Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations/Archive 2

List of progressive organizations
I just added the list of progressive organizations to the lists of organizations category. I'm wondering if we shouldn't break down the list of progressive organizations into sub-categories for each section, and if so, what naming conventions should we use for type and location? Oldsoul 23:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Organizations
Over here there is a little discussion about what makes an organization notable, and thus worthy for inclusion on Wikipedia. I argue that the classical view of notability was inadequate given the justifiable goals and objectives of this WikiProject. We will develop our own definition of what is not notable as we move forward regardless of the outcome elsewhere, but nevertheless you may want to throw in your two cents as I have. Oldsoul 04:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have done a lot of reading on this subject and really appreciate everyones work toward a solution. I am preparing an organization article and wanted to get any input at this point. The organization is small, has been on the www since 1995 (the beginning), is commercial in the sense it offers educational material regarding communication, relarionships and orgasm in the form of courses and dvd's, hosts a free discussion board,has 30,000 hits a month, sells products on Amazon.com and several privately owned web sites and store fronts, has been the topic of full chapters in two different and un- related sex manuals, it's educational materials have also been received positive reviews by several long standing and popular peer sites, have had newspaper articles and radio interviews and I am unassociated with the organization professionally. Are there any concerns I need to be aware of or to address before publishing this article? Thank you for your time!208.31.88.53 01:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Rich

Navigation Template
I've just added the nav temp. used by WP:WARS, which I think may be the best foundation for us to build off of. Have you guys seen any others that might work/look as good or better than this one?Oldsoul 04:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead Coordinator & Technical Help
For the time-being I shall assume the role of Lead Project Coordinator. I don't assume any real power of course, but I just want to make it clear that I intend to dedicate lots of time to this Project, and would appreciate as much positive criticism and feedback as possible.

That being said, I've been able to teach myself some template basics - enough to copy/paste and configure simple boxes. However, I do need lots of help on the technical side of things. The WP:WARS project has a great automated assessment system that is integrated with task-force info boxes and other templates. Before I start researching and adding organizations to the bottom end of this Project Tree, (i.e. starting new article stubs), I'd like to have a similar system in place.

That way, every time one of us starts (+plants a seed) for a new organization stub, we can paste in all the standard templates right away, and not have to return and create more work for ourselves later.

'''Thoughts? Help?''' Oldsoul 05:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Category discussion pages as project spaces
I've realized, browsing around the various sub-categories that it makes sense to use the discussion pages associated with each one as space for our project. (example) The navigation template should be added to each one. If we don't do that we'll have a multiplicity of project sub pages in this namespace, and a growing number of parallel and relevant conversations happening on the category discussion pages. For clarity, the individual article discussion pages should have the simple and other standard tags on top. Thoughts?Oldsoul 19:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's a very good idea to have categorization discussions take place on category pages themselves instead of segregated to wikiproject pages. However I did go ahead & set up a categorization task force to talk about the overall structure (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations/Taskforce-Categorization). Sub-page discussions should certainly take place there, where categories already exist. --Lquilter 00:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Religious and age based organizations
It all looks like vary nice work you have don so far. So how do we go about the categorizing of the religious and age bast organizations, and ware do they fit in?--Devin Murphy 90 90 06:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Devin, I've been busy the last few weeks, so I haven't had a chance to keep moving forward, but I plan on starting to do about 30 minutes a day soon. I think you've raised an excellent point. My best estimation is that they would fit under the cultural organizations (by field) branch of the scheme. Thanks for stopping by and I hope to see you around again soon. Oldsoul 16:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Organization versus Organisations
No Wikiproject can dictate on spelling matters, and in particular it cannot over rule the policy that Wikipedia is not standardised into American English. Olborne 00:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

