Talk: Projects

Duty Roster issue[]

Obviously, we're not mature enough to discuss this like adults. Here's the deal: People vote to make the Duty Roster an official part of MA, then Cid or Memory (I forgot who) suggests making it a User Projects page instead, and before we can discuss the matter, Memory goes ahead and makes a User Projects page because "nobody opposed it". That's fine and dandy, except we voted to make it "Memory Alpha:Duty Roster", which means it is not a user project. When I tried to discuss the matter, Memory reverted my edits rather than discuss them. I would appreciate some intervention from admins, as there is apparently some misunderstanding about what is and is not appropriate. Weyoun 19:03, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

(I may regret stepping in here, but you know.) Making the Duty Roster an official part of MA had the floor in the discussion. The User Projects idea was offered as an alternative, but it wasn't what was being voted on, and that's why it had no one opposing. For example, deleting all Voyager episodes also had no one opposing. --9er 19:11, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

That about sums it up, but Memory insists on adding the Duty Roster to the user projects page and implementing his point of view (see recent changese). I don't want to get into a revert war, so I'm going to let the matter go until people can voice their opinions. Weyoun 19:17, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at FACs - they are removed after seven days if no one opposes during this time. It's the same here: two supported MA:User projects, no opposing votes, the "Duty Roster" has become an official user project, like Vedek and the rest wants. Shall we wait two months with these things just for Weyoun? --Memory 19:28, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Aren't the FACs also rejected if they don't get five votes within those seven days? :o/ I haven't followed this issue, but I know two things, you need to agree on something and you need to stop polluting the recent changes. Ben Sisqo 19:31, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they are, and let me put this another way Memory: The people who voted had never heard of the User Projects idea, so how can you say they wanted it to become one? Weyoun 19:35, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I voted for making the roster an official part of MA. If the User Project thing is mutually exclusive of that, then my vote is in opposition to the User Project thing, almost by definition. That's your logic. But my problem is the rider-on-an-omnibus-bill way the User Projects was approved. I didn't realize it was up for votes. I was voting on the topic the thread was started for, not the thing someone introduced in the middle of it. --9er 19:38, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Because it is already one. How do you want to call it instead? "Archivists project"? And by the way: if you read the discussion exactly, you can see that Cid's suggestion (which has been voted on) was "I believe that it should be placed on a page in "Memory Alpha:" namespace if it is useful for more than just the few users already working on it." (and later "create a project page listing everything that needs work: one section for stubs, one section for PNAs and (new), one section for specialized user-defined projects where everyone who wants to start a project"). That doesn't mean that the page itself has to be moved. And at the moment, it is placed on a "MA:" page (the user projects). At Dec. 6. I asked "Any objections?", and there were no opposing votes for one week, so the issue seemed to be solved. (In fact, Logan and Vedek supported it too.) --Memory 19:56, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Some comments here are distorting the issue - from the beginning, moving the inofficial Episode page to an official "Duty Roster" was only one of several possible actions. Trust me, I know, because I started the discussion. During the course of the discussion, even more suggestions were brought up, in the end including Move, Remove Link, Create Template/Category, Create User Projects page, perhaps even some more. I repeat, at no point was the discussion solely about moving or not moving the page. In the end, not only Memory and myself were in support of the more general "User projects" page, also Vedek Dukat approved (after all, the creator of the "Duty Roster" page) - so I can see no problem with the creation of Memory Alpha:User projects and including Dukat's user page there. Perhaps we should simply ask Dukat if this is "good enough" for him.

If not, there are still unresolved issues to be discussed before a Memory Alpha:Duty Roster should be created. -- Cid Highwind 19:58, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

As evidenced from this discussion thread's existence, there are obviously unresolved issues before Memory Alpha:User projects can be created either, but that didn't stop Memory from doing it. ;) And please do not misrepresent my opinion; I said it was interesting and did not indicate my support or opposition to the user projects idea. But if it's a choice between "Memory Alpha:User projects" and "Memory Alpha:Duty Roster" -- an either/or situation, as it's apparently become -- I choose the latter. Cid, the vote in which people put support in bold letters was about creating "Memory Alpha:Duty Roster", and as such, I have a feeling we're going to get a lot more comments along the lines of 9er's opinion. The fact is, you and Memory are the only ones who "voted" for it to be under Memory Alpha:User projects. --Vedek Dukat ^{Talk | Duty Roster} 20:27, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Cid, the problem is that you and Memory either threw out the votes for Memory Alpha: Duty Roster and counted two votes for Memory Alpha: User Projects as consensus, or unofficially converted the former to the latter. These are no-nos in the consensus process. All that aside, obviously there's no consensus on this if different people believed they were voting for different things. --9er 20:29, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

