleaning what up? Consider how you would position yourself in relation to other projects such as
  talk
  ) 10:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well, Mostly I am talking about In-Universe writing, unneccesarily detailed plot summaries, and notability.
  Then, of course, The project could also spread out to things like biographies. If you don't lke the name, consider coming up with and alternative. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 11:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've already suggested splitting this up into several related WPJs or work groups, which IMO also finesses the naming issue... Alai (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Dropkick Murphys

Under WikiProject Irish music. Just enough for a task force.

• Members
  • Shapiros10

• Discussion

Religious creeds/denominations

Description

The purpose of this group, which would function as a subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion, is to bring all the main articles regarding individual religions or religious creeds not specifically in the scope of another group up to at least B class status. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• In view of the dismal history of participation in these sub-groups, this doesn't really seem to be anything that cannot gbe handled by existing groups. In particular it should not be made an excuse for another round of mass cruft-tagging, after which nothing is done. Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• And with editors such as the above, it is I have no doubt clear to everybody that AGF is in no danger of ever disappearing, Johnbod. John Carter (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• I cant see this working as a WP, but maybe as a task-force of WP Religion? Five Years 15:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Christian creeds

Description

Similar to the group above, this group would focus specifically on the religious creeds included in the Category:Christian denominations, hoping to bring all the main articles on the various Christian religious groups up to at least B-Class status. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
2. iloveheadbangingmusic July 26 2008

Discussion

• In view of the dismal history of participation in these sub-groups, this doesn't really seem to be anything that cannot be handled by existing groups. In particular it should not be made an excuse for another round of mass cruft-tagging, after which nothing is done. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the group was proposed by someone else elsewhere, at

Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum. John Carter (talk

) 20:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Christian theology

Description

The articles on the philosophy and theology of the various Christian churches tend to be among the most difficult. This group would aim to focus attention on those articles, and trying to bring as many as possible up to the highest possible level. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Kristamaranatha (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Pastordavid (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
4. iloveheadbangingmusic July 26 2008

Discussion

• In view of the dismal history of participation in these sub-groups, this doesn't really seem to be anything that cannot gbe handled by existing groups. In particular it should not be made an excuse for another round of mass cruft-tagging, after which nothing is done. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the group was proposed by someone else elsewhere, at

Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum. John Carter (talk

) 20:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm game. Pastordavid (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The proposed theology workgroup is now online,

here. Any suggestions, improvements, and ideas are more than welcome - as are interested editors. Pastordavid (talk

) 19:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Prehistoric

Description

A WikiProject about any prehistoric life that isn't a dinosaur. EvolutionDude08 (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians

1. EvolutionDude08 (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

It will also include

Pterosaurs. --EvolutionDude08 (talk

) 18:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject:Typography

Description

A WikiProject to create and improve articles concerning typography, which is a rather extensive craft. In computer age it is important to conserve the knowledge of century's of typographers. There should be a wikiproject that coordinates and improves articles on typography with respect to both the technical and aesthetical aspects of the topic. Tirkfl (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Tirkfl (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
2. PKM (talk) is in. PKM (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• Looks like it was just created.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Autism

Description

A kind of wikiproject to improve articles within the scope of

Autism. Autism is a rapidly growing function and should have its own project. It could come in handy for all the ASD

articles that need improvement out there.

Support

1. Mrld (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

SWPP

• WikiProject Autism
• Wikipedia:Autism

Discussion

• Such a group has been
  proposed before, but it didn't much support then. I might expand the scope to include the entire autistic spectrum, myself. John Carter (talk
  ) 17:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• You may want to find a medical-related WikiProject for starters then spin off if there is a demand. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Are you aware of
  Wikipedia:Notice board for autism-related topics? It is not active though. Regards, Ganeshk (talk
  ) 00:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• I think this is a good idea. To help the project get off the ground and keep things controllable, it should initially exclude from its scope anything listed at
  Medical Genetics, Neuroscience, and Neurology, etc., would be related WikiProjects.-- Suntag ☼
  09:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• I just added Category:Disability to Category:Autism, so that would make WikiProject Psychology the mama and WikiProject Medicine the papa of WikiProject Autism Spectrum. -- Suntag ☼ 15:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Support

• Suntag

Oppose

--84.20.83.4 (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC) --EmpMac (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

WikiProject Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force

Description

A task force under

WikiProject Medicine to improve articles related to Reproductive medicine, particularly articles in Category:Methods of birth control

.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Please list yourself at this newly created page.

