Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive

Does anyone mind if I archive the proposals up to April 1? --Yarnalgo 04:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. My project had two more people sign up in the past day. Although, I'll probably start the project, but I'd like a few more days. Although, if you archive them, could you keep mine up? Then I have no problem with it. Virginia Highways.

Go ahead. --MPD01605 23:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we archive started wikiprojects again? It sure will make this page shorter. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 23:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Feel free! Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the proper archive method for this page? The article says to just delete projects that have started, is that the current practice or are they supposed to be copied elsewhere? I don't mind doing the work so long as I know what to do.  Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  11:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think just removing them once active is a good policy. We really don't need to have an archive page for them. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 12:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Top or bottom

I see some proposals being added to the top of the list and some to the bottom of the list. Perhaps some consistency is warranted? There needs to be an explicit notice at the top of the page saying where to add new proposals. --StuffOfInterest 13:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, newest always goes on the bottom. mwazzap 06:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

They go Alphebeticly! Lego3400: The Sage of Time 15:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions

I'm interested in creating a proposal for a WikiProject devoted to volcanoes. I'm not sure if I can propose it because I'm what you Wikipedians call anons. Also, I'm not sure if there's another WikiProject out there that relates to volcanoes, so can I propose a Volcano WikiProject even though I'm an anonymous user? 74.225.117.237 17:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any rule prohibiting it though since the initial project page is supposed to be created as a sub page of your user page you might run into difficulty since you don't have a user page.  Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  20:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suggest making a username. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 23:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, if you're that involved in Wikipedia that you wish to create a WikiProject, why not make a username? --MPD01605 (T / C) 00:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ya - you can remain just as anonymous with a username as without (without, people'll see your IP, arguably making you less anonymous) so I'd recommend just creating an account. --Tim4christ17 06:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops

I just made a Wikiproject Korea. But I didn't know that there was this project page? What should I do? Good friend100 18:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• That's okay. The purpose of this page is just to tell if there's interest. That's all. Smartyshoe 19:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Added a requesting projects section

I hope that it meets with the approval of the rest of you that I have added a section to the page regarding requesting projects. There are probably a number of fields which are not yet covered by an existing project which seem to call for the creation of one. If any of you believe that this is an inappropriate use of this page, however, please feel free to remove the section. Thank you. Badbilltucker 18:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject problem

Er.......

I was proposing to set up the WikiProject of Transport around Edinburgh and Glasgow but the proposal has already gone wrong. I was hoping to set this up for the management of 5 systems, 3 of which were rapid transit but now 've got editors thinking this will cover the Scottish rail network plus motorways, ferries and everything else associated. Perhaps i should have chosen a better title but am not sure what to do now, or if i should get rid of my proposal...

Simply south 18:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Page re-structure

If I improve this page to the process structure similar to WP:Editor review, would anyone oppose to that? AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

One disadvantage of transcluding many subpages is that you need to watchlist more pages to follow what is going on. I personally think it is not necessary, as this page gets only 100 edits per week. Kusma (討論) 08:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wink Club

What is it attempting to accomplish? XYZ CrVo 02:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject proposal

Actually more a query than proposing one. Would i be allowed the propose another user's WikiProject but give the credit to them? Simply south 16:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Which project in particular? Badbilltucker 17:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It shouldn't really matter, in any case; there's no special benefit to being the one to propose a project. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 17:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • True, but if the project already exists, then this might not be the best place for it. In that case, it should probably be added to the new projects section of the Wikipedia:Community Portal. Badbilltucker 18:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
      • See User talk:Badbilltucker for reply. Simply south 23:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If anybody cares

I craeted and piped Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland to WP:PWNB which has been acting as such wikiproject for many months. I did it so our Template:WikiProject Poland wouldn't look out of place.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Diverting the flow instead of trying to stop it

An idea, what if we just made a sub-page for task force proposals directly? I suspect that many people would be fine with a task force, but don't know what existing projects it should be under or how to go about doing it. We could also easily bump over very narrow ideas to the sub page and help clean the main proposal page up faster. -- Ned Scott 00:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Great idea. There might be a few problems, particularly if people don't know which extant projects are out there, but I agree it would probably both increase interest and turnover in the proposals. John Carter 21:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

inactive projects

Is there any way inactive projects of similar scope can be absorbed or renamed into some of these projects proposed, so that work is not duplicated? Chris 08:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to first create the project to do the absorbing (if the new project is going to do so) and then propose that the old project be merged into the new active project. If the old, inactive project actually is inactive, there shouldn't be a problem. However, it is possible that the proposed merger might "activate" the older project if someone is opposed to the merger. John Carter 21:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you could. Alternatively, one could simply join the {{inactive}} project and get it going again, I don't know why, one couldn't then change the name to a broader topic if it made sense.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A new project

I don't know who monitors this page, but instead of proposing and creating a whole new project here I decided to start up a Frank Lloyd Wright project as a division of the National Register of Historic Places Project. It is slow getting going {part of the reason I posted here) but has begun as a cross project collaboration between NRHP, Architecture, and state projects. Is there somewhere around the Council to let people know about new projects that have started as divisions or task forces of other projects instead, perhaps linked from the proposals page so as not to cause overlap in new proposals, recommend reading, I don't know, was this even a good idea? Any thoughts? IvoShandor 11:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Generally, I think projects that have task forces add the task forces to the pages themselves. it might be a good idea to have somewhere where new projects can "announce" themselves for inclusion in the Directory, though. By the way, I've added the task force immediately below the Registry project on the North American page. I hope that's acceptable. Feel free to add links to it on any other pages you feel appropriate. John Carter 14:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Improving WikiProject

Hi, all. I need some help in maintaining WikiProject Shannara. There are a few members, but they didn't seem to be doing anything anymore. I hope someone would be kind enough to go through the bother of checking it out. Thanks in advance! Cheers!! Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 14:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Buses

It's been suggested that I list WikiProject buses on here to ensure that people know about it. Is that a good idea? --NE2 18:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably. I do however have a couple of potentially serious reservations. I'm not sure that individual bus routes reach the standard of notability for notability as per Wikipedia:Notability. Also, what sort of relationship do you think your new project would have with the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Rapid transit and its various related projects at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/History and society#Rapid Transit? If you do list it, I think that would probably be the best heading to list it under. John Carter 19:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Some definitely fit the "notability" guideline; for example Bx1 (New York City bus) and B54 (New York City bus). Others are certainly not "notable" or "important" and can be covered in lists like List of bus routes in Manhattan. I started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject buses to determine where the line is. There are also articles about bus companies, models of buses, bus terminals, and other related topics. As for rapid transit, that's a type of rail transport. --NE2 19:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think we might change the heading on the directory to Public transit, and make the Rapid transit heading a subsection? But you might want to check to see if there are any other parties who would be interested. You might want to list it on the proposals page at WP:COUNCIL/P first, to see if there is enough interest from other parties to actually start the project in earnest. Not saying that the project would not be a good idea in any event, but it would need to have multiple contributors to really be worth the effort of setting up and maintaining the directly project-related material. John Carter 19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That would work. I've mentioned it at several related projects, such as New York and London transport. --NE2 19:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about a slow-starting wikiproject

A WikiProject:Veterinary Medicine was proposed over 4 months ago, and there hasn't been much interest generated in it. My concern is that newcomers won't know that the idea for this project even exists. I'm biased in this regard, but I feel that this project is an important one, and most of the articles in veterinary medicine need a great deal of work. So here are my questions:

1. Right now a temporary project page exists at User:Badbilltucker/WikiProject Veterniary Medicine. I would like to start working on it in anticipation of some interest. Would this be a problem? I don't think Badbilltucker is active in WP at this time, but I'll drop a line at his talk page too.
2. Would it be OK to put {{WikiProject Veterinary medicine}} on vet med articles, and have "wikiproject page" redirect to the temporary page? I hope this would generate more interest in the project, as a lot of the edits to these pages are by new editors or anons, and they probably wouldn't know to come here to look for a project proposal.
3. If it's not OK to link the template to a user space page, would it be OK to just create the project, despite the lack of interest so far? Feel free to shout this one down.
4. If I do put the new banner up, should I take down the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats and Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs banners? They are less appropriate to the articles, although I can imagine some pages that should have both or all three, such as docking (dog) and neutering.

