Would anyone object if I change the name of the notice boards from "XXXX Wikipedians' notice board" to "XXXX topics notice board" or "XXXX-related topics notice board"? -spencer195 03:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, I would, so I'm glad this didn't happen. I thought I'd objected long ago. Ambi 08:56, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This issue recently came up at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive#Factions_of_Nationalism:_proposal_to_move_Polish_Biographical_Dictionary_.E2.86.92_Polski_S.C5.82ownik_Biograficzny and Portal_talk:Poland/Poland-related_Wikipedia_notice_board#Proposal_to_rename_this_notice_board. I'd strongly advocate changing to the "XXXX-related topics notice board" format.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
how to promote RWNBs?
I set up a Malta RWNB and I've put notices on major Talk pages, user Talk pages of interested users, and on the main page of the malta-geo-stub page. This seems to be getting things going, but I wondered long term what the usual way to find these things are. Srl 01:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Long term we did not have much contributions by various users Maltesedog 11:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but i think the board is useful in coordination.. look at the history etc.. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 09:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The notice boards are now named almost haphazardly, with many of them implying that they are only for people from a particular country, and not for all wikipedians who are interested in and/or knowledgeable about that country. Some of the noticeboards even state this explicitly. I propose that we adopt a standardized naming scheme which should avoid such an impression, and keep the page names short. For e.g. Ireland, it could be any of:
- Wikipedia:Noticeboard Ireland
- Wikipedia:Noticeboard for Ireland
- Wikipedia:Ireland noticeboard
- Wikipedia:Noticeboard for Irish topics
Any other ideas? Zocky | picture popups 00:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's the fine the way it is. Ardenn 00:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I also think it is fine the way it is. This move is aimed to deal with a problem which has never occurred, and has the potential to interfere with some of the local Wikipedian communities that are use their local noticeboard as a focal point. Rebecca 00:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think renaming is necessary. These are regional notice boards: they were originally created to promote collaboration about geographical regions, but they have come to facilitate collaboration between Wikipedians in geographic proximity to each other (and Wikipedians with long experience of that region, or a very strong interest in that region). The function of topic-specific noticeboards is already filled by WikiProjects. --bainer (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unconvinced of the need to move. I'm also worried about renaming things that aren't UN-recognised countries, because it may spark a pointless "debate" on whether or not they are "legitimate" entities or not. Andjam 01:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Stay with status-quo. Re-visit if and when there's a real problem. zoney ♣ talk 01:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the others - I am from the Filipino notice board, and we haven't had any problems. I don't see any reason to move. --Chris S. 05:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody please explain what useful purpose for the encyclopedia do regional noticeboards serve if "the function of topic-specific noticeboards is already filled by WikiProjects"? Zocky | picture popups 01:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Zocky. Promoting nationalism and myspace-esque socialization aren't good uses of encyclopedia resources. If these noticeboards are redundant with wikiprojects maybe they ought to be merged. — GT 02:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not always the same. Wikiprojets target specific areas, such as Law, or Education. The notice boards inform people of various nationalities about stuff relating to them. Ardenn 02:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to provide an example where people of a particular nationality have a legitimate common interest based on the fact that they are from the same nationality (as opposed to being interested in/knowing about a country)? Zocky | picture popups 02:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Btw, we do have regional wikiprojects, some of which redirect to regional noticeboards. Zocky | picture popups 02:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Ardenn 02:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We all know why pages for groups of wikipedians that are interested in a particuar country are good for the project. Why would a page for wikipedians from a particular country be good for the project? Zocky | picture popups 02:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A noticeboard that was existing purely to advance an ethnic agenda would be shot on sight. Rather, a local noticeboard is a good means of developing a local community. Articles that need urgent attention can be brought there. It provides a safe place to newbies to ask questions relating to their edits and meet people interested in similar areas. It provides an easy and central place to go if someone has a question about notability or accuracy of a topic pertaining to that country. It provides a place to arrange wikimeets and to get to know your