Discussion

• Comment: This task force was proposed within WPMED here and was just created here; we've followed the process backwards. There are six editors signed up so far, and I hope that you will please consider this to be an invitation to the entire Wikipedia community to join this task force. (Perhaps in a week or two, someone will take this notice down -- I just didn't know any other way to extend the invitation to new editors.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Canadian University Athletics

Description

A task force under either College Sports or Canadian Sports to improve the articles about

Canadian Interuniversity Sport. First step is to standardize each schools athletics page using {{{infobox Canadian college athletics}}} and add logos. -- Coppercanuck (talk

) 05:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Coppercanuck (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Magazines work group

Description

This work group is under

WP:ANIME to improve all the manga and anime magazine articles. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^Wikipedia

, the free encyclopedia 22:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (add name)

1. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 22:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
2. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• I think this would be better if expanded to all anime and manga related magazines, not just the manga ones.
  NewType USA and PiQ, for example, are mostly anime, and not manga focused. If refocused, then simply call Magazines work group. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs
  ) 15:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, what should we name it? – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 15:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"Magazines work group" is fine. It is short and simple, and since it is a workgroup under the ANIME project, there isn't any issue with name conflicts. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. : ) I have already changed it. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 16:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Gladiators (all series)

Description: ALL GLADIATORS SERIES AROUND THE WORLD ARE BEING PROPOSED TO BECOME A WIKIPROJECT. Don't made seperate WikiProjects for separete Gladiator series.

Are you interested?, Sign on to make the project a reality: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay95 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Cutlery

Description

A project to organize and stabilize all the articles related to knives, knife makers, cutlery companies, and bladed weapons.

Support

1. Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

SWPP

• Wikiproject Cutlery

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Wikiproject DNS and Domain Names

Description

Upkeep all articles on domain names practices, registrars, etc.

Support

1. Melab-1 (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
2. HereFord
   01:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I would think this is a part of
   Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer networking. Perhaps discuss with them about starting a task force to cover these articles. --h2g2bob (talk
   ) 17:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

SWPP

• Wikiproject DNS and Domain Names

Discussion

• Very limited scope. It may be a task force of
  WP:COMPUTING perhaps. -- Tinu Cherian
  - 12:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Neutral

WikiProject Anti-Vandalism Corps

I've HAD it with vandalism, so I'd like to start a WikiProject to do away with [shudder]vandalism[/shudder]. DaL33T (Talk) 14:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you. ---G.T.N. —Preceding comment was added at 03:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

See

WP:CVU Thingg^⊕⊗

02:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Generations

Description

I feel there is enough debate and controversy over various articles about the different definitions of each generation that it might warrant a generations wikiproject. I am hoping that there are others like myself who are interested in developing these articles who would be interested in signing up. If you think we should have some sort of preliminary page to give a start before this idea goes to the next step please say so in the support section and I will be glad to set something up in my userspace.

To be clear about goals, I think the primary goal of this group should be first and foremost to create a consensus on what defines each generation that are outlined in each article as well as proposing mergers and setting standards as far as what is an actual generation and what is simply a marketing term. I feel that these things are all things that could be greatly improved by having a group of people who are dedicated to this category of subjects.

Also, to the Council, if you feel that this would be better suited to be a task force or fits as a sub-project please say so in your notes. I would like to do this in the most official manner possible and am very interested in fixing several articles which I feel are currently unreliable information.

A short list of the types of articles that clearly could benifit from this project (note, there are plenty more than listed here):

• internet_generation, Generation_Z, google_generation
• Echo_Boom
• generation_x
• baby_boom
• generations

Many others which often need cleaning up, referencing, merging, redirects galore!, and plenty of other things of that nature.

• Withdraw I no longer think this would make a good project, I may later propose a task force in the sociology category but until then I have changed my mind. Thanks for the advice, it was very helpful.  %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 17:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

SWPP

• Wikiproject Generations

Discussion

Support

1. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 05:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
2. %%Kevin143 (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
3. HereFord
   17:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

• Seems like a rather narrow subject area to me. All the generation articles are in Category:Demographics, which is a subcategory of Category:Sociology, so shouldn't these articles just be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology? That project has a few dozen members; these articles might actually get some attention by putting them under WP:SOCIO's wing, where I believe they belong anyway.--Father Goose (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Good feedback, perhaps that would be a good way to approach it thanks :) %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 00:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm concerned about the notability of some of these "generations". It's (apparently) easy to get carried away talking about generation this or generation that. I agree that the baby boomers, for example, are probably a notable generation, and there should probably also be articles about the major cohorts before and after them, but realize that any attempt to classify people into "generations" (whether it be chronologically or culturally or whatever else) is completely arbitrary and subject to endless interpretation and discussion back and forth. These articles by their very nature are going to have a tendency to fill up with all kinds of popular culture cruft (complete with references to the popular press), and in my opinion somebody (or a group of folks) interested and knowledgeable in this area should keep an eye on these articles just to ensure that they don't get out of hand. Just my 2¢. Deepmath (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Voicestream Group

Description

VoiceStream group of companies having an international presence in seven countries providing business, outsourcing and network solutions and it is because of this, I'd like to create a wiki project to provide factual information on the company's actions/status around the world.

Support

1. --Tigercomuk (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Tigercomuk

SWPP

• Wikiproject Voicestream Group

Discussion

Support

Oppose

• Strong Oppose - A single company (no matter how large its footprint), is far too narrow in focus for a WikiProject or Task Force. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

WikiProject Puppetry etc.