**This policy is simply invalid. No wikiproject has the authority to over rule the Wikipedia policy on use of variants of English. Olborne 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And what policy would that be? --Vossanova o&lt; 15:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Moved the blockquote from the project page. Olborne, it's been made quite clear that organization is the ipso facto majority standard internationally, both on wikipedia and in peer reviewed scientific journals. For the record, I am canadian but it's been established that the 'ize' spelling is not in fact the American spelling at all. Individual articles, especially on british organizations may use the 'ise' variant without error, but in all others and for the categorization scheme of this project, 'ize' will be used.Oldsoul 16:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently there was a brief and limited 'consensus' reached here which contradicts the clear and justifiable nomenclature of the 'ize' ending. I don't have the time to reverse those edits made, but this is clearly going to be a problem with users coming in and intentionally or otherwise messing up our naming [|convention]. Thoughts on how to repair/revent this from happening in the future?Oldsoul 23:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no problem that needs being repaired or prevented. It is an established practice on (the English-language version of) Wikipedia that all varieties of English spelling are equally acceptable, as per Manual of Style, and that we shouldn't waste time going around changing spellings for the sake of it. -- AJR | Talk 22:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It will be a problem if users from one side go around reverting edits or setting up articles that contradict the manual of style. That is, in my understanding of it, articles from english language entities that use one or the other should retain that spelling for their articles, but that macro level categories, should retain the international standard (ize) unless the topic covers an area where the 'ise' ending is more appropriate.Oldsoul 18:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean exactly by the "international standard" ? "Organisation" is the spelling used for example by the OECD, Nato, and the European Union. It is also by far the dominant spelling in the United Kingdom, Ireland, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and, incidentally, India. Who made "organization" the international standard ? That claim is completely baseless. Since there is no single body such as the Académie française or the Real Academia Española to regulate the English language, one cannot say that any particular spelling is the international standard. 200.177.13.136 00:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is controversial language. We use the names of organizations however they're spelled, so this primarily affects categorization. For right now, it should be removed from the project guideline until consensus is formed on WP:CFD. See also WP:MOS regarding AE/BE variants. --Lquilter 22:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Below is the material from the front page, which can be discussed separately here.

For the purposes of this WikiProject and all related articles, and categories, we will use the organization standard. Also, all categories shall be lower-case organization. American spelling accepts only -ize endings in most cases, such as organize, recognize, and realize. British usage accepts both -ize and the more French-looking -ise (organise, recognise, realise). However, the -ize spelling is now rarely used in the UK in the mass media and newspapers, and is hence often incorrectly regarded as an Americanism, despite being preferred by some authoritative British sources, including Fowler's Modern English Usage and the Oxford English Dictionary, which until recently did not list the -ise form of many individual words, even as an alternative. Indeed, it firmly deprecates this usage, stating, "The suffix, whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Greek... (or) Latin -izare; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling in -iser should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic." Worldwide, -ize endings prevail in scientific writing and are commonly used by many international organizations. .

Infobox
I've been coming across many organizations listed under the Business & Economics Project, and I'd like to be able put an 'organization infobox on their pages. Do you have a template ready to go? I noticed there's definitely more than one out there. -- SueHay 01:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Sue. Yes there is one ready to go which, as of yet, this project has not had any direct influence over, but is the one we are going to move forward with, Template:Infobox Organization2. In the future we can make changes to that infobox, or create specific ones for certain organization fields or locations. Oldsoul 15:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Relations to WikiProject Systems
As WikiProject Systems is quite new (established just two months ago), and this project isn't very old either, that might be the reason why this relationship hasn't been established. It would appear to me that this project would be a natural parent to that project. Some cooperation should be initiated, in my opinion. __meco 19:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

skiptotoctalk
Why is it required to put skiptotoctalk on every page worked by this project?