fellow users. This is why the Australian and Irish noticeboards have been such a success. I know you deal primarily with Balkan countries, but the ethnic divisions that apply there are simply not relevant in either of these situations. Never in either of our history has a call to arms been issued over some sort of dispute, and for good reason. If a problem does, god forbid, arise in the future, let us deal with this then. In the meantime, let us not fuck up something that has been really successful because we viewed everything through Balkanised glasses. Rebecca 03:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one of the things that you mention is better served by a page for Wikipedians in Australia than with a page for Wikipedians interested in Australia, and that's "providing a place to arrange wikimeets and to get to know your fellow users." But shouldn't that be handled in other places, like meta? Zocky | picture popups 03:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Australian Wikipedians' notice board has listings about Australia-related articles up for deletion, peer review, or featured article candidacy, it maintains a to-do list of Australian topics, has "in the news" and "on this day" sections customised for Australian readers, is a place to discuss new WikiProjects related to Australia, and centralises discussion about topics likely to be of interest mainly to Australian Wikipedians (who are also most likely to have the knowledge and resources to contribute to whatever the issue is). A noticeboard for Australian Wikipedians fulfils many important functions. --bainer (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And what damage would the "something that has been really successful" suffer if renamed Wikipedia:Australia noticeboard? Zocky | picture popups 03:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I get the impression that this is not just about renaming noticeboards, it's about opposing noticeboards of communities who you are opposed to. See Rebecca's comment above, you appear to have a history with the Balkan region noticeboards - I suggest that you deal with those directly if you have problems with them. --bainer (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no history with any Balkan notice boards, and AFAICT, none exist for my corner of the Balkans. But I do oppose pages for groups of Wikipedians defined by their native country. Zocky | picture popups 13:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If I can refer you to my discussion of the AWNB above, I think the role of noticeboards in centralising discussion, for people who are not only most likely to be interested in a subject but also more likely to be knowledgeable in the subject area (and have access to useful resources existing in the real world), is valuable. If an individual noticeboard is not fulfilling that role then that is an issue for that noticeboard.
- As to the point about Balkan boards, I was just referencing what Rebecca said, sorry if there was any offence. I think the point stands, however, that you're more concerned about the concept of editing communities based around nationalities or ethnic groups than you are about page names. --bainer (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I write that openly since the beginning that's rather obvious. "People who are not only most likely to be interested in a subject but also more likely to be knowledgeable in the subject area (and have access to useful resources existing in the real world)" are people who are interested and knowledgeable about Australia, not necessarily people who are in or from Australia. Nobody has shown any encyclopedic purpose of excluding non-Australians that know about Australia or non-Irish who know about Ireland from these noticeboards. And if you tell me they are not excluded, I'll again ask why use a name that suggests they are. Zocky | picture popups 18:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, we need to clarify what we're actually talking about. (a) The names? (b) Whether there should be a more clearly defined difference between Wikiprojects and regional noticeboards? (c) Whether and how it should be made clear that noticeboards are not only for people in the region but also for people interested in the region? (d) Whether there is a danger that noticeboards can be abused for POV-pushing, and how to counter that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (a) for the purpose of (c), as far as I'm concerned. (b) is a matter that might need discussion, and (d) is something that needs to be dealt with on case-by-case basis, although (a) may discourage it. Zocky | picture popups 13:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (d) Any page on Wikipedia can be abused for POV pushing. Pages set up specifically for the purpose of POV pushing have been dealt with in the past, and setting one up under the guise of being a regional noticeboard is unlikely to fool anyone. (c) Change the text at the project page. --bainer (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I particularly like Wikipedia:Ireland noticeboard. Kudos to Zocky for approaching this the right way. --Usgnus 02:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I must say I'm rather torn on this. On the one hand, I've learned that most of these sorts of things on Wikipedia are just not worth the bother of arguing over (or working to change); it's just too much effort, and too many people hold to too many differing opinions. On the other hand, I really really love organization and consistency; it's almost an addiction for me. And as an active member/user of the "Japanese Wikipedians' notice