That's not correct: Cid suggested to discuss it instead of further voting, and the issue was not to create "Memory Alpha:Duty Roster" (that was the idea of Weyoun) then to have a way to link to the project via an official page. Then Cid (not me) made the suggestion of a more general page (that lists Vedek's page), and I supported it. In fact, these votes and the votes from the discussion before count for the same (as Vedek said himself). Then I asked if someone opposes to proceed with this, and no one did. That means that this is a naming issue now, if you want to move "MA:User projects" to "MA:Duty Roster" I have no problem with it. --Memory 20:49, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

(written before reading Memory's last comment)

Less accusations, please... :) Let me set some things straight: Re:Issues with MA:UP The only issue with this seems to be whether or not to include the "Duty Roster". We can remove that page, if it hasn't happened already. Re:Opinion misrepresentation Not a misrepresentation, but apparently I misunderstood your comment: "I don't really care one way or another how we handle the current Duty Roster". Sorry, won't happen again. Re:Throwing out votes I didn't throw out any votes, but commented twice on the fact that this voting process was ill-defined from the beginning (and probably unnecessary as well). A voting process was started without any definition of its goal (necessary votes etc.), about one of many suggestions discussed before, and several comments were counted as "implicit support" for that suggestion.

As a final comment on this issue, I still think that a general place for user projects is much better in the long run than having "an official page for episode summaries". What if the next user has a good idea? Do we start to create dozens of official pages? Do we add all of them to our already crowded welcome message? The projects page is a much cleaner approach, and I haven't heard any good arguments against it yet - I might be wrong, but it seems as if the "Duty Roster" has become a too personal issue for some of its participants. Perhaps we can wait for some neutral comments. -- Cid Highwind 20:55, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

So, Memory, you're saying yes, we did both throw away the earlier votes and then count them towards something that wasn't yet mentioned when they were cast. I'm dubious on the process there. --9er 21:00, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Well I agree the process was not sufficiently defined. That hardly argues for the unopposed creation of the User Projects page though.--9er 21:05, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Nothing was thrown away. The idea was to make Vedek's project more official via a MA page, and that has happened. MA:UP is only an expansion of this idea, nothing else. Or do you really want to have another user creating "Memory Alpha:Duty Roster 2" and then another user his "Memory Alpha:Duty Roster 3" and and... (and all of them singly linked from the welcome message) ? --Memory 21:41, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Hey, mind if I join in the discussion? :) Okay, first, when I voted, I did so in support of Vedek's duty roster becoming an official part of Memory Alpha, although, I admit, I was a little curious as to how it would come about. I did see Cid's suggestions, they just didn't click in my head... I just wanted to give my opinion on Vedek's Duty Roster. However, having now read the conversation above, I was all set to stand by my earlier vote, until I read Cid's most recent comment -- and he's right. If others wish to create a project, what do we do? Create official pages for each and every one of them we think are a good idea? Seems a bit much to me. Of course, we could make Dukat's Duty Roster an official project and still keep the User projects page. I don't know... I only work here. But I will say this much... nothing can justify the revert war I saw took place in the recent changes page. See "rev", "rev", "rev" all the time, I thought a vandal was at work... so image my surprise when the culprits were Memory and Weyoun. I'm not putting blame for starting the war on one or the other, but it should have been fully discussed before any moves or reverts took place.

By the way, in the future, shouldn't that type of voting be done in a more "official" area... Ten Forward perhaps? Just a suggestion... --From Andoria with Love 21:16, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I moved it to TF after the voting has started. That was on Dec. 5. Today Cid moved it to Memory Alpha talk:User projects. Unfortunately Weyoun simply removed it from there instead of continuing the discussion there, so I thought at the first moment that it is vandalism too. --Memory 21:41, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

You should know better, though, considering the topic at hand was the duty roster. :P That's what he did; he moved it, not removed it. --Vedek Dukat ^{Talk | Duty Roster} 22:07, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

And he blanked the page (and reverted Cid's rev from 09:28). That looked a bit suspicious ;-) --Memory 22:30, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Archivists should not be blanking any talk pages on Memory Alpha, or reverting comments that are not their own.

If Cid performed an action (I haven't read the relevant discussions, but i've noticed the pagemoves), it should be discussed, not reverted. If Cid moved the article somewhere today for the reason of discussing whether the move should be performed (as i thought i might have seen in he pagemove's summary field), then the article should not be moved again until the discussion has commenced.