Thanks for your time, and please let me know if this should have been posted elsewhere. --Joelmills 22:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you posted in the right place. I know that we want to ensure that all articles are at least assessed for the Version 1.0 editorial team, and a lot of the articles this project covers won't necessarily be covered by any others. I added my name to the project, despite my relative lack of knowledge of the subject. I do have access to a lot of good libraries, however, so will try to be of help where I can. Regarding removing banners, I'm not sure that's such a good idea, unless you were a member of those projects, as it might create some controversy. You could certainly place any new Vet banner above them, though. John Carter 22:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the two people have added their name since I posted this. I think what I will do is leave messages for people that have seemed to show interest in vet med articles and direct them to the proposals page. In the meantime I'll work on the temporary page, in anticipation of this project coming together. --Joelmills 20:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it to projectspace to get the ball rolling. Wikiprojects often work in spurts and fits of activity, so don't be surprised if it's quiet. Always be bold, with wikiprojects especially :) --Quiddity 06:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Southern US Wikiproject

Why has Ned Scott removed all the templates and blanked the template, without the slightest discussion? How did the proposal suddenly, magically become an "inactive project", without consulting any of the interested parties? Chris 04:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at how we have WikiProjects not only for each state, but a US WikiProject, a US State WikiProject, and a regional US WikiProject, as well as a Southern notice board, there is no point to such a WikiProject. It was already noted on the WP proposal page that the project was a bad idea because it would overlap with many other projects. This is a categorization instead of work distribution. This caused several talk pages to be even more bloated with a banner of yet another ineffective project. It is not ok to just start WikiProjects and tag tons of articles when it's already pointed out that this can and should be done with existing projects. -- Ned Scott 04:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've now nominated the project for deletion, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern United States. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"Noting" something, by a single person (you), does not make it gospel that it should or should not be done, more people weighed in with interest than your dissenting (and not overriding) voice. For you to blank the templates the same day you make the proposal is extreme bad faith on your part, and unwikilike. Without time to let your nomination for deletion to be discussed, _that_ is what is not okay. You overstepped on this one. Wikipedia is not an editor of one. Chris 05:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Although it does "overlap" these things, it is a separate place with a separate culture, a separate history, and a separate dialect. It's no different than doing separate states, or having a project or task force on cornwall or brittany. ---G.T.N. (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

MARC Train Task Force

I've am seeking members for a MARC train task force. Anybody can join but I would like people who live (or work) in Maryland or West Virginia. I need some pictures and some infomation. Also anyone who knows about Amtak or CSX would be helpful. People who are good at creaing articles about train stations. Thanks --Plyhmrp 23:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Plyhmrp

Bold cleanup

The sprawling list needed some maintenance. I have removed old and neglected requests from the page. Requests with no posting in over a month has been removed. I have generally left any request with comments or additional member listings posted within the past month. I left requests intact with sufficient members for the project to begin. The list may need further cleanup, but I thought starting with old and neglected requests was a good idea. Vassyana 02:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have a go at cleaning up too, looks like it needs it again. I'll just delete things over two months to start with. I am a lemon 23:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

alphabetical order?

Hey, listing proposals in alphabetical order is very counterproductive (read: makes no sense at all). How will people know which are new? What about people who check the page from time to time, and are looking for recent additions? The newness is more salient than the title.... BETTER YET create a sortable wikitable with links to all projects listed, and columns for Title and Add Date. The wikitable itself can be located on a separate subpage of project, updated by bot, and transcluded to main page.... hmmm.... Ling.Nut 19:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're volunteering to set it up, please feel free to do so. I personally would have no objections to seeing something of the type you described. John Carter 19:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Split the list?

This list is quite large. Perhaps a split would be in order? I was thinking of using general categories such as Humanities, Sciences, Culture, Wikipedia and Miscellaneous. (And yep, I'm willing to {{tl:sofixit}} myself if people are OK with the split.) Thoughts? Vassyana 17:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I like what you were doing, cutting out ones that hadn't had a response in months. I might split it between viable (actual encyclopedic topics, geographic, scientific, biological...) and fancruft (TV shows, videogames...). Chris 17:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion (as expressed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject reform) is that the proposals belong on the talk page for one of the appropriate parent WikiProjects; maybe this page should contain links to all the proposed projects. Even better might be if the proposals were done on the talk page, and added to a category, and we could just link there from here.

-- TimNelson 05:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice thought, but many proposed WikiProjects have no appropriate parent project. How would those be handled? Vassyana 09:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

We can make a miscellaneous section for anything that doesn't fit into the normal categories. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 11:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Biblical music?

Should I start a project under this title? It seems to fit under Christian Liturgy. Laleena^{talk to me contributions to Wikipedia} 18:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It'd help to know exactly what you mean by "Biblical music": music inspired by the Bible, music played during Biblical times, something else, or all of the above? John Carter 19:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Project Proposal Page

It is a huge mess. To aid in cleaning up:

1) Could we put them in order of date rather than alphabetical? Newest proposals up the top. Old ones would drift to the bottom where they can be easily and quickly deleted.

2) Can we suggest an approximate number of articles that would require a wikiproject rather than a task force? I was thinking maybe about twenty?

3) Can we also encourage people to delete their proposals once they reach a decision either to form a project or not? There are lots in the list that sound resolved.

4) Can we have a task force proposal page? There are so many things on that list that are definetly task forces, and two seperate pages would be so much easier to manage than one.

I have just been trying to tidy the whole list, deleting proposals inactive for over two months. In an hour, I got as far as the DaimlerChrysler proposal. Perhaps we need a task force to manage the page :-P I am a lemon 00:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

- This would become a pain to search if it were not alpha ordered, IMO. --Doug. 17:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• second objection to chrono listing-people look them up in alphabetical order. Chris 21:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Linkin Park

Was this project approved? In my opinion it is much too small and topic is too small to make a WikiProject on. -Sox207 19:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically, there is no "approval" for any project to receive. The page exists as a way editors can indicate whether they would be willing to work with a project, with the hope that potential project creators do not "jump the gun" and create a project which ultimately is either deleted quickly for lack of membership or quickly becomes dormant. There is no obligation to list a project here, or in fact any sort of obligatory process a proposed project must go through. John Carter 14:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Star Ocean: Till The End of Time

I believe that there should be a Star Ocean: Till the End of Time Wikiproject because it is a good game; did I say good?... I meant GREAT game. If a wikiproject is created, i would be the first to join!. castlevaniamaster1 11:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive period

Please note that based on a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council the time for archiving project proposals which haven't reached the recommended size for creating a project has been reduced from 6 months to 4. This change has been reflected in the information at the top of the Proposals page.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Archiving in general

It would be good if proposals were set up as on XfD pages and archived the same way, that way links to old proposals wouldn't simply lead to the this page with no further information.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

To archive, or delete

I opened the revision of the page from Aug 11, and the following proposals are at least that old. I only had time to compare up to the letter M, inclusively. Although I don't know if any of these proposals have enough interested editors to approve. I'll work on it some more tomorrow, if I'm doing this the right way. Can I be Frank? ^{(Talk to me!)} 06:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(list removed)

True. However, some of them have enough support to become active projects, and it's just a matter of in some cases getting a response about setting up as a task force, trying to get banners changed, etc. Personally, I would say that if any proposal has at least five members, it be allowed to stay on the page, until it's decided exactly how they are ultimately handled. I know personally that some of those listed above are currently being considered for task forces, etc., and I'm just waiting for responses. John Carter 15:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

After giving the proposals of interest a scan-through, I've come up with a crude list of recommendations:

more than 5 expressions of interest

   * 1.39 Former Featured Articles WikiProject (start it?)
   * 1.68 M*A*S*H (start it?)
   * 1.96 Pixar (more discussion needed?)
   * 1.108 Revolutions of 1848 (start it, or WP European History?)
   * 1.110 Robotics (start it?)

recommend task force (and then archive?)