board" despite not being Japanese, I think the issue of misleading titling is a real one. I'm curious to see what sort of consensus ends up emerging out of this morass. LordAmeth 04:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Quote: "A noticeboard that was existing purely to advance an ethnic agenda would be shot on sight". Would it? I just chanced across the Wikipedia:Iranian Wikipedians' notice board yesterday, and must say I find it pretty awful in that respect. It seems to have been around for a good while, and is used for not much else than coordinated POV-pushing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As a relative newcomer, I'm struggling to understand the difference between noticeboards, projects, and portals. They seem to overlap and usage appears not to be the same in each language version of Wikipedia. There's also no consistency in what's on the main page and what goes on the talk page. Kahuzi 07:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would fully support a standardization in the form of Wikipedia:Ireland noticeboard. I also share Fut.Perf.'s concerns heqs 10:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd support the "Ireland noticeboard" (or "Ireland-related noticeboard") version too. – Alensha 寫 词 18:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I support the "Country-related noticeboard" form. It is harder to infer nationalism from this naming. "Noticeboard for country topics" would also be fine. Kimchi.sg 20:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also watching what comes out of this. I want to know the difference between country based Notice board and a WikiProject. Why can't discussions happen on the Wikiproject instead of the noticeboard? I feel the WikiProject would be easier to find for a newcomer than the notice board that has different naming conventions. - Ganeshk (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess there are several countries that don't have their own Wikiproject yet. Besides, if there are only a few editors of a certain nationality, it's easier to get them involved if the page is simply a noticeboard, not a project – the name project implies they'll actually have to work hard, while a noticeboard is just a place where they can mention the articles they've written just because they felt like to. ;-) – Alensha 寫 词 14:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Zocky, thanks for the invitation. I was actually just reading this when I saw your note on our message board. I can say that WP:MALTA is not ethnic specific, as I am (for one) not native Maltese. From the top of my head, a WikiProject sounds like it would require people actually committing to doing stuff, which might be hard whilst we are getting momentum going among Malta-interested-editors. I looked at other RWNBs while setting up ours, and saw a wide range of usages. WP:MALTA is certainly not myspace type socialization, and I think it has been very useful in bringing attention to projects, such as getting articles for all of the major villages. Noticeboard Malta doesn't sound like a bad idea if the decision is to standardise, I chose Malta-related topics notice board and described it as related to the country of Malta and the Maltese language, to make it clear that it is not about Wikipedians in Malta nor Wikipedians of Maltese Descent. So, I would support for a consistent naming scheme. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 16:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To the renaming proposal I'd say no thanks. I'm all for standardization in article space, but this is meta space, and besides the esthetic appeal of having neatly parallel names, I see no reason to spark a lot of arguments when the renaming team comes around. I don't really understand the objections to country-based noticeboards. In the case of Argentina, we have a noticeboard and a project; the project pages are used as a repository of editing resources and references, and are generally less visited and more focused. The noticeboard is employed to notify people about new articles and for some requests. They overlap at times. It's not a problem. It hasn't been a problem for any of our readers or contributors so far. Neither the NB or the project are restricted to Argentine membership. They've both been extremely useful and they haven't been abused for mere "socialization" at any time (though nobody objects to a little chat). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious why not all are listed here. Maurreen 17:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit strange that while this page is called Wikipedia talk:Regional notice boards, only a single page is listed, and that's under a section called Non-regional noticeboards. Hum. --MichaelMaggs 20:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They're all listed in the template that displays on the right hand side of the page. --bainer (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still seems odd to have essentially all of the substance of a page in a sidebar. I have added an extra heading to point the reader to the bar.--MichaelMaggs 06:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I sense extreme deadness in this discussion page (last edit was 4(!) years ago). Not sure how many are watching, but I just wanted to promote a new template I created, Template:Regional Wikipedian notice boards. It was requested at Template talk:RWNBs before. For those interested in using it, have at it. --Bxj (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Thumbsup emote.gif Great job ;) I added it to WP:Dashboard. -- Ϫ 13:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]