Description

An umbrella group for

Muppets, & related subjects. (No, I really don't want to oversee it....) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠}

02:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

Oppose

• No interest and it might already be covered through WikiProject Theatre. -- Suntag ☼ 18:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Wikiproject Psychiatry

Description

Psychiatry project to be placed within the Medicine Project. Ideally, this would be in combination with the Neurology project. Could we rename the Neurology project Neurology/Psychiatry ? Alternatively, a separate project. Or both in collaboration with the Neuroscience project ? I see the clinical diagnosis and practice articles in Neurology as separate from Psychiatry, but there is a lot of overlap (developmental disorders, dementia, other neurodegenerative disorders, side effects of drugs, etc.) -- Menelaus2 21:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Dinotopia

While thinking about the challenge and the dilemma of the WikiProject Council undertaking the momentous decision whether or not to allow a Psychiatry WikiProject to get up and running, I reviewed some of the previous now inanimate Wikiprojects (most of which I would have been quite sympathetic with). Among them are Dinotopia, and Magic; The Gathering. (As well as German Mysticism). I am sorry to see the German Mysticism Project is inactive. Somehow, I suspect that Psychiatry as a medical discipline might have a longer shelf life than Magic: The Gathering. Others are welcome to disagree. Menelaus2 03:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You should not equate a task force as being lesser than a full WikiProject (which is what I am assuming you are doing, based on your posts). Level of interest does not define whether a topic becomes a full project or a task force - it only defines whether a collaborative effort should be created. If no one is interested in collaborating, then there is no point to create a project or task force. Task forces can just as easily attract new authors who are not already involved in the parent project - and some authors may only wish to be involved in the task force. Generally, the scope of a proposed topic (number of articles to be included) better determines the potential for a full project or a task force. The main reason for a task force rather than a full project is for ease of organization and administration. If a project's scope includes a limited number of articles, editors will probably end up working more on the project's organization and maintenance than the upkeep of the articles.

There are many inactive medicine-related projects. Inactive medical specialty projects:

inactive

}} tag, but there are also other medical specialty projects that are barely active. Task forces are never really tagged as inactive, since the parent project (WPMED in this case) still incorporates the task force articles into its scope.

By definition, neurology is a specialty of medicine, so all articles within the scope of neurology would also fall within the scope of medicine. Rather than having two separate projects looking after these pages, it is easier to manage with one project banner containing task force designations (see Talk:Emergency medicine for an example). With less administrative overhead, task force members have more time to focus on their topic of interest. Creating a new collaboration as a task force instead of a project is not a bad thing. In the case of medical specialties, I think it would be better to have task forces than separate projects. --Scott Alter 05:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

• I don't think this should be an independent WikiProject. Instead, it would be better as a task force of WikiProject Medicine. I am all for having one task force for each medical specialty within WPMED. There is a new, separate
  talk page. Eventually, I am aiming to convert all of the medicine specialty projects to be task forces of WPMED, rather than their own separate projects. Many of the existing specialty WikiProjects have become inactive, and I think it is better to have an inactive task force than an inactive project. Also, there already exists Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology. I'm sure there will be some overlap that should be taken into consideration. --Scott Alter
  22:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your thoughts. It is an interesting notion to put together a task force. Not sure if a task force would gather more or less enthusiasm for improving articles. One way to help define the level of interest would be to assay how many authors are active in each field of medicine. Not that I have any way of how that might be done. Seems like a relatively simple statistic. Menelaus2 03:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Menelaus2 (talk • contribs)

• If there is interest, a task force under WikiProject Psychology may fit best. Portal:Psychiatry was deleted in March 2008 without prejudice for recreation and has not been recreated. There may not be enought interest for a Psychiatry task force.-- Suntag ☼ 17:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Bash #wikipedia-en

== Wikiproject En-Bash ==

Description

An article of humourous quotes specifically from the #wikipedia-en channel, as a part of en.wikipedia.org. We feel it would be an awesome chance to put some smiles on some faces! Granted our project would not be of high priority, we believe if it makes some people laugh, then it's definitely worth it!

Support

1. Logic
   19:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Bstone (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

SWPP

• WikiProject En-Bash
• Wikipedia:En-Bash

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

• Doesn't m:bash already cover this as well as http://toolserver.org/~mike/quotes/ ? Also note the policy there "Many Wikipedia related IRC channels have rules against publishing chat-logs online. Please make sure you have the consent of all involved before posting" Nanonic (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Cheerleading

Description

I would like to create a wikiproject for cheerleading, as it has a large amount of complexity and therefore wikipedible content, such as notoritous clubs, and organisations, and competitions by country. If I don't get much support I would like to create a task force in wikipedia Gymnastics (which is the closest thing wikipedia has) to improve the breadth and quality of cheerleading articles.

Support

1. 193.171.84.30 (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
2. I agree. I know a few cheerleaders, and it's just like other gymnastics. AlexanderTG (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

SWPP

• WikiProject Cheerleading
• Wikipedia:Cheerleading

Discussion

Support

• Support - Sounds like a worthwhile project. However, you may have trouble with notability on many of the club articles. Recommend you review Wikipedia:Notability before making final decision on project and content. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I'm not familiar with this, so I won't sign up, but this is definitely worthwhile enough to warrant a project. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Horrible Idea - What's the point? It would be a waste of time and memory. Don't support such a rediculous idea. Bmoc2012tms (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC) No I will never support such an insane idea!!! Bmoc2012tms (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• It would be better as a task force under WikiProject Gymnastics. However, there presently does not seem to be much interest in WikiProject Gymnastics. -- Suntag ☼ 17:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Wikiproject Awards

Description

I have already proposed the moving of the existing

Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals is not the same and that covers "national orders, decorations, and medals, along with their associated national honours systems, both globally and historically"[2] It has been commented that

there is no WikiProject to encompass these awards currently.