   * 1.10 Austrian Economics
   * 1.11 Autism
   * 1.17 Cellos
   * 1.21 Costa Rica (WP Central America?)
   * 1.25 Daft Punk
   * 1.28 Desperate Housewives (WP Television?)
   * 1.32 Edgar Allan Poe
   * 1.40 Frisians
   * 1.41 Global Warming
   * 1.43 Guitar Tunings
   * 1.49 House, M.D. (WP Television?)
   * 1.54 Intelligence Agencies (funnel to WP Intelligence Agency?)
   * 1.55 Inter-religious content (funnel to WP Religion?)
   * 1.65 Law & Order (WP Television?)
   * 1.74 Milton Keynes (WP England?)
   * 1.77 Mobile Phones (WP Cellular Devices?)
   * 1.86 Oasis (band)
   * 1.99 Pop music (WP Music?)
   * 1.115 Skateboarding
   * 1.118 Steely Dan (WP Music?)
   * 1.133 WikiProject 1990s (WP Decades?)

archive

   * 1.8 Athens (archive?)
   * 1.13 Beanie Babies
   * 1.16 Bowling (archive?)
   * 1.36 Event venues
   * 1.44 Gymnastics
   * 1.47 Hominids
   * 1.52 Indiana Jones
   * 1.64 Latrobe Valley
   * 1.66 Lead Paragraph Cleanups (already started?)
   * 1.69 Madagascar (country)
   * 1.71 Malware
   * 1.85 Newspapers
   * 1.95 Pittsburgh Pirates
   * 1.102 Project Management
   * 1.106 Religious leaders (already started?)
   * 1.109 Roads in New York City
   * 1.120 That's So Raven
   * 1.121 Thrash Metal
   * 1.125 Trucks (already started, WP Transport?)
   * 1.130 Winnipeg Blue Bombers
   * 1.131 Wizard Rock
   * 1.132 World Heritage Sites (already started?)
   * 2.5 Global Perspectives Task force

If I added a parenthetical commentary, that means I looked at the proposal twice: once when I grouped them by number of interested people, and a second time when I examined those proposals with 4-12 interested people. How bold should I be in moved these things around? Can I be Frank? ^{(Talk to me!)} 07:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Frisians Project

Anyone willing to volunteer on the Frisian Project, please vote for it on the main page! -The Bold Guy- (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Central Pennsylvania

I'd like to start a Wikiproject for Central Pennsylvania, which includes the cities of Altoona, Pennsylvania, State College, Pennsylvania, Johnstown, Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, and other cities and communities in the central Pennsylvania region. Although there are individual articles about these cities, and in some cases articles about neighborhoods and buildings in these cities, I strongly believe that a Central Pennsylvania wikiproject that covers most of what's between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia would be very useful for those who want to learn about Pennsylvania's interior. Articles such as those about Weis Markets and Sheetz, which are based in central Pennsylvania, would also be covered under the Wikiproject. MVillani1985 (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Automatic time and date stamp

Is there any way to make this article have the time and date and messages added automatically placed? It would make it a bit easier to know when a proposal has been here for four months, particularly as several people forget to put the time and date on their proposals. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• If pages were transcluded here from subpages it would be very easy to determine when they were created and they would be easier to archive (or in the case of a created project - redirect).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How long should proposals stay here?

I made two proposals, one for a project on gerontology, one for a project on transpersonal studies, which seem to have met with zero interest. Can I, as the author of these proposals, suggest that it it is OK now to detete them? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally, they stay for four months before being archived, so that we can give them enough time to be seen. I'm not sure if you've left messages on any relevant talk pages, or with any relevant related WikiProjects, but if you haven't you might want to do so, to let more people know that the proposals are here. Otherwise, if you really did want to, you could probably remove them at any time. John Carter (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject "Weird Al" Yankovic

Can anyone review this project just made on 2007-12-31 by Dantheu2man? The WikiProject banner associated with it was typed inline and not as a template, resulting in the inclusion of the talk page for Talk:"Weird Al" Yankovic in Category:WikiProject banners. I didn't see anything that suggests that Dantheu2man talked to anyone before creating this project all by himself. --Geopgeop (T) 11:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that being listed here is officially required. Lord knows lots of projects get created the way this one did, although many don't survive very long. I'll see what I can do. John Carter (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

How is that unfortunate? Listing here is ONLY optional, and to gauge support. It is absolutely not required to list here as WikiProject Council/Proposals is not a governing body in regards to wikiprojects, WikiProject Council is (I think). Although I do believe it would be great if we could have somewhere where we could list all the projects, which would reduce the redundant proposals of already existing wikiprojects. In any case, anyone can start a project for organization and to coordinate effort. Wikiprojects are just a way to mechinize the work of more than one person, and to get more done in the same amount of time.68.148.164.166 (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The category also includes the other band members' talk pages as well right now. It should be removed from them as well. --Geopgeop (T) 15:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars

I was looking in the list of projects why has this dissapered? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 21:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the project has now been created - removal diff - and therefore a proposal that it be created isn't needed. Foxhill (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Radical plea to reject my own plea

In November 2007, I made a plea for WikiProject on gerontology, but as I see that it has had no response what so ever, can I be radical and suggest that it is now rejected? I do not mind if some one now deletes it - by all means go ahead! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I now have deleted this - I have the proposal for a transpersonal project group,though. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing "stale" markers

I don't really see any point to having these markers included, particularly as the documentation page for the template in question indicates that it is to be used on talk pages, which this proposal page isn't. As noted, all projects which haven't reached the 5 member threshold or are independently activated anyway are removed after four months, so there's no particularly requirement to adding the marker. If anyone has a reason for the tags to be included, though, I would welcome seeing it below. Right now, though, it does give a slightly prejudicial look to the proposals, and I can't see any reason for still including them if they're marked "stale". If people wish to discuss changing the length of time before archiving, that would be a separate matter. John Carter (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Meant no offense, there's just a bunch of stuff that hasn't seen movement for two months or more. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

New proposal instruction changes

• Proposals are archived whether they succeed or fail. Necessary because previously there was nothing saying what happens to the proposals that succeed, so they just hung out on this page til someone decided to get rid of them. No reason not to archive them all.
• Early archiving possible based on common sense. Inappropriate proposals, overly specific proposals for WikiProjects, proposals that encourage violation of policy, or proposals that have been around a while and won't realistically garner significant support, can all be archived early.
• Proposed project name to go in header as link. This way, anyone can easily tell whether or not the project has been created yet based on whether the link is red or blue. Also lets people more easily find the project once it's created - just click the header/link, rather than checking through the discussion to find the title of the created page.
• Proposal includes signature with date stamp. Necessary so we can more easily tell which proposals are old and need archiving.
• New proposals go to top of list, rather than alphabetical order. Necessary because the page is very large and creating the proposal in the right place was not easy alphabetically. Also, alphabetical order made it exceedingly difficult to find proposals based on age, to determine which need to be archived. Efficient archiving is important in a page this large. There was really no reason for alpha-sorting anyway. The TOC and browser text-find functions make it easy enough to find the proposal you're looking for. Most other proposal-type pages are sorted by age as well.
• Duration for proposals to stay on this page to 2 months instead of 4. If a proposal hasn't gained 5 measly participants in 2 months I think it's safe to say it won't. 4 months is just way too long, and is probably the reason this page got so out-of-control.

