Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject 2020s

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Council‎ | Proposals

The following discussion is an archived proposal of the WikiProject below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.

The proposed WikiProject was not created. Withdrawn proposal. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Description

edit

A WikiProject aimed to scope the entirety of the 2020s decade today and into the future CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to join, use the template

2020s
This user participates in WikiProject 2020s

List of important pages and categories for this proposed group

List of WikiProjects currently on the talk pages of those articles
Please invite these and any other similar groups to join the discussion about this proposal. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory to find similar WikiProjects.
Why do you want to start a new group, instead of joining one of these existing groups?
Because, as stated in Support, you can help contribute to the current decade that we are living in.

Support

edit

The reason you should join this project is because you can help contribute to the current era and decade so more people can get better info on this current time we are living in.

  1. CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm already creating numerous articles to extend this topical area. glad to help!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ALTERNATE IDEA: JOIN Contemporary History Task force!!!

edit

Here is an idea; all of you are welcome to come join us at Contemporary History Task force!! we can use your help!! We have some articles in progress, under Category:2020s decade overviews!! --Sm8900 (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

edit
  • Oppose. To be blunt, I don't think that this is a suitable topic for a Wikiproject. "anything that happened between 2020 and 2029" is far far far too broad of a subject for a single wikiproject to cover. Are the people writing the article on the COVID-19 pandemic also going to be interested in writing articles on things like Among Us, the 2020 Aegean Sea earthquake, the 2020 Moldovan presidential election, the PlayStation 5, Brexit, and the 2020–21 North American drought just because they all happen to be related to the same decade? I would say probably not. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You could use the same argument on an existing WikiProject, WikiProject 2010s. So, if that got accepted, why not this? CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. To be blunt, not only is this proposal too broad in its scope, it is being put forward by an editor with less than 25 mainspace edits, and none in 2021. They are quite the wrong person to be advocating such activities right now, and I have made this abundantly clear to them on their talk page. They should really focus on getting more editing experience under their belt before meddling in projects with long-term commitments and consequences that they are unlikely to be capable of meeting. Enthusiasm is great, but it needs to be backed up by a demonstrable willingness to commit to what they're advocating, and I simply don't see that yet. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I actually suggested a WikiProject proposal for 2021 months ago, and with discussions, that got completely changed and converted into the currently Wikipedia:WikiProject Twenty-Tens decade. So the decade idea works perfectly for WikiProjects, but currently, (Being in 2021), a 2020s WikiProject would be too close to WikiProject Current Events. Maybe by 2024 or 2025, a 2020's could be created as a taskforce or sister project under WikiProject Current Events, but for now, the 2020s is too recent to be its own WikiProject. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but only on the proviso that I'd support it when started in 2022 (at the earliest), and 2024 or 2025 by the latest, not 2021, as there is not even two years to cover yet. So in that sense, I would agree with Elijahandskip and 192.76.8.74. I also agree with CyclonicStormYutu, that if WikiProject 2010s has been accepted, then why not this? Nick Moyes, I see what you are saying, but I don't think the number of edits means that the OP is the "wrong person" to be proposing this. Gatekeeping is not something we should do, rather we should be encouraging users, not discouraging them. --Historyday01 (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, and I'll tell y'all why this one is different from Wikipedia:WikiProject Twenty-Tens decade (also see WP:OTHERSTUFF): that project has 11 active participants, and this one has only one. WikiProjects are like parties: if you have only one editor, you don't have a WikiProject. Would be inclined to consider changing my !vote if the editor succeeds in rounding up other interested editors, ideally with significantly more editing experience than they have. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If there is one thing I've learned in 8 years of editing is that one editor, no matter how enthusiastic, can not maintain a WikiProject by themselvesa . They can create a main page, a template for membership, assessment categories but soon after, they burn out. It's a lot of work, the more members there are, the lighter the load each member needs to carry. I don't think the particular subject is great but my opposition has more to do with the opinions of Nick Moyes and UnitedStatesian, I'd probably oppose any proposal that showed only one participant was signed up to start a new WikiProject. With hundreds of inactive and defunct WikiProjects, I think there is abundant evidence of the level of work required to create and maintain a WikiProject. Liz Read! Talk! 23:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @UnitedStatesian, @Liz: I am a bit baffled by your opposes based just on the fact that it's one editor so far. The very purpose of a wikiproject proposal is to assess how many editors would be interested in it - and this proposal has been open for five days! Are you hoping that CSY will just withdraw the proposal if enough people pile on?