What I propose would cover normal awards, from

Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards and Prizes

or something, but I still feel the existing one should be disambiguated.

• Update. The move proposal was successful and the old project is now present at WikiProject Wikipedia Awards, allowing room for this project to be created. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Ironholds (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC) and completely willing to help organise once it is up.
3. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Seems like a sensible suggestion. I'd be more than happy to help out once it is up.
4. Willing to help out too. —
   neuro^(talk)
   21:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. bd2412 T 13:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

SWPP

• WikiProject Awards
• Wikipedia:Awards

Discussion

Would this project deal with stuff like MTV music awards, Mobo, Brit Awards, Baftas, Grammys, Oscars, Golden Globes, Juno, etc etc? Would taskforces for TV-related, radio-related, theatre-related, music-related awards be welcomed? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume so; music awards and whatnot are awards, after all. The format would most likely be "Wikiproject awards >>> Music awards taskforce >>> Mobo, or something. Ironholds (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they would be very welcome. The Project aims to give a place for collaboration on different types of awards. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Wikiproject Wikiproject House (TV series)

Thank you for your support, the project has been started

here

; please sign at the participants section and use the userbox.

Description

A wikiproject to support the articles around

Lost WikiProject

is an example). Article count is between 90-100 articles.

Support

1. --Toonami Reactor (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
2. --Music26/11 10:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
3. --I can't say I'd be involved much, but House is currently running it's 5th season (with who knows how many more). I'm sure it could use a wikiproject. Bettyfizzw1 (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
4. --_Skeletal SLJCOAAATR ^Soulsor 15:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
5. --Oh yes, we do need a wikiproject for House. By the way have you heard his English accent? He sounds so different. I'd probably be involverd more with the character of House, and some disease related articles. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 17:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
6. --I think this would be a good one, though I doubt I could be too involved myself. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 17:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
7. --it's such a popular show, I'm suprised it doesn't already have a wikiproject--Moonzeppelin (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
8. --
   Review
   18:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
9. --I don't think I could contribute much to the project, though. I've seen every episode, I don't own any of the DVDs, and the only medical stuff I know I learned from House. -- LightSpectra (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
10. -- I don't have all the DVDs but I'd be willing to pitch in where I can. Skyrocket (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
11. -- Yes, a House WikiProject sounds like a great idea, I have the first three DVDs and have seen most of the episodes. DWP17 (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
12. --I'm in. Although I probably won't do much besides grammar/spelling edits because I am way too busy with school and various other things. Doin'Huh3.5 (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
13. --Startstop123 (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
14. -- I haven't edited any House related articles, but I would be more than willing to help on this. Digital^Ninja 21:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
15. Definitely. Cheers,
    (talk)
    01:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

SWPP

• WikiProject Wikiproject House (TV series)
• Wikipedia:Wikiproject House (TV series)

Discussion

Support

• I do think that there should be a wikiproject house. There are a lot of articles about the series.Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw_talk 17:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• If there's a project on Family Guy and the Simpsons, there should be one on HouseToonami Reactor (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Strong Oppose - Far too narrow in focus for a WikiProject. Recommend a Task Force in WikiProject Television. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - I agree, I've seen the show before and I still think it is too narrow. Little Blue Penguin (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Too small. Most of those "articles" fail the notability guidelines. I think maybe some sort of topic coordination through the WikiProject TV would be best. You need to go through and weed out what articles actually deserve to be articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Scope too narrow, should be taskforce as suggested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Television#Show-specific projects and taskforces. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - A taskforce of
  WP:TV will suffice. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email
  ) 07:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

• I'm more of an esoteric, lone-wolf editor, so while I might pop up time to time (and I love the show) I can't say I would be involved with a wikiproject that much. As for the task force idea, it's not really the size that's important, it's the amount of attention; if such a wikiproject is better served as a task force in order to draw on people from the main project, so much the better. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your reply, feel free to pop up every once in a while, but it would be appreciated if you do sign the list above, thanks. --Music26/11 15:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Wikiproject Backlog sorting

Description

A Wikiproject to help sort out backlogs.

Support

1. csdnew
   12:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

SWPP

• WikiProject Wikiproject Backlog sorting
• Wikipedia:Wikiproject Backlog sorting

Discussion

Backlogs of what? I'm sure there are many clean-up type projects around that already do this sort of thing. Aaronw (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Wikiproject Star Academy

Description

Just like Big Brother WikiProject which is produced by Endemol, I guess Star Academy also has the right to have it's own project as it is also a hit to more than 50 countries exclusive of near copies. Here is the link to the main page.