I've already made these changes. Any objections please feel free to voice them. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:18, 29 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with most of the above changes, and think it is extremely poor judgement to unilaterally make any such changes to such a page without seeking consensus before the changes are made. On that basis, I am reverting them so that those which have met the five person minimum can stay and people will have a chance to know that their proposal has succeeded. I do believe that such a change should have also sought consensus before being made, and no such consensus was even sought, let alone made. Not everyone who makes a proposal checks on it that frequently. I will myself archive those which have lingered for four months without meeting the 5 person threshold, and am starting a new section below regarding whether or not to change the archiving period. John Carter (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

BRD my good man. It's all too easy to ignore mere suggestions. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:32, 29 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Early archiving

Personally, at least by now, it seems to me that it is the case that just about any new project to be proposed will fairly clearly fall within the scope of an already extant project. On that basis, I do tend to think that some changes to the lead of the page to indicate that unless a proposed project is such that it does not have a clear logical parent, it should be primarily considered as a task force of that project. Certainly, it might be the case that the time period for proposals to stay on the list could also be adjusted if the number of parties indicated drops only to 5, but I think that decision should have the consensus of some of the other editors involved on this page before being made. Any responses? John Carter (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should basically be a common sense decision. That's how these things usually work. This page has gotten longer than any other of its kind because it works on its own archaic rules that have gotten very different from all others. The most interesting one is that proposals have 4 months to gain 5 supporters. 4 months?? This is unheard-of in any other place on Wikipedia. And yes, any other such page would allow for removal of proposals based on common sense. The changes I made were to make this page more in-line with other such processes, which would've made the page more user-friendly. Now we have to wait for people to chime in here. I shudder to think how long this will take, if it ever does indeed happen.

I honestly don't think this discussion is necessary -- just look at any other similar page and migrate their instructions here. Doesn't that make sense? Equazcion •✗/C • 00:33, 30 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Oh and how about successful proposals? I had added instructions to archive those too, but you reverted those, so that now the instructions don't say what we should do with them. Which is why we had the Deorphan proposal which gained enough support back in November of last year and hadn't been touched since (I archived it again just now, sue me). So what now? Are we really against removing these or may I add this back into the instructions? Equazcion •✗/C • 00:37, 30 Mar 2008 (UTC)

The reason four months was initially selected was because several of the people proposing projects don't really advertise the proposal very well, or maybe primarily on pages which don't get frequented by that many people. By giving longer for people to reach the 10 person threshold, this allows the projects which would have support, but haven't had much publicity, a chance to take off. Regarding archiving successful proposals, in many cases, they're archived on the talk page of the project already. There wouldn't be the need to necessarily make the archives longer than really required. However, one rule this page, like all of wikipedia, abides by is consensus, barring your own unilateral revisions of course. If it is determined by consensus that the successful proposals should be archived as well, then they will be. John Carter (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

K, let's deal with the archiving first and get some consensus. What's the counter-proposal? Equazcion •✗/C • 14:00, 31 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I am far from clear what you are saying. The extant procedure is to allow them to be in place for 4 months, and to, in general, archive the discussion regarding the creation of the project on the talk page of the new project. You are the one who seems to oppose that, therefore, the "counter-proposal", if any, would be incumbent on you to make. John Carter (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no counter proposal (as far as the archiving of successful proposals). Or more accurately, my question is: what happens if a proposal reaches 5 to 10 participants but then just stays dormant on the page? Surely they can be removed -- I just removed the Deorphan proposal, as stated above, due to that. So why can't that be expressly allowed in the instructions?

And as far as consensus, I just don't think that's necessary or realistic. This page just doesn't get enough attention. There's already consensus on most other similar pages to do things a certain way, and this page is the only "straggler". If there were more general participation here, especially on the talk page, I would say fine let's wait til we get more opinions, but I just don't think much will come of waiting. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:17, 31 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Please realize, however, that it is not your place, or anyone else's, to unilaterally make those decisions. In fact, it could even be taken as being a violation of the vandalism policy. The structure of this page, whether you yourself have reviewed it or not, was arrived at by a consensus of a number of editors. Now, one person has come along and both unilaterally changed those previously agreed-upon guidelines and then changed the content to reflect his own opinions. I have placed a comment on the talk page of the WikiProject Council to invite more discussion. I would strongly urge you to refrain from any further unilateral alterations to the page as well. Unfortunately, one thing that is rather common is that groups will discuss for some time what the correct naming and or relationship with other projects is. There is also the matter of in some cases finding someone to set up the project. Evidently, you never considered either possibility. While I, as the primary maintainer of the page, would welcome any assistance in doing either, I do find that your own actions to date have been, at least to a pronounced degree, problematic. John Carter (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no way this could be considered vandalism, as vandalism is intentional disruption. As for everything else, BRD. There's no problem. If I'd edit warred with you then I'd agree there's a problem. But I edited, you reverted, and now we're discussing. There is no problem and there is no vandalism. Thanks for making the request for more attention here. Now we'll wait. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:55, 31 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you made a number of changes unilaterally without even bothering to determnine whether anyone agreed with you. That could reasonably be counted as vandalism, and any similar actions hereafter made without prior agreement could also be counted as vandalism. However, if you refrain from such behavior from this point, I don't think there would be any need to really consider the issue. John Carter (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, they really can't, since again, vandalism is intentional disruption. My actions were the result of doing what I thought was best for the page, which can never be considered vandalism. In fact, you accusing me of vandalism is a violation of assuming good faith (I'm not normally one to make such accusations, but since you opened the door...). There's no evidence of bad-faith intent here, so you should be assuming otherwise. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:02, 31 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Very well. There is no evidence of bad faith, although you are now formally informed that any further attempts on your part or anyone else to change the content of the page in any way without prior consensus being established will qualify as disruption, as they will have been done in furtherance of one individual's own opinions which have not even remotely received the consensus of the majority, although any prior actions will be forgotten for these purposes. Of course, once consensus is reached, than any further actions on any party's part which agrees with that extant consensus will be perfectly permissable. John Carter (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

And you are now formally informed that any further accusations of bad-faith without actual evidence will qualify as disruption. Don't even try to pull the admin card in a one-on-one dispute. You're not an objective observer. Don't act as mediator here. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:20, 31 Mar 2008 (UTC)

And do not accuse others of bad faith when all they are seeking to do is ensure that the existing consensus is agreed to by individuals who have displayed little if any knowledge of or regard for that consensus. You have only been told that the page is being maintained in accord with the existing consensus, and that your actions to date have shown little if any regard for or even curiosity for knowing that consensus. If that ceases, there will be no further problems. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I accused you of not assuming good faith. There's a big difference. I didn't accuse others of bad faith. That was you. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:46, 31 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Ordering

I think that wikiprojects Should be ordered by proposal date not aphabetical becuase my ^third proposal isnt getting alot of attention and like many other proposals is on the back half of the alphabet.Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Useless_Random_Facts_:.29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwilleditu (talk • contribs) 17:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'll second that, of course. I'm not sure why this particular proposal page needs to be in alphabetical order when pretty much all other pages are either "post at the bottom" or "post at the top", for good reason. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:26, 30 Mar 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that it's because of the length of the page, making it very problematic to try to find a listing on the page if they're not in alphabetical order. I'd wait for a few more comments though before doing anything. A lot of people are, understandably, busy today reverting vandalism and won't have time to really notice this until later. John Carter (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Response from a committed "alphabetical order" fan

I was just about to write a comment here asking why this is no longer in alphabetical order, and then I saw the above comment. I still preferred the alphabetical order myself, but that was just my own preference. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from the section below this most people are for chronological ordering. Save The HumansTalk :) 23:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

New proposed changes

The following changes to the structure of the page have been proposed:

• (1) that the proposals be added in chronological order, presumably with the most recent additions on top
• (2) that the period before archiving be changed from four months to two months
• (3) that all proposals be added to the archive page, while presently only those which have been unsuccessful are, and the successful proposals are placed, generally, on the talk page of the newly created project.

