Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Confederate States of America
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived proposal of the WikiProject below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.
The proposed WikiProject was not created.
Description[edit]
Articles that deal with the CSA need more organization and cooperation to further their encyclopaedic worth Lihaas (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
Please specify whether or not you would join the project.
- Lihaas (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CanonLawJunkie (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC) (would join)[reply]
- Ziggyseventh (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Avazina, (Talk to me)DEMs are morons. 14:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe Gazz84 (talk · contribs), I would weakly support this as a stand alone but highly support as a task force of WP:ACW
- Presidentman (talk · contribs) 13:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion[edit]
- I'm not certain whether this would better be placed as a standalone project or as a task force of a larger one; but, regardless, I would recommend working closely with the existing (and highly active) American Civil War task force at MILHIST. Kirill [talk] [prof] 20:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree colloboration would of coruse be there, but CSA-related article go beyond the War. A lot of groups (Sons of Confederate Veterans and media like CSA the movie would fall here too) (Lihaas (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC));[reply]
- Could be a Taskforce of WikiProject Former Countries. CanonLawJunkie (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a proposal for WikiProject North America, that might also be used to cover this... 76.66.194.106 (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with this WikiProject is that any thing related to the CSA could get buried in such a broad themed Project.-- CC Proctor, (Talk to me)DEMs are morons. 14:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure about that, since we already have Greenland, Canada, USA and Mexico wikiprojects. North America would cover what's left (ie. CSA, Vinland, New Netherlands, New Sweden, Hansen Island dispute, Six Nations Confederacy, etc) 76.66.199.238 (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WikiProject North America is running.
Wikipedia:WikiProject United States is currently undergoing reorganization. CSA could be a task force for that project. 65.93.12.43 (talk) 07:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats true and I would be glad to support that but I still think it better off under the ACW task force with MILHIST. Although there may be some nonmilitary related topics that wouldnt exactly fit. --Kumioko (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you make it a subproject of the USA project. That seems like a big group and pretty relevant. Or you could see about making it a subproject of Mil History. (Although I agree there is cultural, legal, etc. content that is not strictly military). Still the huge bulk would fit under there. And if they will be happy to have you, Mil History is the one everyone always tauts as the best functioning part of wikipedia. I'm sure they must have other topics where the bulk of the thing is military but some content is not, but it just makes sense to fit it in there. TCO (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also the suggestion to make it a task force for North America, above, if CSA participants object to be categorized as part of the US, since the CS separated from it. And Former Countries. 65.93.13.227 (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you make it a subproject of the USA project. That seems like a big group and pretty relevant. Or you could see about making it a subproject of Mil History. (Although I agree there is cultural, legal, etc. content that is not strictly military). Still the huge bulk would fit under there. And if they will be happy to have you, Mil History is the one everyone always tauts as the best functioning part of wikipedia. I'm sure they must have other topics where the bulk of the thing is military but some content is not, but it just makes sense to fit it in there. TCO (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.