Support

1. Happy Editing! (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

SWPP

• WikiProject Star Academy
• Wikipedia:Star Academy

Discussion

Support

• Strong support, after all its an international hit.122.53.94.254 (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Strong Oppose - Far too narrow in focus for a WikiProject. Recommend a Task Force in appropriate WikiProject. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Bad Idea - A bit too myopic for Wikipedia. Sorry but it's not a good idea. Bmoc2012tms (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC) of the Project Council

• Oppose - Too narrow, and I'm shocked that there is a Big Brother project!
  wp
  19:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Wikiproject Association Football variants

Description

The fast growing popularity of many association football variants (especially beach soccer) makes it a nice project to have. A list of association football variants can be found in this category.

This has been created as a taskforce of WikiProject Football and is located

here

.

Support

1. RaLo18 21:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Shmuliko (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Guntherman (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Friejose (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
5. wp
   14:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

SWPP

• WikiProject Association Football variants

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

• Would probably be better as a taskforce of
  WP:FOOTY, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Task forces and sub-projects for info on the steps necessary for this to happen. 86.21.74.40 (talk
  ) 18:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed, would this project not overlap the activities of the Football project? How many articles would fall under its scopeGavin Scott (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Same as the first two editors. Bernstein2291 (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Should be under the
  Borgarde^talk
  10:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Rochester Institute of Technology

Description

This project will create and update Rochester Institute of Technology-related articles. Maintaining articles for RIT's colleges, individuals, list of alumni, and any related content. See Category:Rochester Institute of Technology for current articles. Dan Leveille^TALK 09:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Dan Leveille^TALK 09:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
2. DanielPenfield (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Powers ^T 13:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Anatoly.Bourov ^T 1 June 2008 (UTC)
5. talk
   ) 12:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• I signed as interested but I don't think it's really necessary yet. We don't even have a Rochester WikiProject yet, and the New York WikiProject is nearly barren. Powers ^T 13:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment There's only 70 odd articles in total for this, should be a task force of another project. Nowhere near enough scope for a full project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caissa's DeathAngel (talk • contribs) 08:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Project would be too narrow in focus. Recommend a Task Force in
  WikiProject Universities or WikiProject New York and can be expanded to a full WikiProject if interest develops. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk
  ) 13:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps LtPowers' suggestion - We could have a Rochester Wikiproject instead, which could also encompass RIT and it's articles. I think that's perhaps a better idea. --Dan Leveille^TALK 20:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Way too narrow. In New York State there are
  wp:NY state-wide one is pretty dead. doncram (talk
  ) 05:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• So here's my understanding of the debate thus far:

1. Creation of a Wikiproject is out, given an anticipated lack of sustained interest.
2. Creation of a task force, say
   Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities
   .
3. People are reluctant to set up a informal user-space "to do" page (for example at User:Danlev/RIT), perhaps populated with Template:Task force.

Are there other solutions that we can consider? Perhaps we should take the effort to http://www.rocwiki.org/ instead?

-- DanielPenfield (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think creation of a task force is necessarily out; if we have enough demonstrated interest, WP Universities might be willing, even if just to get some of us on their roster. =) RocWiki is fine for what it is, but it's more of a travel guide than an encyclopedia. I guess my suggestion would be to try to repopulate WikiProject New York and get it more active; it's in a sad state right now, and NYS articles could use the work. Powers ^T 14:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose -as above -too narrow in scope
  White cat
  12:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Resident Evil Wikiproject

Description

This project would maintain Resident Evil Wikipedia articles.

Also so that this group can add new Resident evil articles. It will also bring everyone that loves this game together. UltimateCyborgNinja (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians

1. UltimateCyborgNinja (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Monkeyjunk (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
3. --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Weakly. Cheers,
   (talk)
   21:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• Oppose - Recommend establish as a task force in WikiProject Games or one of it's many subprojects and expand to full project later if interest develops. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• strongly agree - If final fantasy can get a wikiprject a great game like this should too.

Monkeyjunk (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - The scope is too small to be a sole project, I recommend a task force from other game wikiprojects and expand to full project later if the need becomes eminent.
  Da'jhan 21:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dajhan (talk • contribs)
• Oppose - The scope is far too small for an entire project. Possibly as a task force, although I advise going to
  :.
  10:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose -as above. Fan cruft porject at best. I'd reocmmend setting aside a Wp:Videogames work page for it only.
  White cat
  12:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support as an incredibly notable video game franchise with many notable aspects worthy of articles. --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Support - probably would be better off as a task force, but very notable and important game series. Cheers,
  (talk)
  21:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

English Law

Description

A Wikiproject to improve articles on English law, disinct from law article per se. Is anyone interested? Francium12 (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Francium12 (talk)
2. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
3. talk contribs
   21:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC) (Sounds Great!)
4. Conningcris
5. Lamberhurst
6. Wflack
7. HughCharlesParker
8. Ironholds (talk)