• Done. Save The HumansTalk :) 15:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• (4) that, given the number of extant projects, the content of the introduction be changed in such a way as to indicate that any new proposals should consider very strongly being proposed task forces, of one or more extant projects. In effect, it is proposed that the existing language of the lead be strengthened a little.
• There may be other proposals later. I welcome any comments on the subject so that we can arrive at a consensus regarding the set up. Personally, I would have no reservations whatsoever about archiving task force proposals after only two months. However, if we were to create a differentiation there, we would find that everything would be listed as proposed projects, requesting the full four months, so I doubt any real changes would develop. But, the option should be considered in any event. John Carter (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree With 1,2,3 Oppose 4 1 will make 2 easier (even if two isnt aproved) 3 will show new proposls a sucsefull proposal. But 4 some pjojects are more broder than others on the same topic. Iwilleditu^{Talk :)Contributions} 15:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I`ll personally put the proposals in Chronological Order. --Iwilleditu^{Talk :)Contributions} 21:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with all of them Seems like a good way to make this page less cluttered and the process more consistent. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with all four proposals – The first one is actually overdue; as far as number four is concerned, I don't think there are many areas worthy of a WikiProject but left without one. All the fields of science and art have been arguably covered, and for most remaining areas and sub-areas of popular culture's vast domain task forces are far more suitable than entire projects. Waltham, The Duke of 22:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with 1 and 4 As for 2, I think four months is reasonable. ---G.T.N. (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What about 3 IwilledituTalk :) 22:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Little Question

Is a Propsal nescery to start a wikiproject? Iwilleditu^{Talk :)Contributions} 22:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not necessary. However, it is one of the few ways to determine if there is enough interest in a project to actually go through the effort of trying to start one. It has happened in the past that projects have been merged into other projects, and in some cases even deleted, because of inactivity, and I think most people would prefer to avoid having that happen to their work. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of taskforces?

I think we should get rid of the Taskforce section, taskforce proposals should really be discussed on the relevant WikiProject and not here. Ideas/thoughts? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. The downside to it is determining which project to be a task force of, and that isn't always necessarily clear. John Carter (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We could indicate that the Taskforce section is only to be used when you are unsure of where it belongs and make it less of a formal proposal/vote and more of a Q/A format or discussion? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. How would people know that a taskforce is being proposed? ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 11:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a notice can be placed here that a full proposal is going on elsewhere? That would cover all of our bases by allowing potentially interested parties who monitor this page to be notifed while allowing the relevant project to host the discussion in their own manner? – ClockworkSoul 16:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

various proposed changes...

Hi, I wish to suggest a few changes:

1. Archival should be done so that succesful are in one (if needed...) and unsucc in another
2. Posts in Chronological order, with newest at the top
3. Change archive time to 2 months

Finally, a q:

May I archive the page, for example those passed four months and those withdrawn? If so which archive?

Thanks,

BG7 22:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you give User:John Carter a >poke< (and User:Doug, et al. : )

And I'd support changing the 4 months to 2 months, but I'd really like to see a consensus for that, rather than a WP:BOLD change, for obvious reasons. - jc37 22:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a few questions here. Like I've said before, it has happened more than a few times that people just list the proposals here, and then others have to add notices regarding the proposals to some of the relevant article pages later. Sometimes that doesn't happen very often or very fast. That would be one of the drawbacks to dropping it to two months. Alternately, they might leave it on only one page, and that one not particularly often hit. The question about archiving has also been at least addressed before. The discussions tend to be put at the top of the new project's talk page, so in effect they are archived already there. And I'm not particularly certain that there actually is much to be gained by seeing which proposals are and aren't succesful. Also, whether we actually admit it or not, this really isn't anything like XfD or any of the other comparatively formal processes of wikipedia. Maybe we could make it one, but right now it isn't. Several projects are created out of the blue, Wikipedia:WikiProject Hermetism being one of the comparatively recent ones. In those cases, there wouldn't be anything from this page to archive regarding the proposal, because there was no proposal. I personally think that it might be more important to decide whether to make this a formal process before trying to worrying about archiving things which are at best informally placed here anyway. Regarding chronological order, if the page could be altered to include an "add a proposal" link, I wouldn't mind that at all. That is a bit beyond me right now, though. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... i've got an idea of how to do that, but yes, I think we should discuss whether or not to make it formal first!

I would support it, as it also allows us to stop nonsense WikiProjects from being made. What do others think?

BG7 22:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Not I (said the fly). I think making this "process" anything more than an optional process goes contrary to the open-editing wiki-principle. In other words, I don't have a problem with someone boldly creating a WikiProject, while knowing that if the project doesn't get anywhere (3 or less collaborating members) in a couple months, it may be deleted at MfD.

That said, I don't see why we need endless (longer than 2 month) discussion here. If they can't get the impetus to start a project after 2 months, then the idea should be shelved (archived). While they are welcome to start the nomination process over at any time. (Though maybe we should suggest that they wait a month before renomination.)

So to summarise, Oppose requiring the process; Support 2 month shelf life. - jc37 00:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm wondering if we'll get any further comments. Needless to say, this isn't a "high-traffic" talk page... - jc37 05:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay! :D I'm in favor of reducing the archive time to two months, but I'm not a fan of the rest of the proposals. – ClockworkSoul 06:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I could place a link on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council page, if others wanted that. Personally, I don't have any reservations to the 2 months for a task force, but because of the problems I mentioned above I'm not sure that in several cases 2 months might not be long enough due to inadequate if not nonexistent publicization of the proposal. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Opposed to shortening the archive time. This is not a high traffic page, and advertising for interest in any given WikiProject can take quite a bit of time. Messages on high-traffic talk pages may be swiftly archived, while those on low-traffic pages (like this one) may not be seen by many editors for long periods of time. Four months is adequate.--otherlleft (talk) 10:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:GregManninLB

User:GregManninLB (first edit 2008/03/17) has been telling users in a number of ways that new projects must conform to the Wikipedia category tree in a manner that doesn't quite make sense to me. First, he insists with an air of authority that projects are required to be based on a subject that has category and an article. While this can be defended, it certainly would make for a major policy change, and would need to be seriously discussed before being implemented. What really concerns me, however, is a series of posts he made to the proposals page itself in which he not only asserts that new projects must mirror an existing category, but that they must also descend from a project that also mirrors that category's parent even if it doesn't exist. To illustrate, he draws trees sometimes seven projects deep, chock full of redlinked nonexistent projects. Some representative samples are:

1. Embryology proposal
2. Black Sabbath proposal: Recommends that it be the sixth sub-task force (sub-taskforce of a sub-taskforce of a...) of a nonexistent project.
3. United Kingdom Supermarkets and Retailers
4. Revolutions of 1848

and several more...

This seems to be confusing newer users [1] who just want to come here to propose the creation of a new project, and at least one exasperated user left Wikipedia entirely [2] because of these antics. I've posted some queries on his talk page related to this and other issues, but haven't received a reply. [3] [4] [5] I'm thinking that we should put an end to this immediately. – ClockworkSoul 01:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been on the receiving end of this too. All I want to do is get a WP up and running to cover windmills, watermills etc. I thought I was doing something wrong by proposing a Mills wikiproject, rather than windmills or watermills. Mjroots (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject stats??

Is there a page which displays Wikiprojects stats like highest no of articles, FA/GAs, no of members etc ?? -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 09:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know of, but that would be an interesting thing to see. Blackngold29 06:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Video hosting websites

I was looking through a list of video hosting websites on wikipedia and very few are that detailed. i propose a wiki project to amend this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.78.166 (talk) 06:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Template?

