Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers/Waterfalls task force

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 10 sections are present.

Elakala Falls assistance

Can I get some assistance from more experienced editors to improve Elakala Falls to be a WP:DYK. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 13:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revised Infobox

I have developed a new version of the {{Infobox waterfall}} with features comparable to {{Infobox protected area}}, {{Infobox park}}, and {{Infobox mountain}}. Examples are here and the code is here. Please share you thoughts on the template discussion page. –droll [chat] 17:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aberkaruru-falls.jpg

image:Aberkaruru-falls.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Staubbach Fall listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Staubbach Fall to be moved to Staubbach Falls. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Water resource regions category tree discussion

There's a discussion at WP:RIVERS talk about creating a category tree for North American bodies of water based on the USGS hydrological unit codes / Water resource regions that may be of interest to participants in this wikiproject. Please feel free to weigh in. -Furicorn (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Portal:Niagara Falls for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Niagara Falls is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Niagara Falls until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark as inactive/defunct?

Hi all. Sadly it has been many years since any discussion seems to have happened on this page. Should we mark this page as inactive and/or mark the project as defunct and merge it into the more active WP:RIVERS? The benefit of doing so is that newer editors interested in the topic would then find a more active community to join. The downside is that if we merge the project we'll lose the separate record (kept by the talk page tags of this project) of all articles about waterfalls. Thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC) @Epolk, Cacophony, Huwmanbeing, Shannon1, MChew, Daniel Case, The High Fin Sperm Whale, and Dlthewave: Pinging active editors on the participants list. Thanks all. Ajpolino (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

We could see about making this a task force under the rivers project ... Daniel Case (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not active within the project, and I agree that a merge would be appropriate. We could set up a Waterfalls Task Force within WP:RIVERS so that the article record, class ratings and importance would be preserved. I don't have the technical knowledge to carry it out, but it seems like an automated process could be used to convert all of the "Waterfalls" banners to "Rivers - waterfalls=yes". –dlthewave ☎ 17:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, checing for objections at WT:RIVERS, barring further objection I'll start the merge in a week or two. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox for the Falls of Clyde?

Hi everybody, me and another user, Zacwill, do not agree whether having the {{Infobox waterfall}} in the Falls of Clyde article is useful for our readers. Instead of starting an edit war, I prefer asking an assessment to users expert and interested in this topic. You can look both at the history of the article and at the contributions of mine and of Zacwill to make your own idea on it. I'd be grateful of your contribution, which I'll accept whatever it will be. --Pampuco (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]