Discussion

• I've dropped them a
  t
  ) 02:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• I definately agree!! If Australia and Canada, can have one, England should too. I think this is a great idea.
  talk contribs
  21:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Many of these projects have small/ineffective membership numbers. Recommend establish as a task force in WikiProject Law and expand to full project later if interest develops. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per
  Eustress (talk
  ) 16:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It is a pity, I feel, that law generally seems to be a neglected topic within Wikipedia; sure there are many articles, but precious few
  Featured articles. Given that English law provided the basis of the Common Law now used in USA and Australia, it arguably deserves better treatment, if only for historical reasons. However, the idea of a task force seems attractive, and I will raise it there. --Rodhullandemu
  01:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support - As per
  Lamberhurst (talk
  ) 07:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why not? Because you don't want to drown yourselves in the administrative overhead of setting up a formal project if you can avoid it. A task force typically has many of the advantages of a "real" project (a talk page, for example) and fewer of the disadvantages. Wouldn't you rather be editing those articles instead of debating what image to put on a WikiProject banner, or whether you're participating in the
    WP:1.0 team's assessment work? WhatamIdoing (talk
    ) 05:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply to comment: This argument could be used for practically every single wikiproject that has ever been proposed, including for example the
    Lamberhurst (talk
    ) 10:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support - I would like to get involved in the project or task force. I am an English solicitor. I would like to see much more English legal resources on Wikipedia. I am very new to Wikipedia so apologies for any format problems etc with this message. Wflack--Wflack (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support, although I'm tempted to propose creation of a single "common law" project. bd2412 T 23:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support -I;d recommend it as a task force of WP:Law though
  White cat
  12:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment it might be more useful to create a project on British law. --Setanta747 (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

  Not really; English & Welsh and Scottish law are seperate systems; kinda like creating a "common law" wikiproject in that it would need further diversification. Ironholds (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

West Slavic WikiProject

Description

The West Slavic community (that's:  

t

) 23:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example page for this I am creating under my user -

t

) 05:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. +
   t
   )
2. The Dominator (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC) This is an excellent idea Hexagon!
3. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
4. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 11:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC) 11:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
5. --Molobo (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Tymek (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Darwinek (talk) 07:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Montessquieu Montessquieu (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• Personally I think this is a simple, wonderful idea. I think it should be implemented, but I would like for the separate projects to remain here, but be a part of the larger one. The Dominator (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  Oh yeah, I didn't mean for the deletion of the other projects, just a joint larger one. The present WikiProjects could either remain as they are and just co-operate with this one or become

  t

  ) 04:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Small concern: About the talk page banners such as Template:WikiProject Czech Republic, I think we should just keep the respective national ones rather than creating a big West Slavic one and having to spend days replacing. The Dominator (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

   I am not quite sure this will go down well with the existing wikiprojects, they may decide not to become taskforces and it would create unnecessary duplicity - this would be a major problem which is why we really need a wider consensus on this before it gets created. About the templates, we should be able to, with mild edits to the template (mostly on the order of "Czech WikiProject --> Czech taskforce of West Slavic WikiProject" keep the current ones with no problems. +

   t

   ) 05:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, I am getting a bit ahead of myself, I think this is a good solution but it works OK the way it is now. The Dominator (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Since this project will augment the current projects in existence it has the potential for great collaboration. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• I would like to cooperate with Upper and Lower Sorbian contributors. Xx236 (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  If there was enough interest it would be easy to start a Taskforce within this WikiProject, so if you wish - add your support, and add some Sorbian features to the WiP project page! It'd be great if you were able to contribute in this field, I was afraid we'd only get Czech, Slovak and Polish editors interested. +

  t

  ) 10:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm Polish. I have checked and authors of Sorbian articles are generally non-Sorb.Xx236 (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  I meant editors interested in those articles, not just editors of those ethnicities. +

  t

  ) 05:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  "Why not". It is just my experience that most of such projects don't attract enough editors to become really active. But sure, go ahead. Maybe this one will work? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I asked you to comment, because the Czech, Slovak and Polish WikiProjects would have to become taskforces to avoid duplication, and I know that some editors might have a problem with that, you think that it would be an issue? The Dominator (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support, but this project should never override good-working national projects. -- Darwinek (talk) 07:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

So would you want the WikiProjects to coexist with this one or to become taskforces? The Dominator (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support per Darwinek above and particularly approproate historically. My only concern would be country project overlapping and tagging issues
  White cat
  13:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Recategorisation

Recently, the category entitled "Religious programmes" had all its contents resubmitted to similar categories, such as

Wikipedians find it easier to navigate to related pages. ACEOREVIVED (talk

) 19:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject WikiMoney

Description

UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008

04:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Uga Man
2. AxelBoldt
3. FridemarPache see Meatball:WeNameInitiative
4. Wulf
5. John Carter (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Lurai (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
7. S.T.H. ^{( P/T/C )}
8. --
   ^talk?
   07:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• Several people had problems with the title "WikiMoney" at the time; maybe "WikiProject Give and Take" or "WikiRewards" would be more agreeable. AxelBoldt (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• One very possibly objectionable idea, but here goes. Maybe WikiMoney could be tied to translate roughly into a real-world benefit? Say, as an example, $????.00 WikiMoney gets you a scholarship ot other assistance to the next Wikimania or maybe other directly Wikipedia-related items. It might involve giving the project a bit more organization, and a rather clear "price guide", but it definitely might help the idea's prospects. Obviously, of course, it would help dramatically if someone were to provide underwriting of the idea as well. John Carter (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• SecondLife has convertible L$ Fridemar (talk
  ) 11:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - This proposal falls under article improvement maintenance WikiProjects. See also WikiMoney accounts MfD. GregManninLB (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Backlog

Description

This WikiProject will be designed to draw attention to Category:Wikipedia backlog and the huge number of articles needing maintenance attention. Each month a category will be selected (starting with Category:Articles to be merged), and interested editors will try to resolve the issues for as many articles as they can, removing them from that category. In general, attention will be given to categories with more than 10,000 entries, and categories backlogged for more than a year.