I think we Should make a template similar to Request page protection template.If you give me a Minute I will make one.ElectricalExperiment 23:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

See User:Electrical Experiment/Project ElectricalExperiment 00:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Note:SWPP is similar wikiprojects.

im going to Import the new template to Template:WikiProject Proposal ElectricalExperiment 23:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion parameter is difficult to navigate for multiple users. You may want to remove that section and just have the user fill in the who, what, when, etc. -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ive made the template similar by making it SUBST. EE 18:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I appoligise for all the confusion but in the near future you will see that it will work out for the better. EE 18:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

IPs

Can IPS propose a project because theres are proposals proposed by ips.EE 18:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. The only reason one would want to get an account are just technical benifits. Account user have no more political privilege than anons.68.148.164.166 (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Meaningq

What does "SWPP" mean?68.148.164.166 (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

SWPP is similar wikiprojects. EE 23:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

So why don't you just write "Similar WikiProjects" then? 86.21.74.40 (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If nothing else, it should be standard courtesy to link to the definition of these acronyms for the benefit of those of us who communicate using full words (the discussions on changes to this page, for example, use BRP frequently). I know that would limit the shortcut nature of the abbreviations, but even editors with years of experience can't keep track of them all, so it's worth the extra .037 seconds to type the word out.--otherlleft (talk) 10:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

old posts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Archive_1#WikiProject_proposal:

Of course!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Archive_1#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Linkin_Park:

There really is no approval process. Start your project for whatever you wish.68.148.164.166 (talk) 07:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

HELP!

I want to make an X-files wikiproject, encompassing the albums and movies, but am unsure where to place the suggestion. Some Semi-Random Dude (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

At the top of the ListHereFord Public 20:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO

Is there a way to tell when and if WP:CHICAGO ever officially became a project.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well.. the project's page was created at 05:07 on July 5, 2005 according to the page history. Nanonic (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I know that. The proposals page was started a few months later according to the history. Is there any way to determine whether projects that predate the proposals page were ever ratified.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it. I would expect that they were grandfathered in (or, if they died, MfDed). We have admins that never went through an RfA, we have featured articles that never went through WP:FAC, and I would expect, projects that never were formally approved. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that projects don't actually need to be proposed here to exist regardless. Given the tendency of some editors to park here and just reject project after project, I wouldn't be surprised if smarter organizers just circumvented proposing here entirely!--otherlleft (talk) 10:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Page very confusing

Um. I was about to post a proposal, but couldn't work out where. Some wikiproject proposals are under the taskforce header, and some are at the top and some at the bottom. Some instructions say post chronologically, others (in the edit window) say alphabetically! Help! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very confusing. I looked for a consistent pattern to follow and couldn't find one, so I simply put my proposal at a location that was easy to scroll. Durova^Charge! 16:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

My main gripe is that the contents take up eight pages, and having taskforces and wikiproject proposals mixed up when there are separate sections, is silly. Any way to suppress the subheadings from the contents listing? Carcharoth (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Found {{TOClimit}} and applied it here. That will help for those with CSS enabled. Carcharoth (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

How about taskforces get their own subpage at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Taskforce? This page is meant for proposing WikiProjects so that's what it should be. Jack (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What does an "oppose" actually mean on proposals?

Surely the whole idea of the page is to gauge support for a proposal? It isn't even necessary to list a proposal here before creating a project. So what does an oppose mean? What is the point of giving people an area to say "thanks for listing the fact you want to start a project on X, I notice you have a bunch of people that want to actively contribute to articles about X, but I think it's a bad idea and will never ever help you, but this oppose doesn't mean anything anyway since all you need are 5-10 people who want to help you start your project and away you go". Is there any point in even having the sections? Nanonic (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Opposing projects

I'm not clear on where opposition really fits in. The introduction to the page indicates that garnering sufficient support is necessary to start a project, and is silent on the role of opposition; however, the template itself provides opportunity to oppose. Is the function of the proposal page to determine if there are sufficient editors to start a project, or to determine if consensus exists as to whether it should happen at all? Looking over the proposals, I note that some editors are more than happy to weigh in with opposition on multiple projects. Of course, those in support only include editors interested in participating pretty much by definition, but those in opposition draw upon everybody else. I could easily vote "oppose" on every current proposal that I don't expect to be involved in, but I don't think that those votes should carry much weight, and I'm not clear how much weight they actually carry.

I would humbly submit that the "oppose" line be removed from the template - editors with clear, specific reasons why they feel a specific project is not a good idea should provide their views in the discussion section. I would expect that if good enough reasons were given, that the amount of support the projects garners would be reduced by those sound reasons.--otherlleft (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

As usual, it's not a vote. If the opposing editors can't say anything more useful than "oppose", then they're wasting their (and your, and my) time. However, we need to have a place for people to say, "Um, that already exists" or "Unbelievably tiny scope; why don't you try a task force under WikiProject ____". That's the actual purpose of the "oppose" section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Taskforce guidelines?

Although it says that taskforces are better with 5 members, does that mean that you could start a project with 2 or 3? I am just wondering as my proposal (WikiProject Football/Taskforce on youth football) only has 2 members, but I think it is important as there are many youth competitions that lack coverage on Wikipedia, and I have seen taskforces with 2 members, and I wondered if I should start it.

Also, what is the point of running a taskforce from your userpage? It does not matter where it is, as it is always going to be a taskforce, no matter where it is.

These famous, heroic words were created by 2o-DeMoN-o8_t*c*a*wp 16:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether you have enough people to start is partly up to your parent project(s). If WikiProject Football thinks that two active members are good enough, then it is. If they don't, then it's probably not.

About starting in your userspace: if the proposal fails, there's less bureaucracy to get userpages deleted than regular pages. Also, userpages are much less likely to turn up in the deletion process if it looks inactive to a passing editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive

I have just copied a good deal of the 2008 information into the existing archive file.

Since nobody seems to be dealing with these things, I'm also setting up a 90-day automatic archiving template. (Hopefully, I'll even have done it correctly). That should save some trouble in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal format

I've come up with what I think is a better looking and more accessible template for WikiProject proposals: {{WikiProject_Proposal/Proposed_alternative}}. I would love to hear people's input on this, as I think it could make the page a lot more readable. Discussion lies here. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 12:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wish I had known about this template when proposing a task force, makes it a lot clearer. I am by no means a regular here but it seems to me to be an improvement on the current template, especially for creating taskforce proposals. Waacstats (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

SWPP - what is this section for ?

Hi

I just placed a proposal, can someone explain to me what the SWPP section is and how to use it, also what to do about the red links to pages.

I think perhaps some cutting down of content should be looked at - why not just a subpage for each proposal ? That way it would be a concise page of proposals instead of a page that is so big that it takes one second per character when I am typing (and I have a 20Mb connection !)

thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Similar Wikipedia WikiProject: its used to show projects of the same name as the proposed.

Does anyone look at this page anymore?

I find it odd that seemingly no one has even touched this page in the past few days, especially considering how many proposals there are. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I find the page impenetrable- and I lose it completely when I consider the plethora of esoteric project suggestion. I just have nothing to say about a group of one person that is dedicating his Wikipedia life to forming a project on colour of nail varnish used by a fictional monster on bill board adverts in an unknown county of a country I will never visit. Is there a competition for the most irrelevant suggestion. If some of this could be culled before it hit the screen, I think the page would be valuable again. --ClemRutter (talk) 11:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. There are several useless projects being proposed. I thought I would go through them and either support or disagree with each project, but there are so many that are absolutely trivial that I decided it wasn't worth the bother. Unfortunately, this hides the projects that actually are worthy. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

At the back of my mind is the thought that if a proposal isn't backed by 5 editors within in 5 days then it is trivial, and a bot could 'archive' the proposal to another page- a sort of wikiseedtray. The number is negotiable. --ClemRutter (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The sad thing is, lack of interest doesn't necessarily equate to triviality. Mine's gotten zero interest, in spite covering an entire field of science that current pulls tens of millions of grant dollars and includes hundreds of faculty. Evidently biomech students and faculty don't participate on WP, hence the awful shape of most of the relevant pages. I guess it's just me, then, off to try to cram the past 50 years of advances into various pages. Mokele (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just wondering what you have done to publicise that proposal. Have you brought it up at that the Tree of Life WikiProject, or approached people who edit articles that fit under that umbrella? I suspect that a lot of editors are unaware of this page, or don't pay attention to it very often because there's so much chaff. Listing a project here is only a small part of the job. It's more important to let interested editors know that you're doing this. Guettarda (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