Overwhelming majority of articles do not need that template thanks to the WikiProjectBannerShell and ArticleHistory, and even in the minority of cases with too many banners small=yes is usually a better idea. &mdash; Shinhan  &lt;&thinsp; talk &thinsp;&gt; 15:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree -- and since it's controversial I took it off the project page guideline for now until consensus can be reached. --Lquilter 22:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Some categories and lists to add to this project
With the help of a friendly bot, you might want to add the membership of these categories and lists to this project: --orlady 15:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Category:University associations and consortia - but don't add the full membership of subcategories, which consist of individual universities
 * List of recognized accreditation associations of higher learning
 * Category:International charities


 * Done! Thanks -- they're all within the Category:Organizations structure in one way or another, now. --Lquilter 00:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

New articles
I don't know if anyone noticed, but I have set up a bot to make up a list of new articles as they come in. WikiProject Organizations/New articles. Perhaps someone could look at the search criteria and make it better. Gregbard 13:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is great! I hadn't seen it before. I added a link to the front page for this. It should get folded into some "New article taskforce" which will welcome new organization editor/contributors; appropriately categorize; stub sort; comment on notability; and add relevant article-improvement templates. --Lquilter 00:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Supraorganizations
I don't know if anyone noticed, but I have been populating Category:Supraorganizations. I think this may help organize within this WikiProject at some point. Gregbard 13:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I raised a few questions on both the category and the article. It seems like the category might fit within a subcategory of "organizations by type of membership", which could include (a) organizations whose members are organizations (supraorganizations); (b) organizations whose members are comprised of various identity-categories (women, youth, etc.). That could pick up some of those categories that people didn't know what to do with. Thoughts? --lquilter 18:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Organizations vs. academic research institutes
Gregbard added the WikiProject Organization tag to the discussion page for Institut Jean Nicod. I think this is a mistake, but I wanted to double check before removing the link: the Institute is an academic research center and I don't see how this would fit with the Organizations project, unless this is also supposed to cover academic departments and research institutes. --DarTar 16:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I try to be mindful of avoiding those, but I didn't catch that it was an educational center. Be well, Gregbard 23:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * IMO educational institutions are organizations. Other projects may wish to focus more closely on those, but the general structures that the organizations project is offering will be helpful; certainly, educational institutions are types of organizations and fit within the categories there. (I don't think that giant templates are necessary for every talk page. If a more specific project has adopted a set of pages then there is no need, IMO, for every relevant project to throw on its own template.) --Lquilter 00:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

IGO and IO
In some articles there are some problems which could be at any time causing to flag the articles for dispute regarding the definitions in use:

Where says: "An international organisation, or more formally intergovernmental organisation (IGO)". This is either not accurate or must have a [citation needed] showing who and where have arrived to such consensus, otherwise is incorrect, International Organizations are not IGOs necessarily. International may describe either membership, scope or presence and not necessarily governments participation.

This could be solved with something as: " An international organisation is by definition any organization with international membership, scope or presence, however, in common usage, is a term commonly reserved for intergovernmental organisations (IGO) such as the European Community or World Trade Organization, with sovereign states or other IGOs as members." unless of course it can be cited a couple of solid sources justifying that only IGOs can be called IOs, otherwise it is incorrect even from a legal point of view.

If desiring a more precise distinction, it could also be made a distinction between private IOs and public interest IOs which themselves may be subdivided in humanitarian, educational or with other purposes for example.