Support

1. NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
2. --
   ^talk?
   07:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Cheers,
   (talk)
   21:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

SWPP

• WikiProject Backlog
• Wikipedia:Backlog

Discussion

Support

• Absolutely. The backlog is in much need of attention. --
  ^talk?
  07:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Sounds good. Cheers,
  (talk)
  21:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

WikiProject Human-Computer Interaction

Description

A project to maintain, expand, and otherwise contribute to the articles on

Human-Computer Interaction, Usability, and other HCI-related topics on Wikipedia. Would likely fall under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing

, but caters to a different interest group and type of article.

Support

1. Zeppomedio (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Dragice (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Enric Naval (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
4. SeanGustafson (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

SWPP

• WikiProject WikiProject Human-Computer Interaction
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Human-Computer Interaction

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

Neutral - Not sure on the full scope proposed. Recommend you start as a Task Force in WikiProject Computing and expand as more interest develops. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Computer Security

Description

WikiProject Computer Security exists to centralize efforts to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Computer/Information Security Articles along with removing the overlap of WikiProject Malware related business.

Support

1. blurpeace ^{(talk - contributions)} 23:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
3. This is a rename and slight change of scope for Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/Computer and Information Security task force, and is related to current discussion about the future direction of the project. --h2g2bob (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
4. DanielPharos (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
5. 06:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
6. yes, as a task force/subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing -- Tinu Cherian - 06:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
7. (talk)
   00:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

SWPP

• WikiProject Computer Security
• Wikipedia:Computer Security

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

30 Rock

Description

This project would aim to work on articles relating to the television series 30 Rock. It would aim to expand the main 30 Rock page aswell as make the character pages a better quality and make episode pages to meet notability guidelines.

As of

30 Rock (season 1)). -- Jamie jca (talk

) 19:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Jamie jca (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Yankeesrj12 (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Polarbear97 (talk - contributions) 01:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Discussion
   12:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
6. I'll pitch in when I can. --Music26/11 14:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Skyler13 (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2009

Discussion

Could I be an unofficial member?

Discussion

12:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? +

t

) 03:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I want to help, but I can't really committ to anything, so I just want to help every now and then. That's why.

Discussion

13:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If you wish. But if I were you I'd just sign up. +

t

) 00:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• As a television series, this falls under
  Survivor task force • Test cards task force • The Amazing Race task force • The X-Files task force. Task force seem a better choice. Also, WikiProject Television
  states:

We now strongly recommend that new show/topic-specific WikiProjects become WT:TV .

The choice to set up this new group specifically to function as a task force of another project seems correct. -- GregManninLB (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

American Football Video Games

Description

This project would be devotedly dedicated to helping out, coordinating and fixing all content related to american football video games, such as Madden, NFL 2K, Arena Football, and etc. This task force would go under the Mother WikiProject

WP:PROJDIR/GT

Founding Member

• TheNextOneAcross (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. TheNextOneAcross (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment: This Task Force may be a better fit in WikiProject Video games -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Chuck (TV series)

This WikiProject Task Force would be to create character articles and episode articles for the US television show,

WP:TV

.

Interested Wikipedians (Add Your Name If Interested)

Discussion

Fancruft sorting and cleanup

Description

This is a taskforce to deal with all the fancruft on Wikipedia. These articles are getting out of hand. We’ve had instances recently where notices were placed on fan website’s and dozens of people came in to fight the deletion of fan pages. What a mess! This taskforce will improve and categories articles that can be saved, and put up for deletion those that are pure cruft.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. S.dedalus 05:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Guybrush (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Lurai (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC) (think I can help, not so sure)
4. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 18:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Most Definitely. Cheers,
   (talk)
   02:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• Is there a Wikipedia article or policy on fancruft? I understand the concept, but we do we have a benchmark against which to measure it? I would like to remove as much of it as possible; there are much better places for it (Wikia springs to mind). -- Guybrush (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:FICTION is probably most relevant. Paulbrock (talk

) 12:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• See discussion of similar project at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fancruft --Enric Naval (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• I certainly think such a project is needed. The deletion is likely to go ahead because the initial actions of the project were seen as undiplomatic. I'm not so concerned about the existence of assorted articles. What I actually think is the more insiduous aspect of fancruft is that it infects articles not centred on crufty material with trivia.--
  talk
  ) 16:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Abrahamic Religions

Description

This Wikiproject would be mainly based around the three major

Bahá'í would aslo be dealt with although in the begining of this project not a huge amount would be done on them as I dont know alot about them, due to them being less well known about within the Westeren world and it being quite hard to find any reliable information on them I suspect other editors would find similar problems as well although hopefully in time with a bit of research we would be able to incorporate these other faiths completely into the project. The Quill (talk