N/m, I see that you brought it up at several WikiProjects. ToL is still good, because it's a fairly active page. But it's also important to reach out to editors who may be interested. Guettarda (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions - I'll suggest it at tree of life and the biology wikiproject. I'll see if I can dig up a few editors who're good from the articles in the scope of the projects, but frankly, the project was motivated mostly by how godawful many of those pages are. Mokele (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

One possibility would be to have a 2-step structure: first step is a listing on a Suggestion page, and once the proposal gets, say, 5 approvals it's moved to the main proposal list for full debate. Or, perhaps simpler, require proposals to be made with, say, 5 initial support votes from editors of good standing. Equally, as I suggested below, categorising proposals RFC-style would help (in addition to the AFD-style subpaging under discussion). Rd232 ^talk 12:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Issue about geo-based wikiprojects with partial overlap

In the proposal about Wikiproject Capital District, it seems to me (and i have tried to express there), that it is a serious problem for the future of the wikiproject, if its geo-scope is not well-defined. In particular there is weird overlap with WikiProject Hudson Valley. Both projects have areas that are not included in the other. I actually think it is the latter one which should redraw its borders, but the founder of the HV wikiproject sees no problem with the overlap, and I don't see that accomodation happening. Could others more experienced in these matters comment, about what duplication or other difficulties might ensue? I am not meaning to canvas for one particular view, i would like to see the proposers get something that is more workable. doncram (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thamks for nothing, everyone.  :) No responses here, no advice to the wikiproject proposal. No guidance when asked. The wikiproject, started, had virtually no activity since. It woulda been helpful if anyone could have shared some perspective up front. doncram (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

How can I take down a WikiProject proposal that I posted?

I realized I proposed a project that actually should just be a page. Is there any way I can take down my proposal? Thanks Ealcoop23 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's another perfectly good question, with no response, no guidance. doncram (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal has now been removed ([6]). Would have probably happened sooner if the questioner had noted which proposal was at issue. As for general guidance - if no-one else has supported the proposal, there's little reason not to remove it the same way it was added - DIY. Rd232 ^talk 16:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Messy!

This page is a mess. Besides the page's size, the most glaring problem is the fact that some users are adding proposals to the top of the page and some are adding them to the bottom. We should specify where to add proposals and order the ones already on the page by date. Should new entries be added to the top or the bottom, then? And what is the process for removing proposals? ~EdGl ★ 01:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The page definitely needs to be cleaned up; the suggestions need to be reordered and culled, the instructions need to be expanded and clarified, and the entries need to be updated to use the current layout. The whole process probably wouldn't hurt from being rethought and definitely needs to be advertised better as well. At some point, if I have time, I do intend to do more cleanup on this page; I've already done some minor stuff. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

But can you discuss how you're going to implement these changes so we can, well, discuss them, come to a consensus and all that? I'll post my ideas for cleanup sometime later today. ~EdGl ★ 13:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the talk page of WikiProject Football and they use two bots on the talk page - User:MiszaBot and User:HBC Archive Indexerbot. I'll try and find out how they work. As for the putting proposals at the top or bottom, you are having to rely on other people for that, although if the page is small you could do it yourself (not now, the page is MASSIVE). Other ways would be putting it at the top of the page and in the edit notice (see a working one here at the top of the page (but don't edit)). Hope it helps. DeMoN2009 17:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It would seem to be stating the obvious, but the page really needs some kind of categorisation. The WP:RFC categories would probably do. Initially just section headings, but maybe later sub-pages. Rd232 ^talk 18:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess a good start would be to create Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Task forces to separate the task force proposals from the wikiproject proposals. Should I go ahead and do this? ~EdGl ★ 18:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think a better idea would be to set this up like WP:AFD and have subpages for every proposal. And unlike AFD, we can simply link to the subpages rather than show their contents on the main proposal page itself. ~EdGl ★ 19:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Subpage idea

How about we put this on the top of the page:

Instructions 1. Copy the following code for step 2: {{SUBST:WikiProject Proposal |ProjectName = The proposed project's name |Description = A description of the proposed project. |USER1= ~~~~ }} 2. Create a new subpage by typing in the name of the proposed WikiProject/Task Force in the input box below (after "/Proposals/") and clicking "create page." Then, paste the code and add a description of the proposed project: 3. Add to the top of this page the following: * [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/<insert name here>|<insert name here>]]

Note we can turn that last step into a template, for example {{proposal | parameter}}, where the parameter is obviously the name of the proposed WikiProject. Can someone create this template for me or direct me to an already-existing template that performs this same function? I'm probably going to "be bold" and implement this (although it will be a nightmare to create subpages for the already-existing proposals); does anyone object? ~EdGl ★ 20:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, but I still think that task forces and WikiProjects should be split apart - maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/WikiProject proposals and Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Task force proposals, and also make the guides to each one better. DeMoN2009 20:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, is there no way to automatically generate the text? I think they might do that at peer review, but I'm not sure. I'll go and check. DeMoN2009 20:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll hold off on implementing this until we get all the details you mentioned figured out. I know WP:AFD has a "preloaded text" option, try looking into that (I'm busy in real life so I can't do much more today). ~EdGl ★ 20:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I found it at {{Peer review}} (should have known that), that they actually preload a template. I took a bit of code from it:

<span class="plainlinks" style="font-weight:bold">[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Peer review/{{PAGENAME}}/archive{{{archive|}}}|action=edit&editintro=Template:PR/editintro&preload=Template:PR/preload2}} Language and literature]</span>

Which generates the following: Language and literature

That should be all we need (hopefully)! I'll be trying to use it and then I think I'll go to sleep. DeMoN2009 21:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

We have a breakthrough!

<span class="plainlinks" style="font-weight:bold">[{{fullurl:User:Alistairjh/Sandbox10/Test Drive|action=edit&editintro=Template:WikiProject_Proposal/Guide&preload=Template:WikiProject_Proposal}} Create page]</span>

Shows as: Create page (Currently opens a subpage of my sandbox for editing!). Off to sleep. DeMoN2009 21:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, well done! It's a big enough change that it probably should get more input though, so I've put a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. Rd232 ^talk 12:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, I fixed the box and put the final version below. DeMoN2009 10:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Creating a proposal This box is to propose WikiProjects or Task forces that you wish to create. Please make sure you have read the relevent guides that are listed below: General guide · WikiProject guide · Task force guide · Technical notes Create a new subpage by typing in the name of the proposed WikiProject/Task Force in the input box below (after "/Proposals/") and clicking "create page." Then, follow the instructions at the top of the page to add a description of the proposed project:

Well this is such a big step forward I think we could be WP:BOLD and go ahead and do it. On the other hand there's only been input from a couple of people so it might be better to wait a full week from when it was first mentioned (26 March). Also I'd like to put RFC-style categories for the proposals, if only as section headings - how easy will it be to do that with the sub-page system (assuming no-one objects)? Rd232 ^talk 17:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thought. Does this transclude the subpages, AFD-style, or not? If not, maybe we can create a bot to update some details on the main page, eg when proposal created, date of last comment, how many comments, number of support comments, something like that. (NB I know zip about creating bots.) Rd232 ^talk 17:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Use the number one Wikipedia tip - copy someone else. The only way I fine-tuned the template was from the helpful people at Wikinews, and chances are, if a similar system is in at Wikipedia:Peer review, we can steal their bot! DeMoN2009 18:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Rd232, "section headings" seems to imply ordering by subject. I think they should be organized by date, with the section headings being months of the year. ~EdGl ★ 21:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say date order within broad topics. Most people will only have an opinion on a wikiproject if it falls in a topic they're interested in. Rd232 ^talk 21:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Any way we can implement both? ~EdGl ★ 22:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we might need to ask other people about these processes, as we are really getting nowhere - all I did was copy a few things from peer review. I looked at the bot they use for peer reviews, but I couldn't find out how to use it. However, I'll try my best to find out. DeMoN2009 15:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It was the wrong bot! Found the right one. DeMoN2009 15:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Implementation