    Simultaneously, @Nick Moyes: the fact that a wikiproject should be an active group of sufficient size also means that not everything depends on the proposer: they do not have to be the driving force behind the project, and in fact, a project that is highly reliant on one person is rather unsustainable. I can see the reasoning for a comment on their talk page recommending them to get more experience and more connections (after all, you need a group) first, but I really don't see the need for an oppose on the proposal itself, based just on the lack of experience of the proposer. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 16:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The rationale for my oppose" was three-fold:
    • 1) As of now, less than 1/5th of the 2020s have actually happened.
    • 2) I see too many new users come in and make a flurry of proposals in non-mainspace, but do virtually nothing in support of what they're proposing. They have a bright idea and trying to get "somebody else to do something", and this looks like a perfect example of such a suggestion. It would only serve to dilute existing editor effort for no real purpose.
    • 3) At the moment, the 2010 project already looks more like a pointless mish-mash of oddly-assessed articles with no 'weeding out', and with little to no strategic approach to collecting key articles relevant to the decade. Without critical assessment, it is not likely to be of any use to anyone nor of much interest, except to those who participate in it; I feel a 2020s project would be even worse. A project like this needs to be worked on through the lens of history, and not just by stuffing everything from the decade into a bag and saying "done".
    Nick Moyes (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nick Moyes Re 1&3: sure. I too suspect that, at the least, it might be multiple years too early for this project. Re 2: I don't really see the argument that it would dilute existing editor effort. I think you could apply the same argument about almost any wikiproject, while in my opinion many wikiprojects are helpful. The group work aspect alone can have a motivating effect, so I don't think it is possible to say in advance that a given project will be a net loss.
    The rest of your second bullet point is again about your perception of the proposer, and I really do not think this is helpful - the reason I objected to your oppose is also because it is mostly about the proposer. Ultimately, what we are here to discuss is the substance of this proposal, and your oppose felt "overkill" to me. The reason I made my comment is that I worried that this pile of opposes, especially the non-substantive ones, might become a rather negative experience for CSY and have the effect of newbie-biting. I don't want them to be discouraged from future editing, and dismissal based on substance is much more valid and much easier to accept than dismissal based on experience level. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 22:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 2nd Proposal: Just wanting to toss out a 2nd type of proposal for a 2020s taskforce instead of a 2020s WikiProject. Maybe a tri-taskforce under WP Years, WP Current events, and WP History. Then in a few years, (2024-25) it can break out on its own WikiProject. It would take some coordination and a weird type of proposal between the three WikiProjects, but I coordinate the Current Events WP and with a weird three-way proposal, I don't see a reason why a tri-WP taskforce couldn't be created for the 2020s decade. A taskforce would in a way, increase the number of editors that would see and possibly join a "2020s WP", while keeping the WP policies under control of three already existing, fairly active, and well known WikiProjects. (Pinging people so everyone see's this: @CyclonicStormYutu:, @Nick Moyes:, @Historyday01:, @UnitedStatesian:, @Liz:, @PJvanMill:.) Elijahandskip (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Heck, we are all trying new things, and the 2010s WP is a trail run for decade based WP's, so think of this proposal as a trail run for starting decade WP's as a task force and not a stand alone WP. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I wouldn't be opposed to that idea. In fact, I'd support it. Thanks, Elijahandskip for suggesting it. Historyday01 (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elijahandskip, @Historyday01, I couldn't agree more. feel free to look over 2020s in political history, to see some of my efforts in this area. thanks!! Sm8900 (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for mentioning that. I'll have to take a look at that page at some point. Historyday01 (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelling the project until further notice. To be blunt to myself, why did I think this was a good idea. Not even 2 years have passed since the beginning of this deceade. I think I would be better off cancelling this project and propose a similar but better WP soon. CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be so down on yourself, CyclonicStormYutu. Its a good idea, but it should be proposed in a couple years, like in 2024 or 2025, so enough of the decade has passed by then. Historyday01 (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New WP proposal still open My new proposal for the 2000s is underway, and has been for almost 2 months. It's WikiProject 2000s. Go check proposals. CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/WikiProject_2020s&oldid=1127955809"