If its to discuss the proper location of the article, I don't understand why we should not simply wait for a discussion (possibly a wait of a few days) before the page moves again. Issues like this (the proper naming, categorization and tree/link organization of a maintenance page, outside the article namespace) have a few facets to examine (will these projects be named uniformly? will links to them be added to policy or protected pages?). Once a few archivists have made suggestions, then an admin can choose the best link to a project that could be added to a policy/protected page, so that those who browse our maintenance structure can find it. Moving the talk pages around repeatedly are kind of making it difficult, its kind of why i haven't gotten to read the discussion -- its hard to keep up with where it is right now.. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 03:40, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Well, since no one opposed making it an official part of Memory Alpha after a week, I've gone ahead and moved it to its rightful place. :-P Weyoun 19:41, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

You still didn't get it. It already is an official user project (because every of our projects is logically an user project). This is what has been voted for, not the name "Memory Alpha:Duty Roster". It seems that you didn't understand the naming argument: if someone want's to start his own project, he shall be responsible for it, and that is indicated by the fact that it is hosted on a page of a dedicated user (call it a "semi-admin" for the project). This will be Vedek Dukat in this case. Without this, the whole thing is not more than a normal maintenance category, and in this case the page "Memory Alpha:Duty Roster" (as list) is a candidate for deletion because we have a template for this and we can easily create an automatic category for some types of incomplete pages. That's the way this is organized at MA (and WP too). If you want to do something different, there has to be somebody who is the official leader of this, and that is indicated by the "User" namespace. So think a moment about this. (I don't move it back now, but later...) --Memory 21:01, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Er, could we put things under a "Project:" namespace instead? I really don't like the idea of having the Duty Roster as a "project" with the "User:" namespace, but I could go for it being included as a user project if it had a new namespace. For the record, yes, if it's a choice betwee MA:Duty Roster and MA:User projects (as in one or the other? I don't get why that was) I choose the former. --Broik 20:35, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

MA:User projects /= MA:Duty Roster. MA:UP is (shall be) a list of projects like "MA:DR", but the MA namespace is lacking what I explained above. Ok, we can name it "Project:Episode Duty Roster", but I don't like the idea of creating new namespaces when it isn't really necessary. --Memory 21:01, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Weyoun, for what it's worth, I did voice my concerns about that, as did others. I would appreciate if you would no longer move the duty roster to a MA: namespace page while we're still discussing things. I will move it back, protect the MA:DR page and let some other admin, preferably more than one. There are also still open issues regarding the use of "shortcut links", so please discuss those as well instead of simply moving pages again. Thanks. -- Cid Highwind 11:38, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Well, shortcuts are another story, but on the subject of the page's name... I like the idea of a Project namespace. I actually had the same idea before Broik mentioned it, but Shran pointed out that it might confuse inexperienced users who think it's something like Project Genesis if we have Project:Episode Duty Roster. Opinions? --Vedek Dukat ^{Talk | Duty Roster} 08:07, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Ok, you know I don't like it to let this go on for month, so if you want to move it to "Project:Episode Duty Roster" do it. --Memory 02:29, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Moving it there wouldn't automatically create that namespace, just add a page in main article namespace - which is not a good idea in my opinion. -- Cid Highwind 04:05, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)

How would one create a "Project" namespace officially then? I always thought the only difference between, say, Weyoun and User:Weyoun (at least as far as the database goes) was searching for "User:" in the article title. I agree with Memory in any case, this has gone on for way too long already. --Vedek Dukat ^{Talk | Duty Roster} 20:23, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I also agree to Episode Duty Roster if the namespace is a problem. --Memory 20:39, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if that whole thing really warrants creating a whole new namespace (I don't think the number of active projects at any time will be that high), but this would be something necessarily going through User:Harry Doddema. I guess it should still be discussed, though. Episode Duty Roster would still be a non-article page in article namespace. As a possible compromise, what about subpages of Memory Alpha:User projects, for example Memory Alpha:User projects/Episode duty roster? -- Cid Highwind 20:49, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Any further opinions regarding the above? To be more explicit, my suggestion is to:

• Keep the page Memory Alpha:User projects as it already exists.
• Allow users to create their projects as subpages of that page (For example the Duty roster as Memory Alpha:User projects/Episode duty roster) under the provision that inactive project pages get moved back to a subpage of the user that created the project. -- Cid Highwind 15:17, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

CCG Roster[]

I was unaware of this page when I started my CCG Roster. I am wondering if the CCG Roster needs to be moved to the User Project page. Thanks!!! ----Willie 16:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You'll note that a couple of those user projects are still located on the user pages. Just add a link to it on the main page in the same layout, and point it at your current page, and it's all good. -- Sulfur 16:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sulfur. ----Willie 16:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)