Wikipedia:The Problem with Projects: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
John Carter (talk | contribs) →Response from editors: fixed |
John Carter (talk | contribs) →Grades of projects: clarified |
||
Line 7:
WikiProjects, and for that matter, "topical" articles in Wikipedia, share one thing in common with [[tribble]]: they are seemingly born "pregnant." As soon as a project is created for any individual major subject, be it a nation, an academic field of study, or even a form of recreation, shortly thereafter at least one subproject is proposed. Similarly, as soon as any major significant article is made, be it [[Kosovo]], [[happiness]], or [[Satanic ritual abuse]], shortly thereafter the first subarticle will be created as well. And then the second. And so on, and so on, and so on. .... And, like tribbles, they will comparatively quickly consume all the energy of their editors, multiplying exponentially, eating up anything in sight that does not try to eat them back, and comparatively soon dying of overexertion and inactivity. And, by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, there is not a thing any editor can do about it. Probably. That's where the proposal below may become useful. It, like the characters in ''Star Trek'', faces square in the face the unlovely appearance of those entities that look like something the cat coughed up, and is willing to, at least potentially, watch some of them die without trying to prevent it.
==
It is proposed that there be at least three different "types" of WikiProjects recognized. These would include the "national/subnational", the "academic discipline", and the "cultural phenomenon" projects. Poor names and if anyone has any better ones please say so.
Also, projects could be broken up into "core" and "ancillary" projects. A "Core" project would be one which directly relates to a standard academic discipline, has no obvious parent project which could take over its function, and/or has such a parent, but turning the smaller project into a subproject of the "parent" project would be less than productive. The majority of the other projects, which, as it were, don't have recognition as being either nations or general academic fields, or are projects dealing only with a comparatively small area within one or more cultural phenomena, would be considered "ancillary" projects, or any other similar name.
Line 15:
Like it or not, much of the content we have relates to individual nation states, most specifically existing nations. There is an "Economy of" article for every individual nation on the planet. There are also countless articles about politicians from individual nations, the history, including military history, of individual nations, the physical and political geography of individual nations, and so on. Also, in all honesty, if we want photos of articles related to any number of individual articles, many of which can only or best be found by editors involved with certain states, it helps to have a central gathering place where they can converge. Similarly, if not perhaps as obviously, it would make some degree of sense that separate overseas territories of individual nations have separate articles. Despite his best intentions, for instance, a citizen of Liverpool isn't really likely to be hopping a bus to take photographs of [[Saint Helena]], nor is a citizen of Paris going to get one of [[Miquelon]]. Thus, although they might never be particularly active projects or subprojects, it makes sense to a degree to have individual subprojects for most of these major overseas territories as well.
The academic discipline projects should be obvious. In fact, many of the projects related to these major disciplines already have some style guidelines to ensure that articles related to their subjects are as inclusive and accurate as possible. It may make a degree of sense to include in this group subjects which have most of the characteristics of major academic disciplines, even if not recognized as separate disciplines per se, considering the "scope" similarity. Thus, there is probably as good a reason for there to be a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology]] as there is a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism]], despite the potential differences in amount of relevant content, based on the general similarity of the subject matter. That is, of course, provided there are individuals interested enough in working such a project. For purposes of organization, even if their names probably don't indicate as much, most of the various WikiProjects on the various kinds of lifeforms would probably be included here as well.
Lastly, there are the cultural phenomena projects. The name really doesn't say much of anything, but it is hard to think of anything else which would be roughly equivalent. This would encompass athletic activities, spectator sports, popular media, food and drink related subjects, fashion, leisure activities, and other subjects which perhaps relate to but aren't actually at the "academic discipline" level. Video games, individual broadcast or other popular media, other hobbies, and the like would be contained herein.
Clearly, not all the extant WikiProjects even come close to falling clearly into any of
It should be pointed out here that it would not include those entities which, whatever their name, are functionally still "subprojects" of a larger project. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Sydney]], despite its name, is for all intents and purposes, at this point, a subproject of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia]]. Such subprojects, should be considered to be entirely and solely the "business" of themselves and their parents. Beyond perhaps a few pages in project space for themselves, they don't particularly contribute to banner clutter or divisiveness, and should be recognized as what they apparently are, subordinate organizational entities of the parent project.
| |||