The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Taskforcify - did we settle on that as the verb or is taskforcificate still in contention, ackward but taskforcification is a better gerund form. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Myst[edit]

Project created with only one member. Aside from the fact that the scope of the project is ten articles, all of which are already GA or FA, a similar project failed to attract significant attention previously on WikiProject council. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really think that I'd be able to keep it. Oh well...Hi878 (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, couldn't the GA articles still be improved? Just a thought...Hi878 (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. But WikiProjects with such a small scope and only one member aren't effective. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - David, maybe it would have more members if you actually let it exist a little longer before sidelining it - little acorns take a damn long time to grow into oaks, you know. :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games as a task force. It looks like there's more than a dozen similar task forces. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Considering most of the Myst related articles are already FA or GA status, I don't think a task force is even necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtyq2 (talk • contribs)
Delete per the above user who forgot to sign. Since this is a project with only one member, and most of the Myst articles are well loved (unlike, say, the COUNTRY MUSIC ARTICLES, hint hint), this wouldn't even be useful as a task force. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - project was only two days old when nommed for deletion (I glided right over the creation date, doh). //roux 23:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC) ~~Move and taskforcify~~ ~~per WhatamIdoing. Let WP:VG deal with it; comes under their purview. //roux 18:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete per TPH - as much as I'd love a Myst Wikiproject (and have, in the past, thought of setting one up) it's just plain not needed. As stated above, we don't even need a taskforce - the remit of this project covers a small number of articles, most of which are already at a very high standard. _Talk Islander 19:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form. Upon further consideration, the extreme youth of the project warrants keeping it where it is, unless there is consensus to change it to a task force. Also, Thor Malmjursson has joined the project. My "on the other hand" was addressed by Hi878 and has been struck out. Gotyear (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Weak move and taskforcify. On the one hand, this was created on November 30 2008, so it's hard to determine lack of long-term interest. GAs and even FAs can be improved or drift off of their gold standard, potentially spawning additional good subarticles if the source material exists. (I know there's WP:FAR and WP:GAR, but such a taskforce could help if there's interest.) ~~On the other hand, Hi878 didn't reply to Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs' concerns for 2 days while adding more WikiProject Myst banners, responding only once the MfD was underway.~~ (Is Hi878's 2nd comment a keep !vote?) Gotyear (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh wow, I'm an idiot.. I didn't even notice the creation date. Nominating a project for deletion when it's only been alive for three days? I'm changing my vote. //roux 23:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I could not have read Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs' concern, because for some reason my computer crashed every time I tried to open my talk page. It started working again after a couple of days, after I had already posted the banners. Hi878 (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Taskforcify. Just not needed, articles are already as good as they are going to get, all that I can see happening is more low-quality/stub articles being created, diluting the good work that has been put into the current set. Quality over quantity and all that. Seeing that there is unlikely to be any more Myst games, at least in the foreseeable future, there's no further expansion even required, the articles are totally stable. 6 months ago I would have welcomed and joined such a project, but any work that could have been done has already been completed. Rehevkor ✉ 17:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A project or task force could help maintain the quality, with nip/tucks and small additions, or larger ones created from notable out-of-universe material. Gotyear (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This reminds me of a similar Kingdom Hearts project. I'm sure this project was created in good faith, but the amount of work left to improve on the limited amount of articles does not seem to justify a project or even a task force. The necessary discussions and collaborations are already taking place on the article talk pages. I hate to be bitey to a newcomer, but I think such a project would serve more as a distraction (unnecessary bureaucracy) to improving the articles, rather than help. The limited, cosmetic edit history also means very little would be lost if deleted. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or taskforcify and re-evaluate in a month or two: a one-person Wikiproject is inappropriate, particularly when all the articles are already of a high quality. I appreciate the editor's good faith effort to get involved, though. Randomran (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With the exception of a single article which is undergoing a merge discussion, every single article in the project's scope is a GA, about half of them are FAs. The job is already done and there's not going to be a glut of new articles appearing under its remit, so it's serving no purpose apart from being another tiny project which will slide into disuse and end up getting folded into the video game project as an unused taskforce or deleted altogether. Which isn't to say that the participation isn't welcomed (as I'm sure everyone here feels), but there are a thousand better things to sink time into than more red-tape and paperwork when the whole lot's just going to get wrapped up at some point and binned. Someone another 12:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.