This page is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays 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.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays articles
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]
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)
my penis hurts
i snort crack[reply]
Userbox on project page
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 to GA and beyond
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 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?
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]
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]
Criteria for inclusion
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'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]
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]
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 nonnotable 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.--otherlleftNo, 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. RockManQReview me22:58, 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. RockManQReview me23:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal regarding event listings
Wikipedia is not a directory, and the collection of a comprehensive list of specific annual themes in an article on haunted attractions is discouraged as a rule. However, information about the specific annual themes should be included when:
notability of that year's theme(s) is independently established (i.e., there are inline citations to support the notability of that year's theme(s));
the theme in a given year is relevant to the notability of the haunted attraction; or
for navigational purposes as enumerated in WP:LISTS when a number of the themes have Wikipedia articles themselves.
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]
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
I've created a page for DYK Halloween 2009, mostly riffing off of the Halloween 2008 page that was successful in getting a large number of topical DYKs last year, for anyone who's interested in helping out. Geraldk (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am an American who has been living in Milan for three years, and I'm not sure what the description for Italy is based on. In my experience, very few people celebrate Halloween and children do not go trick or treating at all. Although there are some decorations in various bakeries and bars, and a handful of people go out with make-up or witchs' hats, it is considered strange if someone is in costume (as is my case every year) or gives out candy. My handouts of candy have often been met with confusion, and it is very hard to find confectionary packaged in the way that you can give it to many individuals. Only this year 2009 have I come across 10 package bags of M&Ms, and exclusively at Auchan supermarket. Most people don't even know when Halloween is. All Saints Day is the more embedded and recognized holiday. (Basically Halloween in Italy is celebrated to the extent Carnevale is celebrated in the US)
Support. I'm not a member of this project, but've edited articles that come under its focus, here & there. My $0.02c:
The benefits on the above-linked page make a good case for its merging. As a subgroup it'll remain distinct, with none of the downsides.
It's true many WikiProjects are moribund. Certainly to some degree this project has purely seasonal interest.
If you exclude those users banned or with no edits in the last 4 months from the 12 listed Participants, it reduces to about four fewer still.
The Holidays WikiProject already has one task force (Christmas).
Of its listed Related WikiProjects, the talkarchive of the marked-inactive Festivals project's opposition to its own merge (suggested 21/2 yrs ago), is as its aegis extends to film festivals and the like. If they wished, members could always add the new taskforce under that WikiProject as a redirect too, as the above-linked page points out.
This project's Project Banner (placed on article talkpages) already includes the WikiProject Holidays portal. I imagine the Userbox could easily be tweaked to read Halloween task force rather than WikiProject, to remain specific.
It seems to me at least, the merge proposed—as well as reducing administrative overhead—would pool more resources and attention into efforts to support the aims of this WikiProject. –Whitehorse120:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - particularly for what are seasonal groups, like this one and the Christmas task force, having them as a part of a less seasonal group would make a lot of sense. I doubt there will be many if any people looking at either Christmas or Halloween come April Fools' Day, for instance, but if they are both parts of the Holidays project their content would still appear on the article alerts and people could post to the main project's talk page and reasonably think someone might see it. John Carter (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been six months since this was brought up and the only comments have been unanimous support for moving the project. Unless someone says something to the contrary, I'll start the relocation process. -Mabeenot (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request for comment on Biographies of living people
Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:
Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.
The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect
Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.
Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.
Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people
List of cleanup articles for your project
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"
If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
Watchlisting all unreferenced articles
If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
Shall I go ahead? I will also auto-assess per the settings provided at User:Xenobot/R#WP:BOO. To auto-assess, Xenobot Mk V (talk·contribs) looks for a {{stub}} template on the article, or inherits the class rating from other project banners (see here for further details).
Task complete. 330 edits. –xenotalk 03:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
