Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Collaboration

Dispute over Category:WikiProject Messianic Judaism

I am having a difference of opinion with User:Inigmatus who insists that Category:WikiProject Messianic Judaism be a sub-category of Category:WikiProject Judaism. I have tried to edit the page [1], and have even tried a compromise of having it be part of Category:Christian and Jewish interfaith topics instead which would be perfect for it, but each time he reverts me, claiming "We make that call, not you. We're not part of "normative" Christianity either." [2] and this:" "We" is Messianics. either both Judaism and Christain categories, or none go here. We make the call, because Messianics know best what is Messianic." [3], and he adds on Category talk:WikiProject Messianic Judaism#Main categories: "Either Christian and Judaism categories go here, or they both don't. Not one or the other. Messianics do not ascribe to Chrisitanity, and Judaism is an unrelated category. I didn't put either category in, so I request both be removed, but if one is to be listed, then I request both Christianity and Judaism be listed. "We" Messianics have the right to inform the readers who "we" are affiliated with. inigmatus 04:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)" What do you think should be done? Thanks. IZAK 14:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Housekeeping

(jumps up and down and signals to Magister Scienta (talk · contribs)) okay, the first thing to do is a spot of spring cleaning. What would be good is Moving this page to just Wikipedia:Judaism Collaboration and rejigging the redirects. Most collaborations are either a month these days, or at dinosaurs and birds we've made them indefinite until the preceding collab nom makes GA (or it just tanks and everyone loses interest!). Either option is cool. Then, make a page at Wikipedia:Judaism Collaboration/history to move all the unsuccessful nominations, plus note the successful collaboration candidates. They'll be at the history of this page. You want something ending up looking a little like the USA one I think, that was nicely graphed out. See Wikipedia:U.S._Wikipedians'_notice_board/USCOTM/History. Then open up voting for a couple of weeks, the idea is some broad articles with both general and esoteric scope so alot of folks can help out. Throw up a few ideas and most votes gets the nod. Leave unsuccessful noms on the nom page for three rounds and away you go. I am happy to answer questions. Can I leave the housekeeping up to you magister? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You most certainly can leave the housekeeping to me. Give me a few days and I am going to propose to you a list of my ideas (e.g. how often a new topic should occur). I am super excited, Magister Scienta^talk (1 August 2011)

Oh dear - listen there is a better way of housekeeping the pages to preserve the history. I should have suggested this earlier but it is easy to Move a page which preserves the history. I will try and merge the histories now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Update

Okay, now if you look at the history, all the old and new edits will be together as I did a history merge. Now to do the same with the main page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Umm, its "wikification" not "wikafication" ...but it's important to note that ten years on, we're not really needing to do that much wikification of established articles. The aim is to really build upon articles to get to GA or FA status. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Next step - how to get started

Alright - Magister scienta, you gotta stop writing "wikafacation" on the page - I have to resist the urge to fix the spelling, but more importantly we shouldn't be coming across that many articles that need wikifying. What I would do is give it 7-10 days for voting once you've spammed "welcome" or "collab-reactivation" templates everywhere you can think of. The interesting thing is what and how people choose, and wnat strikes me is the rather unusual article choice of previous ideas at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Collaboration/History. My line of thinking was broader articles that a wide range of editors can help with - these might include Kashrut, which needs a bunch of referencing, Yiddish language looks in not bad shape, and needs some inline referencing. Actually, there might be better candidates of articles which havbe sizeable content-holes in them so some editors can ferret around for content while others look for sources. I'd probably avoid ones which might contain material around Israel-palestine relations as these can be quite tricky to keep stable. My rationale for trying to encourage collaborations wikipedia-wide is that the increasing thoroughness of review favours the smaller more esoteric articles making GA and FA, so we need some way of improving the bigger articles. Anyway, this is my view and others may have a different opinion. But I'd announce it and see what happens, and give it 7-10 days for voting, and then choose the top-vote-getter and leave it as the collab for a month and see how it goes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)