Wikipedia talk:Committee for getting things done
 | This page was nominated for deletion on 5 June 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Invite some more people
[edit]Anyone who can supply inspiration or perspiration. Rich Farmbrough, 18:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC).
Ideas from a less than particularly useful editor
[edit]@o$ knows I'm probably not one of the better potential prospects for a group of this type, but I like the idea. If you need any help with banners, let me know ;). A bit more seriously, I do think that it would be very useful if we were able to maybe make it easier for interested parties to find out what subjects pertaining to a given topic are discussed in reliable sources, which would make article creation a bit easier. I am in the beginning stages of creating a few bibliography articles, like Bibliography of Western Sahara and the like. If anyone would want to help with similar articles, maybe for other kinds of topics, that might help a lot.
I myself get the impression, possibly wrongly, that with the number of articles we now have and the comparative quality of a lot of the more "central" ones, there is a very real chance that a lot of new editors coming to the project might want to help develop some of that content, but might not necessarily know what topics have been already developed or what additional sources there might be. Having pages like that one, and maybe of periodicals that regularly discuss those topics with links to them if possible, might make it a lot easier for newer editors to find material to develop that content. John Carter (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- That is an excellent idea. Our shark coverage has always seemed pretty good, but it would be interesting to see if Compango (sp) has been mined fully. Also the work the dermatology group is doing: I'm sure User:Kilbad could put together a bibliography. Rich Farmbrough, 22:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC).
- I wonder if the project banners include a link to "stuff you do to help".. I'll ask User:MSGJ. Rich Farmbrough, 22:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC).
- Category:Bibliographies by subject is the top category. Rich Farmbrough, 22:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC).
- One thing that might work, for bibliographies which directly relate to the scope of WikiProjects that are small enough for single pages to do a good job covering the subject. (WikiProject Catholicism, for instance, would probably have a complete bibliography bigger than all of wikipedia to date.) It might be possible to make a project sub-page listing the various sources available. Maybe breaking the projects' lists into sections like "Standard sources," 'good sources," and "unreliable sources" might be useful, I think particularly the Standard and Unreliable sections. The latter might need review by the RSN board though. Certainly, I saw on Bibliography of Greece one of Erich Von Daniken's books, and I think all his stuff counts as unreliable. Maybe also having little image templates for "source has been consulted," "source has been mined for all its worth," and such might be useful as well, although I am myself miserable at creating such images. John Carter (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Mined out" sounds good, but the same fact can be used on many pages, and cited on them all . If we had a sophisticated DB backing this up then we could separate information mining form article construction. and indeed that has been done in several places, on a limited scale. Rich Farmbrough, 18:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC).
- "Mined out" sounds good, but the same fact can be used on many pages, and cited on them all . If we had a sophisticated DB backing this up then we could separate information mining form article construction. and indeed that has been done in several places, on a limited scale. Rich Farmbrough, 18:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC).
- One thing that might work, for bibliographies which directly relate to the scope of WikiProjects that are small enough for single pages to do a good job covering the subject. (WikiProject Catholicism, for instance, would probably have a complete bibliography bigger than all of wikipedia to date.) It might be possible to make a project sub-page listing the various sources available. Maybe breaking the projects' lists into sections like "Standard sources," 'good sources," and "unreliable sources" might be useful, I think particularly the Standard and Unreliable sections. The latter might need review by the RSN board though. Certainly, I saw on Bibliography of Greece one of Erich Von Daniken's books, and I think all his stuff counts as unreliable. Maybe also having little image templates for "source has been consulted," "source has been mined for all its worth," and such might be useful as well, although I am myself miserable at creating such images. John Carter (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Category:Bibliographies by subject is the top category. Rich Farmbrough, 22:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC).
- I wonder if the project banners include a link to "stuff you do to help".. I'll ask User:MSGJ. Rich Farmbrough, 22:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC).
- I created a quick-start template: {{bibliography maker}} Rich Farmbrough, 19:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC).
A new newsletter directory is out!
[edit]A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
- – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)