| Revision as of 09:28, 27 September 2012 editFram (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors247,936 edits Difference with MonmouthpediA← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:33, 27 September 2012 edit undoTom Morris (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators68,545 edits commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| **] please. While this project came to my attention due to the many discussions about it, my MfD is purely based on the fact that I see no need for or benefit in having both projects, despite your explanation here. ] (]) 09:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC) | **] please. While this project came to my attention due to the many discussions about it, my MfD is purely based on the fact that I see no need for or benefit in having both projects, despite your explanation here. ] (]) 09:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC) | ||
| **Monmouthpedia covers a clear subset of a larger project, not some unclearly defined region centered on the same thing as an existing project. A ] would perhaps be a feasible new geographical scope; this one isn't. ] (]) 09:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC) | **Monmouthpedia covers a clear subset of a larger project, not some unclearly defined region centered on the same thing as an existing project. A ] would perhaps be a feasible new geographical scope; this one isn't. ] (]) 09:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Close the project, archive the page; stop the damn car, let's sit down and have a long chat about it calmly and rationally''' As a Wikimedia UK member, and someone who is on good terms with people involved in this project, it pains me slightly to write this. The idea that Gibraltarpedia is going to carry on as is after all the controversies in the last week or so is utterly ridiculous. (On a rather technical note, I'm also not sure how the Gibraltar tourism authorities fall under the remit of ]: is it a gallery, a library, an archive, a museum or a cultural institution? Can't see it myself.) There ''is'' a big and broad debate that needs to be had before projects like this carry on about the role of paid collaboration, the purpose of chapters and so on. Carrying on as if there's no problem is a recipe for absolute disaster. We probably shouldn't delete the page, but the project cannot carry on in its current state. That Wikimedia UK and others couldn't see that there would be an issue with this kind of thing eventually shows that someone massively failed to understand both the Misplaced Pages community and public perception (and I do believe, per ], that it is a cock up and not a grand conspiracy; if you want to get rich and powerful, investment banking seems like a much more effective way of doing it than anything Misplaced Pages-related). Sometimes the community has to readjust. This happened with ]: we had a big old debate about it and wrapped it up nice and calmly. We need to put Gibraltarpedia on ice for a while, have a big debate about the issues it has raised and then restart it once we have resolved the issues. —] (]) 09:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:33, 27 September 2012
Misplaced Pages:GLAM/GibraltarpediA
There doesn't seem to be a good reason why this project, which duplicates all of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Gibraltar and adds a few parts covered by other projects (Spain and Marocco), was created. According to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Guide#: "If a closely related group already exists, even if it is inactive, you should join that project rather than starting yet another WikiProject. Any editor can "revive" or "take over" an inactive or semi-active WikiProject simply by joining the project." It is clear that the Gibraltar project is a "closely related group". There is no good reason wny everything that has been done now couldn't have been done in the existing Wikiproject structure (95% of the articles falls straight inside the Gibraltar project scope).
This is not an attack against editors or articles; all interested editors are invited to join the existing project(s), and all articles will still fall in the scope of one or more existing geographic projects. This is, on the other hand, an attempt to keep some structure in the WikiProject jungle; creating new geographic projects which are slightly but not fundamentally different from existing ones is rather pointless and confusing (with e.g. two "Gibraltar"-project tags on many talk pages, making it hard to see for the less experienced editor where they should go with their questions).
I would urge all editors from bith sides to not focus on side issues or turn this into an us-vs-them discussion, but to discuss this MfD calmly and fairly, indicating what the advantages and disadavantages are of having this extra project instead of using (and if needed revitalising) the existing ones. It is not about the editors, nor about the articles: it is simply about the project as such. Fram (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, of course. I established Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Gibraltar back in 2007 and I am strongly opposed to this request. The two projects are not identical, any more than Misplaced Pages:GLAM/MonmouthpediA is identical to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wales. MonmouthpediA is a subnational WikiProject, focusing on one town and covering part of the territory of a wider WikiProject. Gibraltar is a supranational WikiProject, focusing on a broad region of southern Spain, northern Morocco and Gibraltar itself. That's actually a very good way to approach a topic, by inviting editors to consider cultural, historical, geographical and economic links across borders. Gibraltar is uniquely suited to such an approach as it's the gateway to the Mediterranean; it's impossible to cover it adequately without crossing the boundaries of different WikiProjects. The great advantage of Gibraltarpedia is that it encourages a holistic approach to Gibraltar that existing WikiProjects do not. In addition, Gibraltarpedia is not set up the same way as the entirely informal WikiProject Gibraltar; it is a formal Misplaced Pages:GLAM collaboration with national and cultural institutions, following a well-established and very successful model used elsewhere. Finally, let's not pretend that this is anything other than a political deletion request motivated by the recent controversy. Nobody could seriously think this request would have been made if not for that factor. Prioryman (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- WP:AGF please. While this project came to my attention due to the many discussions about it, my MfD is purely based on the fact that I see no need for or benefit in having both projects, despite your explanation here. Fram (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Monmouthpedia covers a clear subset of a larger project, not some unclearly defined region centered on the same thing as an existing project. A Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Mediterranean would perhaps be a feasible new geographical scope; this one isn't. Fram (talk) 09:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Close the project, archive the page; stop the damn car, let's sit down and have a long chat about it calmly and rationally As a Wikimedia UK member, and someone who is on good terms with people involved in this project, it pains me slightly to write this. The idea that Gibraltarpedia is going to carry on as is after all the controversies in the last week or so is utterly ridiculous. (On a rather technical note, I'm also not sure how the Gibraltar tourism authorities fall under the remit of WP:GLAM: is it a gallery, a library, an archive, a museum or a cultural institution? Can't see it myself.) There is a big and broad debate that needs to be had before projects like this carry on about the role of paid collaboration, the purpose of chapters and so on. Carrying on as if there's no problem is a recipe for absolute disaster. We probably shouldn't delete the page, but the project cannot carry on in its current state. That Wikimedia UK and others couldn't see that there would be an issue with this kind of thing eventually shows that someone massively failed to understand both the Misplaced Pages community and public perception (and I do believe, per Hanlon's Razor, that it is a cock up and not a grand conspiracy; if you want to get rich and powerful, investment banking seems like a much more effective way of doing it than anything Misplaced Pages-related). Sometimes the community has to readjust. This happened with Misplaced Pages:Esperanza: we had a big old debate about it and wrapped it up nice and calmly. We need to put Gibraltarpedia on ice for a while, have a big debate about the issues it has raised and then restart it once we have resolved the issues. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)