User:Realist2/Jackson family wikiproject debate

Since this involves two Wikiprojects, it seems best to hold the proposal in a central place, so here will do.

Phase 1 Michael Jackson and Janet Jackson have Wikiprojects of their own, so it seemed logical to also start a project for The Jackson 5 related articles. The vast majority of articles relating to the musical group are not covered within the scope of WP:MJJ believe it or not. It is not clear by any stretch of the imagination which articles fall within or outside the scope of WP:MJJ. Consensus and custom has shown that editors do not want Jackson 5 related material to be included within the scope of WP:MJJ.

Therefore, I considered starting a separate project for the famous group, but this would have caused unnecessary overlapping of project tagging. For example, it could be argued that Joseph Jackson falls within the scope of WP:MJJ, WP:JANET and a newly created Jackson 5 project. It would have been a little ridiculous in my opinion. Instead, I propose that all articles relating to the Jackson family would be brought together into a super project of 450+ articles, WP:MJJ and WP:JANET could be disbanded as redundant.

As of June 7 it seems there is overwhelming consensus that we should create a Jackson family Wikiproject and some editors would also like specialized units for Michael and Janet. The debate will close when no further comments have been made for an entire week (I want as many people to comment as possible). Therefore, the debate will close no earlier than June 14, assuming we have no further comments.

Could project members debate the issue below and see if we can ascertain consensus. None project members are welcome to add their thoughts too, but should make it clear they are not project members. If you have commented here please add the page to your watchlist until the issue is resolved. I would rather not have to contact people individually. Thanks. — R ² 14:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Phases 2:Could all editors now add their thoughts to the second debate. It will be left open until June 22. Please watchlist this page so that I do not have to keep contacting you all individually. You'll be able to take it of your watchlist again in no mor than a few weeks. — R ² 16:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Debate 1:Proposed Jackson family project (consensus reached) edit

OK, obviously I propose setting up a Jackson family project and disbanding WP:MJJ and WP:JANET. — R ² 14:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I support this idea. Not only would the articles of MJ, JJ and the J5 be covered, but also the articles relating to Rebbie, Jackie, Tito, Jermaine, La Toya, Marlon and Randy. 3T's stuff would be covered as well. I'm guessing that the set-up would be similar to the heirarchy system the the Beatles WikiProject have at their assessment page; all articles under the main topic, and then each artist having their own sub-assessment/quality log. For example, if you take a look at the talk page of "The Girl Is Mine", the bot recognises that it is a Paul McCartney related article, but within the scope the Beatles' WikiProject as a whole. So, yes, it sounds like a great idea to me. Pyrrhus16 14:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Support – (with the proviso that I'm not a member of either project at the moment); there's so much crossover between the membership that it won't make the project unmanageably large, and it saves large amounts of duplication. – iride scent 15:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Support :) Thankyoubaby (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Support; makes sense to organize and expand coverage TechOutsider (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Support; I'm down for that. I always thought the whole family should be organized properly starting from Joseph all the way down to Auggie, this will be great. I'm down for it. :) BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 18:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment; I think having a Jackson family group that covers everything is important, but we can still have sub-groups for MJ and JJ. Better that way. Sometime sub-division is useful to stop confusion. And at the end of the day, it doesn't matter much anyway, really. You guys are gonna do a decent job either way. (The Elfoid (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC))
Support; Great idea. I am all for that, especially since most Jackson 5 articles are not able to be under the current wikiprojects set up for Michael and Janet. A Jacksons' wikiproject would be very beneficial for all Jackson-related material. CarpetCrawler^{message me} 21:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Support Although I opposed such a massive project originally, it seems much more realistic in retrospect. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Support Though I'm not a member, I admit that the idea of combining all of them together will be good and enable us to develop further. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
support Very good idea. We need it. Thank you. --X7000matrix (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
support Agreed. Im sure we can somehow find great enough info on all jacksons. (i didnt even know we had a project janet!) MaJic (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Support And like The Elfoid said, it'd still be interesting to mantain subdivisions for Michael and Janet. Funk Junkie (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Support There is a fair amount of overlap, and they are all of the same family, so it seems like a good idea. Ss 112 13:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Support Per The Bookkeeper. --Efe (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, there is clear consensus, we will have a Jackson family project. — R ² 16:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Debate 2:Should we have projects/task forces for MJ and JJ alongside the family project? edit

It is clear from the first debate that some editors would like to retain specialized groups for Michael and Janet, alongside a newly formed Jackson family project. We need to gauge the level of support for this. In my opinion the Jackson family project alone will be enough. Having these specialized units will be overly bureaucratic and complex. The Jackson family project was proposed to overcome this. The Jackson family project alone will be a lot to handle, we only have 30 members between the two projects and many of those editors are not active on a weekly basis. It has been suggested that we follow a similar system to the Beatles Wikiproject, whereby there are also individual bodies for the group members. It should be noted that the Beatles project is much more popular than ours and I do not believe we have the work force to sustain such an ambitious structure. What does everyone else think? Kind regards. — R ² 16:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a single project, but with michael=yes, janet=yes, jackson5=yes etc parameters, to allow people to quickly filter out all the Michael or Janet related material? (See the {{TrainsWikiProject}} template, with its japan=yes, subway=yes etc parameters for what I'm trying to say here.) That said, I'm not sure there are enough articles to make it an issue; the Beatles project needs such bloated subsections because they have a separate article on every song from every album, and that's not the case here; I'm sure a dedicated Jermaine fan (there must be some) would already know which articles related to him. – iride scent 16:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I like that idea. Although, I can go with just the single assessment system if it's easier (looks a pain in the butt to set up). Pyrrhus16 17:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I like it too and I agree with Pyrrhus, a single assessment system would definitely work. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 18:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I support this idea as well. MaJic (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, keeps things focused --X7000matrix (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 20:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed as well. Funk Junkie (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, it looks like we will have a parameter system, I will being setting up the project in the next few days. — Please comment R ² 14:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)