Hey guys in case you didn't know I put the new directions on the proposals page and started "subpaging" current proposals last night (EST). Hopefully it will be completed by today :) ~EdGl ★ 13:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Good... OnHoliday 15:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks very organized. Good job. The only problem I see with this at the moment is that edits to the proposals page triggered watchlist vultures to investigate (the page's only traffic), whereas with the new layout, the watchlist vultures will only be watching their own proposal as well as the titles of the new ones. I'm more likely to read the proposal if I don't have to click another link to access it. For a page that people complain has no traffic, this isn't helping. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Use this link: Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. It will get rid of the userpages once the page is finished. OnHoliday 10:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I do see your concern, Bob the Wikipedian, but I think the pros far outweigh the cons. I was wondering if there's anything we can do to solve this problem, like track the number of support votes on the main page or something. Any ideas? ~EdGl ★ 15:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to change the template

Specifically removing the "SWPP" section. Please reply here. ~EdGl ★ 17:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd remove that AND the first "Support" section. No need for two. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This page makes me sad...

Look at it! People barely contribute even though this can be an important thing on Wikipedia! The page is messy and hard to navigate, make sense of and contribute to! Surely there must be some ways to make this better?

Honestly, apart from the subpage idea and publicising it, this page doesn't look like it can get better. This is supposed to separate the good projects from the bad, and when (if there is a small chance people would ask) people ask me "How do I create a WikiProject?", I think I would have to say that instead of going here, I would just say "Create a UserProject" (click to see what it actually is). So maybe the best way would be to send a bot to all projects to publicise it, but (if we are going to make the subpage idea) not until this page has been drastically improved. DeMoN2009 15:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we do something with Wikipedia:Centralized discussion? Rd232 ^talk 01:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Like what? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If I knew I'd have been more specific... :( Rd232 ^talk 14:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could find an unobtrusive way to incorporate announcements of newly proposed projects/taskforces with the notice board? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That's actually a good idea. Once I've finished this stuff I'll see what I can do. OnHoliday 10:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject vs. task force

It seems like often, someone will propose a WikiProject, only for people to oppose by saying "scope too narrow -- this should be a task force instead." I was wondering if we could be more flexible with the WikiProject/task force thing, meaning the proposer will propose something, which can be either a WikiProject or task force, they don't decide. The voters (most likely the "WikiProject Council/Proposals regulars") make an educated decision whether it should be a WikiProject or task force, and come to an agreement with the proposer and everyone else involved in the discussion section.

Benefits:

1. It will eliminate the need for the proposer (who may be inexperienced) to decide which one "to go for," giving the proposer "less to worry about" while proposing.
2. It will eliminate the "oppose, should be task force instead" rationale mentioned before.
3. We can then remove the big, scary warning sign on the top of the page.

Support or oppose? ~EdGl ★ 15:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That does seem like a good idea, although we will need to keep an eye on it to make sure that loads of people are not saying WikiProject because it's their favourite band. OnHoliday 20:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea. That will prevent great task force ideas from extinction due to discouragement of the project approach. Bob the Wikipedian (talk · contribs) 17:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Going from task force to WikiProject

Just wondered what the procedure is for this, as I may need to do it myself and it would be good if there was some kind of guideline for it. OnHoliday 20:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... when would a task force ever have to be made into a WikiProject? ~EdGl ★ 00:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that there is a proposal that actually requests this, but sometimes a task force will find that:

• It has outgrown its parent WikiProject (this hardly ever happens).
• The assessment or notability criteria of the parent project is inconvenient for the task force.
• The parent WikiProject is inactive.

These are just a few, although I don't think all of the reasons would mean it has to become a WikiProject. OnHoliday 07:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, a project has several objectives which can never be fully accomplished, creating an ongoing array of tasks, whereas a taskforce could either be ongoing or have an end goal (at which point it should be shut down) and have a more limited array of tasks and objectives. A project should be composed of taskforces.

Having said this, a taskforce should not become a project until it has objectives such as "improve the articles dealing with..." or some other objective which can never be considered complete. Theoretically, a goal such as "add transwiki links to every article" is something that could be completed and then done occasionally until completion again, although it would take a sort of supercomputer to do this. But "improving" is not something that can actually be quantified, and should (in general) be a project. However, if there is not a broad spectrum of articles that could be improved by the project, this is another reason to call it a task force. The hypothetical task force for improving articles on They Might Be Giants band members could graduate to project status if it broadened its scope to Novelty Music and Bands or if TMBG suddenly increased in size from two significant members to 2000 significant members. Bob the Wikipedian (talk · contribs) 17:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

True. How many articles would the task force have to have? Because I think about 1000, but I know there are task forces with loads of articles who prefer being a task force. OnHoliday 07:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No reason that a Task force should not have an open-ended goal, like Bob the W is suggesting would make it a WikiProject instead. The wp:MILHIST project has many open-ended Task Forces, which can together coexist forever, working on different geographic regions and periods of history, but sharing, forever, common machinery: assessment tools, elections of coordinators, and other, well, military-type, coordination that they have going. I haven't looked at the specific proposal yet. doncram (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just wondering about how to do it, just in case the situation occured (which probably will happen sometime). Admittedly, WP:MILHIST is basically the role model for other WikiProjects and task forces. OnHoliday 07:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

List to be archived/deleted/whatever

I'm going through the list right now and will flag on this page any that have been created after reaching a consensus. I'm not up to par on the archival techniques, so I'll let someone else do that. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Historic sites
• Wikipedia-Books
• United States courts and judges
• Norfolk & Suffolk
• Organismal Biomechanics
• Capital District

Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

When changing up the page I retained the phrase "all failed proposals older than 4 months will be archived." If we still agree with that I guess we can remove the links to the subpages and put {{db-g6}} (for technical deletions) on the subpages themselves. Before tagging them however, we should first ask the proposer if they want the page kept for historical reasons. Perhaps we can make a template like {{proposalpassed}} (and even {{proposalfailed}}) to put on proposer's talk, asking them if they want their proposal page userfied or just deleted (or in the case of "proposalfailed," telling them their proposal has been archived). Alternatively, we can archive both failed and successful proposals, and for the successful ones we can create a template like {{oldafdfull}} for the project's talk page saying it was "approved." ~EdGl ★ 14:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Um...sounds good, I think, except it appears my proposal is nearing those four months with 3/5 supports. But that shouldn't affect the decision. What are you defining as "failed?"Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. that's not something I really thought about actually. What does a "support" vote mean? Does it mean "I approve of this project being made, it would be useful" or "I would join the project if created"? Speaking of the latter, is this the main/only place to recruit members to join the proposed project? Anyway back to your question, if nobody opposes the proposal, 4 supports (other than nom) I would consider "pass -- create project," 2-3 supports "borderline" (proposer make the call?). I think we have to take into account that not many people see this page, which is probably the main issue. ~EdGl ★ 21:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Taking this into consideration, I feel it's only fair to keep all the current proposals on this page at least until a specified period of time after the page reaches that "point" where we feel it's noticed. Once the publicity comes, then we can think about archiving the ones that haven't been launched yet. As for the ones that are launched already, the announcement board has a place for recruiting new members, but it's probably a good idea to leave them on this page for about a month or more for publicity. Once the project has been launched, it might be appropriate to design an ad for the ad box, although I rarely see the ad box anywhere. I've designed one for Virgo in case it ever moves into the Wiki space, and have not yet assigned it to the ad box.

This whole promotion deal really needs work, that's for sure. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree with you there. Unless you start spamming people who may be intrested with a notice about this, we really need to keep them on there as long as possible. (I was actually going to say six months, but we might need longer.) OnHoliday 07:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Spamming as you described ought to be grounds for proposal failure, lol. There's getting the word out, and there's spamming. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)