Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas/Dallas–Fort Worth task force/Strategy

This is the Strategy discussion forum, for discussing developments in the internal structure of WikiProject Dallas. Feel free to add a new discussion and discuss as you would on an ordinary talk page.



Voting: 8 November 2006
'This voting section is now closed. Please do not edit it, it is kept for reference.'

Proposals will close 10 days from now, on 18 November 2006. Early closing or decision can be made provided all members have vocalized an opinion (or abstained) on each issue.

Issue 1: project scope

 * What should our scope include?
 * 1) The city of Dallas alone (current stance) (resolution)
 * 2) The city of Dallas and its MSA suburbs (excluding Fort Worth, Arlington, etc)
 * 3) The DFW Metroplex under the name "WikiProject Dallas"
 * 4) The DFW Metroplex under the name "WikiProject DFW"

Voting

 * Support #2 - easiest logical option. #3 Makes sense but not without renaming, and #4 makes the most sense but it would require a hell of a lot of alteration to what already exists here.  I can see a WikiProject Fort Worth formulating, so maybe #2 trumps #3 and #4 for that reason.  drumguy8800   C   T  09:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support #1 - I think that the city of Dallas alone should be included in this article. If there was a WikiProject D/FW Metroplex, then the other choices would be logical as well. However, focusing on suburbs will take attention away from Dallas itself. I was actually planning on proposing a WikiProject Fort Worth, but haven't had the time to lately. It's much needed. Stallions2010 22:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support #4 - For me, just the city of Dallas is too small of scope. м info 01:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support #1 - The city of Dallas is definately large enough to deserve a WikiProject for itself only. There is still plenty of opportunity for growth even if only the city is covered. --Longhornsg 02:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Abstain Postoak 01:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * '''Support #1" - Chad 05:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Resolution - #1 drumguy8800   C   T  15:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Related discussion
If we were to create both DFW & FW projects, they could be relatively intertwined. I created a mockup for tabbed browsing between the 3 projects:

I still feel that would be a whole lot of work, though. It's a chore maintaining one project, much less three. drumguy8800  C   T  01:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Issue 2: Project related edit counts
The Wikipedia community supports quite a number of bots, including one that can potentially document the number of edits made by a specific user to pages in WikiProject Dallas in that users' tenure as a Wikipedian or in a given time period. It would basically provide a roster of user statistics for sheer vanity and pride among those who have contributed significantly to the project. (See: Editcountitis ;).)


 * How should the project use this capability?
 * 1) All registered users are presented in the list (resolution)
 * 2) All registered users are presented in the list, one can choose to opt out
 * 3) Only users that opt-in would be presented in the list

Voting

 * Support #1 - why not? it's visible to the entire community anyway at Special:Contributions.  I think it would be an interesting way to differentiate between active and inactive users.  drumguy8800   C   T  09:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support #1 - per Drumguy8800 --Longhornsg 02:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support #1 - For the same reasons as DrumGuy8800 and Longhornsg. --Stallions2010 03:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support #1 - per Drumguy8800, Postoak 01:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Resolution - #1 drumguy8800   C   T  15:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)



Critique: 8 November 2006
The following templates have been rebuilt in the past few days:

Criticisms

 * Too narrow? It's an almost direct copy of the design used by New York City.  drumguy8800   C   T  09:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Almost exactly the same as the New York City template, but very organized. If more subjects are needed later, it would be easy to add them on, unlike some other templates. Perhaps a "Suburbs" section could be added on...Stallions2010 22:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it, quick and simple. м info 01:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

 * I know it might seem confusing. This is coded (at least in this specific instance) to show east Dallas neighborhoods. The ins and outs are explained in the documentation at Dallas Neighborhoods.  drumguy8800   C   T  09:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Stallions2010 22:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