The problem extends as well to: "Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are private organizations that can also be international in scope. Generally and correctly used, however, the term "international organization" is reserved for intergovernmental organizations only." Unless there is a [citation needed] very solid justifying the "correctly used" and the "reserved" these are completely incorrect, common usage is not "correctly used" and "reserved" must be specified in some international convention, agreement or a decision sustained by international law at least. I thought this should be addressed. Daoken 16:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Taxonomy doesn't work for this. Is the UN Security Council an International Organization?  It certainly isn't National or Intranational.  International Organization can also simply mean one with membership from more than one nation, whether those members represent their nations or just themselves.  Similarly an Intergovernmental Organization may liase between the governments of towns, cantons, provinces or what-have-you within a single nation.  Better to simply identify the attribute of Geographic_Area explicitly (say in an infobox) than to imply it incorrectly in a taxonomy.  That can apply to any organization.LeadSongDog 21:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Organizations validation and verification
With the purpose of assisting with the validation and verification of organizations, I think that some level of cooperation with the WP:TRUEORIG could prove helpful.  Dao  ken  18:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I see how the timelines project is particularly relevant to organizations more than anything else. That said, I thik it's important to include organization establishment dates & disestablishment dates -- they are effectively the birth & death dates of organizations. Also historical information, in general, is important in articles. But what, specifically, is envisioned in terms of cooperation?  Are there areas of particular interest to both projects? Do they need shared pages? Or what? --Lquilter 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for cooperation
Hello, I am a member of the WikiProject Council. I wanted to know if we could consider placing the banner on the project's page? We may include there projects we cooperate with on a routinely basis. By doing this we may be contributing to inter-project cooperation and understanding. Thank you  Dao  ken  22:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It was distracting at the top of the page. I moved it to the bottom. --Lquilter 00:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * On further reflection I'm just not sure what the point of the banner is. Of course all wikipedia projects -- as extensions of wikipedia editors -- should "cooperate" with one another.  So what is this "wikiproject coordiation/cooperation" supposed to entail? What is the purpose of this banner? --Lquilter 00:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

scope of this project?
Is Eastern Orthodox Church organization within the scope of this WikiProject? How about Foundation for the Advancement of Art? OK, the latter seems obvious. I've noticed there are large numbers of Wikipedia articles about art-related organizations that are orphans or nearly so---that one among them (see Category:Arts organizations). Would finding ways to remedy that orphan status be within the scope of this WikiProject? Michael Hardy 01:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, looking at the article, it is about how they are legally organized and not about their aims, therefore it should be considered within scope  Dao  ken  10:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Portals
Hello WikiProject Organization members, I'm Neranei. A few weeks ago, I rescued Portal:NATO from an MfD, and it seriously needs upkeep. As NATO is within the scope of your project, I was wondering if anyone would be willing to take this portal on. If you would like to, either post here or come talk to me. Thanks! Ne ra n e i  (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How is the assessment department coming along?
The banner template to be place on articles talk pages has only been set up to display article categorization but not to do the next step which is to categorize articles accordingly. Is there any particular reason for this? __meco 09:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I recently did an overhaul of the WP:PHILO which expanded the banner options to include fields. I think the new reorganization of this project with emphasis on location, field, kind, ideology may help. I have been looking at the reorganization and trying to figure out how it would look. Greg Bard 11:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have implemented this on a couple of WikiProjects, but I do struggle a bit with it. The receipe for getting bot-assisted assessment can be read at WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject. I haven't joined WikiProject Organizations, so I'll just give the pointer for now. I'll see about assisting if that proves insufficient. __meco 15:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes/Barnstars
Do you have any userboxes or barnstars available for this wikiproject? If not, you should make at least a userbox...--Kushan I.A.K.J (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

project page cleaning up
I've been doing extensive cleanup of the project page which was confusing to read because of numerous empty sections. I've also created a WikiProject Organizations/History page; archived older discussions from this talk page; set up a separate page as a categorization task force; set up a separate page as a notability task force (with organization article deletion review transcluded in), and in general been doing lots of poking about. Just so folks know who to blame for what's happening around here. <-:

In particular, I could not follow the categorization proposals which were scattered in time and location over multiple places. I've centralized discussion and links as much as possible at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organizations/Taskforce-Categorization.

--Lquilter 22:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

NEW ARTICLE!
A new organization article has been made. Please help by expanding it or giving advise for it on it's talk page. Article: Eagle Club Group —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Rema (talk • contribs) 07:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

FAR for Belarusian Republican Youth Union
Belarusian Republican Youth Union has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. – Ilse@ 01:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)