Contents

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Holidays/Halloween task force: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:35, 28 February 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Holidays/Halloween task force page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Halloween task force Project‑class

This page is within the scope of Halloween task force, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Halloween task force articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Halloween task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Holidays/Halloween task forceTemplate:WikiProject HalloweenHalloween articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

What do we define as the jurisdiction of this project? Does that mean any Halloween related articles? Or any horror/scary articles? Does it mean something like this? Cheers, RockManQ ^(talk) 01:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should start in a very focused manner, with articles that are more Halloween than anything else, such as Halloween and trick-or-treat. I just added assessment to the banner, but not importance, since that is more subjective and I didn't want to assume it was appropriate.--otherlleft (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured content candidates rightly should be stuff listed at Featured article candidates, Featured picture candidates, or Featured list candidates. Let's use this section to nominate articles that we would like to bring to that level!

Also, if anyone is aware of Halloween articles that have been featured or nominated, please update the page!--otherlleft (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to tweak the demonstration userbox banner to prevent the project page from being included in the category, but I'm out of my depth.--otherlleft (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween was a good article over two years ago but has since been delisted. I would like to set a goal of not only returning it to that status, but getting it featured for Halloween of 2009. What will this take? Let's keep the discussion in one thread for the moment so the historians will be able to more easily track the progress of this momentous task!  :-P--otherlleft (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan! I shall keep an eye out. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I did a very brief look over and this is was I found:

• The lead section is completely unsourced
• It's also too short for such a big topic (see WP:LEAD)
• Some level three headers are very short (such as Haunted attractions)
• Around the world section is lacking citations
• Also, there is many duplicate section titles (I see History four or five times)

Granted, this was just a basic lookover, but I'd certainly be willing to help, when possible. I look forward to working on this and good luck! RockManQ ^(talk) 17:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. My replies:

• My interest in Halloween here started with a haunted attraction, so I'm willing to start on that section myself.
• I think the around the world section is the worst part of the article! It's way too long as well as being unsourced. I don't think it would be fair to just strip it down because the material has some worth, which is why I suggested splitting it. Any thoughts on how to address?
• The lead might be easier to work on once the rest of the article is in good shape. I have to revisit WP:LEAD myself.--otherlleft (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could just copy the Around the world here, make improvements to it, see if anyone objects to it on Halloween's talk page, then post it into the article. Only since it's so big though. RockManQ ^(talk) 18:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also put a notice on Talk:Halloween for anyone that wants to come and discuss improvements. RockManQ ^(talk) 18:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea on both counts. I created an around the world subpage here for that purpose. Clearly I need somebody to make a Barn'o'Lantern ;)--otherlleft (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...that's long. RockManQ ^(talk) 18:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'll eventually have to break it off into it's own article, for the sake of the Halloween article. RockManQ ^(talk) 18:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a marathon in the making.--otherlleft (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: a lot of people feel invested in this article. Previous edit wars were about the perils Halloween presents to modern-day Christians; whether the Celtic festival of Samhain was a new year festival; and whether the Pope moved All Saints Day to November 1 to co-opt the celebration of Samhain. Another thing to watch out for is relying on error-ridden popular histories of Halloween as sources, and the Web is littered with those. Look for scholarly works that use primary sources, most of which can be found in books, not on the Web. — Walloon (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Points well taken. RockManQ's posting on the talk page should help with the former, and looking in gasp real books is certainly a possibility!--otherlleft (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of articles facing deletion raises again the question (spectre?) of criteria for inclusion. An article pertaining to A Nightmare Before Christmas is arguably appropriate for this WikiProject since Halloween is a clear and prevalent theme, but what about articles relating to Dracula and other vampires? This is a grayer area for this project to consider. When I drafted the original page I deliberately left the scope vague because I didn't want to assume that my own views are remotely similar to the consensus of a group, so I won't go any further without reading input from other members.--otherlleft (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really like a broader interpretation of article inclusion. I see no reason the examples given should be excluded. In fact, I was going to tag candy corn, myself. ^Law _shoot! 03:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the article just before it was delisted and the structure seems much better than it is today, though it is beset by the problems mentioned above regarding unreferenced statements in particular. (I also note it was delisted very soon after I made my original edits which I hope was just coincidence;). The segmentation into sub-articles about the various countries gives the whole thing a scrappy "Did you know?" feel - like a meandering trivia section. We might be better to go back to the GA version just after the classification and start from there. We could then agree what material should be added back in and how; and come up with some criteria for inclusion and reference standards. Sarah777 (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tracked down this diff. It appears the article was simply tagged a GA on Halloween 2005 without any review process! So as well as adding material to the GA version we'd have to remove much as well. Sarah777 (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome legwork - I started to hunt down that version myself a week or two ago but didn't have the time. Makes me wonder if that information should be included in the delisted GA template!--otherlleft (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. The challenge is a bit greater than I originally thought; I figured we'd have a "real" GA to build on. Now it seems we'll have to create one rather than just re-create one. Sarah777 (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copying discussion

I copied the discussions of article improvement to Talk:Halloween/Comments with the hopes that we can get others intrigued. It's only got seasonal interest but I gotta hope!--otherlleft (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked members of WP:AWARDS if they could try making a Barnstar for good Halloween work, and one editor was quick to create the image that you see to the left. Please let me know if it suits the purposes of this project!--otherlleft (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good. RockManQ ^(talk) 03:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The writing style for articles about haunted attractions could use some work. One of the biggest problems that I see is that the attractions frequently become a list of annual themes, which can quickly become a long list of mostly notable information, when probably only particular notable themes should be highlighted. I don't have an initial proposal, but I think that developing a standard format by consensus would be very helpful. Any input would be appreciated.--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 11:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, a standard format for Haunted attractions would be good. Most of them are currently list format, trivial facts, and non-sourced. A format would be a nice way to clean up a bunch of these as well. I'll try and think up a couple. RockManQ^{Review me} 22:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm sure more than a few Haunted attraction articles fall under the jurisdiction of many projects, so we should always discuss on the talk pages of those articles to see if any proposed format from us is acceptable to their Wikiproject. If not, compromise. Most Haunted attractions would be under this Wikiproject though. RockManQ^{Review me} 23:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]