 * I was considering adding a faint image to the background of Dallas to give it a little color.  drumguy8800   C   T  09:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Adding a watermark would significantly improve this template. Stallions2010 22:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hows that, eh? :D drumguy8800   C   T  23:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This renders perfectly in Firefox. For some reason (well actually, no, there's a good reason: Internet Explorer sucks) its not displaying correctly in MSIE.  This reminds me of working for hours at my job with the City of Dallas trying to make everything cross-browser compatible.  MSIE always gave me the problems.  drumguy8800   C   T  06:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Very nice. Will the secondary infobox on the main project page be integrated into this dashboard? Postoak 01:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ya know, the secondary infobox is just a standard infobox used across WikiProjects. I originally implemented it back when there wasn't much else going on.  I should either rebuild it or just remove it all together.. not sure what content in it needs to be kept, anyway.  drumguy8800   C   T  06:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your infobox/dashboard is superior to the standard offering and would be an excellent replacement. It might be difficult to adopt the Dallas WikiProject layout based on the dashboard to existing WikiProjects, though. Perhaps offer your infobox within a project framework for new WikiProjects. Getting off topic here, sorry. One note, the image displays very nicely in IE7. Postoak 19:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)



Voting: 10 November 2006
'This voting section is now closed. Please do not edit it, it is kept for reference.'

Proposals will close 10 days from now, on 20 November 2006. Early closing or decision can be made provided all members have vocalized an opinion (or abstained) on each issue.

Issue 1: neighborhood naming conventions

 * How should the neighborhood article names be formatted? See this discussion at the General forum and this RfD.
 * 1) Neighborhood Name (or Neighborhood Name, Dallas if Neighborhood Name is taken)
 * 2) Neighborhood Name, Dallas, Texas (resolution)

Voting

 * Support #1 for now, until WP:MOS creates a stance on the issue. For information on standards across the Wikipedia and standards per the MOS' naming conventions, see this discussion. Support #2 but it will take a lot of work to implement.  drumguy8800   C   T  03:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Resolution - #1 drumguy8800   C   T  15:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding the logic of separate Dallas and Fort Worth projects
Considering that the two cities both intertwine in several areas, certainly politics, government, and what not, and that by potentially creating two separate projects for what is basically one economic entity, it seems to me that the possibility of limiting this project to only the city itself would both irrationally rule out the suburban areas, which will often count themselves as being a part of Dallas, and very likely lead to conflicts between the Dallas and Fort Worth projects, should a Fort Worth project ever come into existence. Also, there is a very serious possibility of having two projects dealing with the same relatively small area will make both projects as separate entities much weaker than a single combined project would be. Also, should the possibility of a Portal:Dallas-Fort Worth ever be realized, it would make the most sense to have that portal basically working with one project, rather than two with at least conflicting agendas. I sincerely request that the members of this project consider all these issues when making their decisions. The one thing wikipedia does not need is an increasing number of small projects which can conflict with each other, and, at least potentially, die out, when larger, longer-lived projects are ignored. Also, please note that there is only one project dealing with the entire Los Angeles AND San Diego and Orange County area, WikiProject Southern California. If they can get that much larger area within the scope of just one project, then there is no reason the DFW Metroplex area cannot. As an outsider, retitling the Project the ""WikiProject DFW Metroplex" (or something similar) would probably be the best way to go. Badbilltucker 16:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are in fact discussing this as a group above right now. Unfortunatley current consensus is leaning towards separate projects..  drumguy8800   C   T  20:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Reviving WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth: March 2008 -- New Priorities?
Please discuss what new priorities, if any, there should be since this WikiProject has been revived. Ideas? Comments? Any constructive information or feedback from member editors is most welcome.

I know I for one would like to have each editor recruit some new WikiPeople for help. If everyone were to ask at least three people to become members and to help on this project, the result could be phenomenal. Even moreso were regional librarians and historical society members a part of this effort. Just a thought.

What are yours? A little mollusk (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think going through and adding Geocoding tags to photographs is a good side project. Then DFW photographs will appear on google Earth and in toolserver.org  Spectre9 (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)