Talk:Projects/Archives2

Best way to organize this content

A few points:

I see this page as listing both potential projects and active projects as there is no clear boundary between one and the other.
Discussion of further projects should take place here rather than main discussion board and thus I have changed the page to reflect this.
We are not waiting until we are an official chapter to get projects actively going. And we are not "supposed" too.

--Doc James 07:35, 2 April 2011 (EDT)

Here by the way is how the Wikimedia Foundation organizes there proposals [1] --Doc James 12:19, 2 April 2011 (EDT)

I like the three columns at the top of the WMF page. As we go along we need to be regularly evaluating the potentiality for these projects. As with the long list on the WMF page, many that are not getting past the dream stage still need to be available if seriously interested people come along. I completely agree with your first and third points, and more or less agree with the second.

What do we need to know to take a project past the dream stage? What are the cost implications to us? Does it require any hosting from us? Do we have a critical mass of people ready to make the project a success? What else do we need to consider? Perhaps we could establish such an evaluation format to be added to each page for a proposed project. Eclecticology 16:27, 2 April 2011 (EDT)

Article incubator

I was thinking rather than using an article incubator we could just use little colored squares infront of each project to give reads an idea of what stage the project is at. Similar to the colors we see in front of a couple of these [2] Say three difficult colors. We could than draft criteria of what determines what color a project is give. --Doc James 00:25, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

A creative idea, however, I do like the idea of having some kind of approval/credibility check on a project before putting it on the official projects page. I think we need to consider our web site will be used by different types of viewers. There are the wiki/movement type viewers, new interested viewers, credibility check viewers and media. I would prefer to keep the front pages clean, professional and representative of well thought out ideas. While free form/collaborative type pages can be deeper into the wiki. However, I do understand with so few projects at this level today the official projects page appears a bit spartan. I would really like to hear Ben's thoughts on this point. Alan.ca 10:11, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

The three colour system would work, but I'm cautious about little squares that would be an excuse for yet another template. On the project index page it may be sufficient to have things under three headings: Accepted projects, projects under serious consideration, and project ideas. I attach no importance at all to the professional appearance; let's remember that we are not doing this as professionals. We don't want to have the collaborative pages so deep in the wiki that nobody sees them; it's important for our growth that they be prominent, and that newbies see that there are things that they can do where they will be respected. Eclecticology 14:52, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

I like being able to organize the projects by the type of effort it is. Technology related verses improving content, etc... --Doc James 01:07, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

Because this is linked from the main page, I like having a separate page to keep ideas until they've received a bit of vetting and are being actively pursued. --Jeffery Nichols (Arctic.gnome) (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

WRT signature on project pages

We need to list users who are currently involved with each project so if other come along they will know who to contact.--Doc James 00:28, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

I agree, but I think Ben's point was that he would like to see discussions/comments on the talk page not in the article space. Alan.ca 10:13, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

Yes agree with him on that and will make these changes soon... --Doc James 11:15, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

As long as a project is in a rough new idea stage we should prefer signed comments directly in article space. This should be the contrary for established projects. Barring signed comments in newly proposed projects tends to give the impression that they are more official than they really are. Eclecticology 15:00, 4 April 2011 (EDT)