Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reference works
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Please assess
[edit]Please assess Fictitious entry. Thanks! 11:32, 3 October 2018
Requested move at Talk:Baike.com#Requested move 29 February 2024
[edit]
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Baike.com#Requested move 29 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Merger with WP:WikiProject Books
[edit]Considering this project is inactive and the scope entirely overlaps with the scope of WikiProject Books, I think it would make sense for a merger to be done to reduce the amount of inactive projects without losing any data. This can either be done as a task force (in which case pages would remain tagged for the project but just as a task force) or a complete merge, whichever people want. My motive for this is partially that many, many books that fall within the scope of WP Books are only tagged with this inactive project - and while I could tag all of them as this one as well, I feel this project's scope is needlessly duplicative. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's a shame because "Reference works" is a good grouping but there doesn't appear to be enough activity to warrant a task force. We could merge it, but I also think it's fine to leave it dormant/historical. czar 22:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Czar I disagree on leaving it dormant/historical because then it still shows up as an option for people to tag, instead of this project, which results in people tagging a project with 0 active editors instead of this active one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it can be said that it has zero active editors because I'm replying here. I also don't think it will become any more "active" for merging under Books. czar 03:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Czar You aren't listed as a member of this project and since I notified WP books I assume you came from there. Well it will at least get rid of the fact that people tag a project which has inactive everything, including inactivated banners and assessments and categories. Its scope is also duplicated - I can't think of a single thing that would be tagged here that doesn't fall under the "books" or "literature" projects. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it can be said that it has zero active editors because I'm replying here. I also don't think it will become any more "active" for merging under Books. czar 03:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Czar I disagree on leaving it dormant/historical because then it still shows up as an option for people to tag, instead of this project, which results in people tagging a project with 0 active editors instead of this active one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ended up here randomly. I'd suggest just marking the projet as defunct and removing all the tags entirely, not even bother with a merge. Less is more - this is a needless duplication of WP:BOOKS. The last talk page discussion that got a response was back in 2016, and over a rather trivial matter of tagging. Anyone with a discussion matter to raise about reference works should raise it at BOOKS for a larger set of eyes. SnowFire (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)