Re: Egyptology project

Daniel Mayer wrote:

>Ec wrote:
>
>>I think that the only place where this is likely to draw 
>>a crowd is on the English Wikipedia.  Things tend to be 
>>more easily forgotten and  ignored when they're on meta.
>>
>Oh like the logo vote, the press release or the article count definition vote? 
>Meta is the natural place to corrdinate between different projects and 
>language versions. It's use should be encouraged, not discouraged.
>
Discussions already happen in so many different places that some are 
bound to be ignored.  The same can be said about wikilegal as about 
Meta.  People went to Meta for the logo vote because it was well 
publicized that it was happening there.  In a sense you are right in 
saying that it is the natural place to co-ordinate between projects, but 
that does not reflect the way that people are.  Any one of us can keep 
up with a limited number of sites, whether they be on or off of 
Wikimedia, so that at some point certain things have to be ignored.  It 
is on that basis that I mostly ignore Meta.  I go there occasionally 
when I hear of something happening, or sometimes just to look at how 
some topics are doing, but there's no regularity in that.  I'm already 
on four of the mailing lists; they already take a good chunk of time. 
 My current Wikipedia watchlist has 137 items, and I strive to keep it 
trimmed.  I rarely look at the Village Pump, and find VfD to be a big 
time-waster.  By contrast, I regularly visit Wiktionary's Recent 
Changes, and work to keep up with answering question in its counterpart 
to Village Pump.  That's all before taking time to work on something 
more specific, either on Wikipedia or Wiktionary.  I've added bits to 
Meta, the fr.wikipedia, and Wikibooks, but these contributions have been 
trivial by comparison.  It's all about time management.

> However, I must admit that the way things have usually happened so far is that 
>a WikiProject is started on en.wikipedia, developed, and then it is largely 
>copied by other languages.... So since WikiProjects are directly related to 
>article creation, they should be on an actual Wikipedia, not meta. There can 
>be a coordinating page on meta though, but the actual template development 
>would probably be best done on one or more of the actual encyclopedia 
>projects (so links in a table, for example, actually go to articles and not 
>edit pages). 
>
Exactly, and it needs to be emphasized that it does not have to be 
"en.wikipedia" that initiates the project.  I believe that most of the 
advocates for an Egyptology are from the Polish wikipedia.  I don't mind 
if the project's early development takes place on pl.

>For example the Countries of the World WikiProject has a dump of a great many 
>country tables that can be semi-automatically translated with find/replace:
>
>http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_world_tables
>
>That type of thing seems to be a logical use of meta. 
>
>http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_collaboration
>
>Is also a good link. 
>
Of course they are;  what is needed is a way of letting those who are 
most likely to be interested that they are there.

Ec

>