Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Collaboration/2006

This is an archive of nominations for articles that became WikiProject Paranormal Collaboration of the Month in 2006. Please do not modify any comments here.

Roswell UFO incident
Easily the most famous UFO incident of all time. Currently an ugly, overlong mess. --InShaneee 22:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Needs work, but it's an essential article.  It would be a real coup if we could get this on the front page as an FA.  Zagalejo 22:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Definate Support. Definately needs work. Been there @ Roswell myself.Martial Law 19:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Need a bit of a touch up.  Demon  blade   02:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I am concerned, however, that any meaningful edits will be reverted by conpsiracy theorists. We will need to walk a tight line between reporting the alleged events and advocating belief or disbelief in them.  Citations for quotations will be essential and we must avoid weasel words and phrases.  I doubt we can ever get this article on the front page.  I believe we would have a much better chance at that with an interesting cryptid, a historical piece on a paranormal figure of interest.  I'm game for the effort, I just have seen the way certain  subjects under our area attract extreme opinions.  I'll concentrate on beefing up citations myself. Lisapollison 11:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If there's something else you'd like to see, please, do nominate it! (Ideally, we'll have 3-5 candidates each month, and as it says above, not only can you vote for more than one, but any candidate that gets at least 3 votes is automatically re-nominated the next month). --InShaneee 15:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Roswell's going to win easily at this pace; not really a bad thing, though, considering the work that could help it, and how universally known it is. --Chr.K. 00:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I have read comments on forums about the entry and it is an important one and a difficult one to walk a balanced line on. If it gets a vote I can see if anyone knowledgable on Ufology can look in and provide input on improving things. (Emperor 22:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC))

Extend Roswell UFO incident until 21st
The article is so close... lets extend the month 10 days so we can find out the results of the peer review and possibly a FA nom... and not interrupt the effort that will go into the next colab. ---J.S (t|c) 20:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Or...the people working on Roswell can just keep working on it before moving on to the next one...I mean, I'm not going anywhere, and I doubt Canada Jack is, either. Note that a lot of the active Project members really got involved in this collab; a new collab could simply give them something that they may be more interested in working on. No reason we should stop 'til it's finished. I've got it watchlisted, and I plan to stay on as a permanent contributor. Honestly, I can't imagine anyone who put in good work on that page (or any collab) simply reaching the end of the month and saying, "Oh well, time's up, too bad, better move on." The GA nom will probably be made by this time next week, and even if it's not the current Collab at the time, I'd certainly call it a triumph for the project, simply because we DID get it there. --InShaneee 20:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Great idea. I must admit, I didn't think it could be done.  Extending makes sense.Lisapollison 06:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Since I appear to be outvoted, I'm going to go ahead and extend the collab to the end of the month (to get us on a truly monthly schedule), but I'd like to state again that I think this is a bad idea, and I don't want to see a precedent set. Under this system, we only work to improve 12 articles a year, and if we decide to extend each until a GA/FA can be obtained, that cuts the number down even further, and makes it harder for members to find a Collab they can get behind, or simply keep track of our schedules. We're currently pushing 550 articles in our scope; can we just let this be a one time thing? --InShaneee 19:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * shrug* ok. I just wanted to focus my full attention on the next colab instead of trying to do both at the same time. I understand your objection... I won't raise another request like this again. ---J.S (t|c) 20:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No need to necessarily work on the next collaboration...if you can fully polish Roswell, do so with gusto. --Chr.K. 15:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Electronic voice phenomenon
This article has a lot of raw data, but some of it's not presented in a proper way; it needs better sourcing and some de-POV'ifying. Also some of the historical text is absolutely impenetrable from a layman's perspective (read: me). I think this is an important article for the project to get to at some point, because of the recent proliferation of shows like Most Haunted, Ghost Hunters etc., which reference this particular technique. Wikipedia has a chance to be a good source of information for those who get interested as a result of recent media exposure. &mdash; ripley/talk 20:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support A common enough term to be a 'big deal' to the 'Pedia as a whole. --InShaneee 15:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support All the right stuff is there, it just needs to be tweaked to perfection! The Kinslayer 10:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Fairly high-profile topic with the release of the movie "White Noise" and, in my opinion, some of the only truly scientific research being done in the "paranormal" field. ---J.S (t|c) 19:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support EVP is becoming better known, and deserves a good Wikipedia page. Cynthia Sue Larson 07:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * #Against I know I supported this last month, however, I spent a number of hours researching the suject online and I have come to believe that there just isn't much more that can be said unless we are citing specific documented accounts. Lisapollison 07:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Lisa, please read the procedure above. This is approval based voting (no oppose votes). --InShaneee 14:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Support This article is a bit disorganized and could do with some more opionions form supporters/skeptics, it is also an in vogue topic. It gets my vote.perfectblue 09:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)