) 11:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name below)

1. The Quill (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I put up this comment on the Wikiproject:Christianity board but also thought I should put it up here... I'm not sure a Wikiproject Abrahamic Religions is necessary. There are already Christianity, Judaism and Islam wikiprojects in existence, as well as Wikiproject Religion - which most likely covers the scope of your idea in deal with comparative issues in religion. Why do you propose this project would be different? If the existing projects don't cover the scope of your idea, why not propose a Comparatie Religions subproject under the Wikiproject:Religion umbrella? Kristamaranatha (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There actually already is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Interfaith work group, to deal with articles which relate to more than one faith, either as comparative religion or because the articles deal with several religions. That might actually be the easiest place to start with. John Carter (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

To just day something to John Carter this isn't just an interfaith religion group. This is one faith that has split into many different factions. For Kristamaranatha one you dont have a link to your suggestion which is rather unhelpful but more importantly two because it is only for Abrahamic Religions and this would meen that other non-Abrahamic Religions would be compared. Thanks The Quill (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

John's pointing to the interfaith workgroup is exactly where this belongs. In fact, the best work of this particular type is undertaken on an article by article basis. Pastordavid (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There is some danger of WikiProject proliferation here. At this point it's not clear to me what can be done by such a WikiProject that can't be done by one of the existing WikiProjects. Could you articulate the need as you see it and why it can't be met by the existing structure more clearly? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the other eligions, but there already is a wikiproject for Judaism. A project for all of them isn't needed. --Skyler :^| 23:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Manchester City Football Club

Description

A task force under

Manchester City L.F.C.. Paul  Bradbury

09:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Paul  Bradbury 09:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't think the topic has enough regular contributors to justify the effort of maintaining a separate taskforce. At At present there's only three active editors who regularly work on articles relating to the club: Pbradbury, Falastur2 and myself. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interested party finding himself agreeing with Oldelpaso's comment above. I love City, and I'd love to further City's "reach" in Wikipedia, but I can't help wondering if there are actually enough things we could add to keep this taskforce active. The vast majority of encyclopædic information on City has already been added, and those articles are already vigorously watched by us and a few other neutral editors. If you (Paul Bradbury), or anyone else can come up with enough feasible stuff to add, then I'll sign my name up, but until then, while I'm interested, I'm not convinced. Falastur2 (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I may be an Arsenal fan, but I am happy to help anyone who wants to contribute to football on Wikipedia. As for the exact numbers of people, I have seen a task force with just two members, so I'm sure it would be fine

wp

14:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Godzilla Task Force

Description

A task force for maintaining and adding to the plethora of Godzilla articles. Would be under media franchises.

Support

1. AlexanderTG (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Nemesis646 (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

SWPP

• WikiProject Godzilla Task Force
• Wikipedia:Godzilla Task Force

Discussion

Support

• Support - Support a Task Force in
  WikiProject Films. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk
  ) 15:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

• See Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises/Task forces/Proposals. -- Suntag ☼ 16:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Wikiproject United States Navy

Description

The Wikiproject would cover all articles in the U.S. Navy Portal and any conflicts involving the U.S. Navy

Support

1. Plyhmrp (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
2. AlexanderTG (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

SWPP

• WikiProject Wikiproject United States Navy
• Wikipedia:Wikiproject United States Navy

Discussion

Support

Oppose

• Oppose: Most of the content identified is already covered under WikiProject Biography's Military Task Force. Recommend joining the group to focus on Navy articles.
• Oppose: More specfically this would entirely overlap with
  WP:SHIPS and thier applicable task forces. David Underdown (talk
  ) 16:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: This would overlap with US Navy coverage at
  WP:SHIPS, which is extensive and well-coordinated. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk
  17:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Roger's arguments. Skinny87 (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Roger. What is currently done is adequate, but if enough interest is put forth a joint effort like that proposed by the Ed 17 below could be set up. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, per above. This area is already covered by
  WP:MARITIME, among others; I don't see enough separate activity to warrant a distinct task force yet, but one can be created if needed. Certainly, creating a completely separate project would be a major step backwards. Kirill ^(prof
  ) 20:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Roger. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Plenty of coverage in existing projects. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• (talk)
  03:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

• Neutral, would recommend a joint
  WP:MILHIST task force, if anything. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed}
  17:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The cooperation between the two projects is already so close that a joint task force is probably unnecessary. Still, it's a thought for the future. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral I agree that this project isn't needed as there are already other very successful projects and task forces which cover the turf, but if there are enough editors interested in participating in it and it helps motivate and guide them I don't see what harm it could really cause.
  talk
  ) 07:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Zagreb

UPDATE: The task force has been launched (

WP:ZAGREB

)

Description

A task force for writing and maintaining articles related to the city of

participants list

.

Support

1. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Plantago (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
3. GregorB (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Dzhugashvili (talk) 12:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
5. --Suradnik13 (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

SWPP

• WikiProject Zagreb
• Wikipedia:Zagreb

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral