Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Normandy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was A no-consensusy keepy mergy redirecty something There's definitely not enough conseus here to delete outright; some people propose merges of some sort. Suggest discussing merger details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Normandy, but this isn't going to be deleted, as there is not enough support for that. Jayron32 19:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Normandy

The content of these pages do not belong in the Project namespace, they are essentially copies of the leads from their main namespace equivalents. These seem to have been recently created from red-links on Portal:Normandy for desired WikiProjects, but I have contacted their creator and they do not appear to have the desire to actually turn these into real WikiProjects. Zangar (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are very quick to say I have no desire to actual turn these into real WikiProjects. It was only two days ago that you mentioned this to me. I happen to work 5-6 days a week, and I need a little more time to get the WikiProjects underway. You could at least give me until the end of the month. Thank you!--Iberville (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Obviously a misunderstanding. If Iberville wants to start a project, he/she should read Wikipedia:WikiProject and make a proposal here. Present pages are just text per nom. --Klein zach 02:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, though only because they are not actually project pages but content forks of articles from mainspace. Projects do not need to be proposed as Wikipedia:WikiProject Council has no more authority than anyone else over which projects are created. Proposing it may indicate interest in the porject, but it is not required to propose it prior to creation. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again now WikiProjects should not be set up without going through a proper proposal process to gather support for the collaboration. Making colourful Wiki pages may seem like a lot of fun, but making 'Potemkin villages' of projects that have no substance wastes the time of would-be contributors, and thereby harms the encyclopaedia. In this case, Normandy is almost certainly too narrow a topic to be sustainable as a WikiProject. --Klein zach 00:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not stating that people can't use the proposal project endorsed by the WikiProject Council. I have never stated that. I'm stating that it is not required as the WikiProject Council has no authority over that (and likely never will). Normandy isn't necessarily too narrow a project (as evidenced below). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Keep as an actual project has now been created. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clarifying: Keep WP:NORM, redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Norman history and Wikipedia:WikiProject Norman language to WP:NORM. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really? Too narrow a topic with more than 1100 years of history, 3.5 million people, and descendants of Vikings. Who never heard of the Norman conquest of England of 1066, which shaped the english language in what it is today and the history of England as well.--Varing (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be fine to keep them if the pages were actually a project, but they are only content forks of the articles from mainspace. As it is, there is actually not an actual project being proposed for deletion here. Rather, it's three mainspace content forks masquerading as such. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as improperly made. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I redid it in the proper way and have 3 collaborators plus myself makes 4.--Iberville (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. And now you've listed no less than 81,913 articles! That's what it says on Wikipedia:WikiProject Normandy. Why not go through the proper WikiProject building processes as explained above? --Klein zach 12:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wikiproject Normandy and merge the other two into it. Reyk _YO! 07:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the wikiprojects! Interest is growing!--Chnou (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, merge the three projects into one, there is no point in having three largely overlapping tiny projects. As for whether we should keep even the one project, I'm not sure. User<Svick>.Talk(); 14:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep merger into a task force of FA FR if thats best- lets give them a chance - lots has happened since this nomination - All looks like its headed in the right direction now.Moxy (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FA? France? FA normally means 'Featured articles'. A task force would certainly be easier than a project for those involved to manage. Klein zach 02:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Managing" a task force is no less easier than managing a project. They both require participation to keep going. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Taskforces don't require as much maintenance — banners, cats, assessments etc. These chores defeat projects more often than low participation, as the editors tend to stop contributing to articles and work exclusively on them. --Klein zach 03:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually many taskforces are exactly the same as other projects examples here - who still need to add syntax's to banners and assessments to talk pages {{WPMILHIST}} and have there own cats etc. We should not think (or imply to our editors) that a taksforce is any less important then a project. Moxy (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After the good work of editors turning the main page around from a content fork, nominator recommends keep the main Wikipedia:WikiProject Normandy and merge the other two projects into this one - as we don't have separate WikiProjects for "Mandarin Chinese", "Spanish language" or "English language", the 3 most widely spoken languages in the world. Zangar (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the language type pages is a bit much and can all be merger into one page...that said the project is free to do what they like. Meaning if they would like to use different pages to organizes the project as they wish. Like individual user pages we dont have a limit on them.Moxy (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me! I agree to merger Wikipedia:WikiProject Norman language and Wikipedia:WikiProject Norman history into Wikipedia:WikiProject Normandy. With five people now collaborating; one proficient in the Norman language, and two in Norman history, it will become a very interesting WikiProject.--Iberville (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taskforce Normandy in WikiProject France. Even now this only has five members. Better for the members to concentrate on the articles instead of building sandcastles. This is an encyclopaedia not Facebook.--Klein zach 03:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please keep things professional. Accusing people of trying to emulate Facebook (or of "building sandcastles") just because there are only a few members of a project is completely rude and uncalled for. There is nothing in any policy or guideline which states that a project must have more than five members, and your apparent crusade against smaller or inactive projects is getting out of hand. There are no valid policy reasons to delete this project; not even one. Even the original nominator no longer believes there is anything worth deleting here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nihonjoe: Seriously? I changed my opinion from 'delete' to 'task force' and made a simple statement of my general view on small collaborations. Why this should be called 'rude' is beyond me. In future kindly read what I actually wrote, rather than getting carried away by your imagination. It's important to understand that many editors don't share your views about WikiProject organisation. You should not make 'ad hominem' attacks (as noted before). --Klein zach 06:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I know you did that, on this discussion. But you've had a history of trying to delete projects and portals left and right, regardless of the actual policy behind things, or the instructions at the top of WP:MFD. I was commenting more on your Facebook and sandcastles comments. Those were completely uncalled for. Give the project a chance to do something, and then if the project decides it might work better as a task force, then it can do so. If you want to be a part of that, feel free to join the project and help us out. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nihonjoe Objection. Far from having "a history of trying to delete projects and portals left and right" I am only expressing my views in the course of the Mfd process. All of us here are entitled to our own opinion. --Klein zach 04:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some wikiprojects have less than five members.--Iberville (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Almost all of these are inactive. --Klein zach 04:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Taskforcify to WP:EUROPE or WP:FRANCE per discussions on WPP creation, and considering that WPFRANCE & WPEUROPE aren't all that active themselves. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would you send the taskforce to Europe or France, when you yourself have developed a taskforce for Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine/Crimea Task Force?--Iberville (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For those who !voted to make task force, would you kindly explain how changing the namespace from WikiProject to TaskForce magically makes everything better? Literally all you do is change the name space and suddenly, it's not a problem that the project is stillborn and inactive? That makes no sense. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.