Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Improve Kauai article

Hello! I've decided to take on the task of improving the article on the island of Kauai. It's of interest to me as I've been there before and figured the article could use some improvement. I'm asking here to get some help and also some opinions as to what needs to be done to improve the article (I know some sources need to be found for sure). Any assistance with this is welcome. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

To start with, there are some sections where are citations are needed. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Inactive

Per what is described in WP:INACTIVEWP, this project appears to be inactive. If no one objects to this then I will go ahead and mark this project as being inactive. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Since it has been a few hours and I"ve received no response I'll mark it as inactive. Since the project is inactive I don't see a reason to wait the typical 7 days for a discussion. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I object. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: Would you mind elaborating as to why? Per the Wikiproject Council guide's section on dealing with inactive WikiProjects (WP:INACTIVEWP) it states "Projects are generally considered inactive if the talk page has received nothing other than routine/automated announcements or unanswered queries for a year or more." which this appears to have. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

By definition, the Talk page is now active. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: No... neither of us members of this WikiProject. The only activity has been my question above (which it going unanswered led me to see if it was inactive) and this question is simply seeing if it is inactive. Simply objecting and stating that because you objected, the talk page is active doesn't mean it's active. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't realize becoming a member was so exclusive. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I would just note that you waited less than eight hours for responses, starting at 3:00 am Hawaii Standard Time. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the reason was because this project seemed inactive so I didn't expect a response. Also, I don't go off of Hawaii–Aleutian Time (Hawaii is always Standard time cause they don't observe DST), I go off of UTC and also my own timezone which is Central Time zone. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

You waited only eight hours? Are you serious? It does not matter what timezone that your are in, if you do not give sufficient time for a response, you are operating under only your conclusion. Peaceray (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

It did seem a bit inopportune for a discussion related to this project to be opened and closed when many of the editors who may have been interested in the subject were either sleeping, stuck in traffic, or just beginning work/school. Regardless of the time zone, more time than just "a few hours" should be allowed for interested people to respond – even if the project really is inactive, there's no rush to mark it as such. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree this seems a bit rushed. Maybe give it a week? CT55555(talk) 04:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

WikiProjects in general are in need of modernization. This is one of the WikiProjects where I have actually noticed that there are editors interested in Hawaii who have actively contributed to articles I have worked on over the past year, like Danny Kaleikini and Kahala Hotel & Resort. Not to mention the fact that there is very strong content being created under the WikiProject Hawaii banner on an ongoing basis. It all happened without going through this project Talk page, so maybe people are monitoring content through Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii/Article alerts or via other routes, but to me it's a sign that there is in fact a community that actively supports the WikiProject. Mahalo nui loa for your kokua everyone. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, and the various recent non-automated posts above, I also object to marking this project as inactive. If I need to formally click some buttons to make myself a member for this objection to be meaningful, then I'll do it, but that seems unnecessarily bureaucratic. CT55555(talk) 05:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

As an active member of this Wikiproject who tags and assesses new articles based on the new articles feed and works through the cleanup listing, I object to the idea that this Wikiproject is not active. There may not be much talk page on the discussion but as you can see from the objections there are people monitoring this page. I also think that waiting less than the typical 7 days for a response is unreasonable, especially given that all Wikipedia editors are volunteers and may not be able to respond immediately. Mcampany (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I see now that it was quite stupid of me to quickly decide that the project was inactive before even waiting a full day. I do think maybe the definition should mention that if a project does seemingly become active again, that project should remain active for a period of time or else it should be marked as semi-active (not inactive since the project isn't completely dead) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf I think your definition question is one that probably belongs in a different, more central venue so that more editors can see it and discuss. If you decide to do that I would like to point out a phrase in WP:INACTIVEWP that you should consider: "While inactive projects do no harm to the encyclopedia, it may be beneficial to tag them as inactive, in order to divert interested editors to more active projects on similar topics" (emphasis mine). I don't think there is a good reason to divert attention from a geographical Wikiproject. Marking a project as inactive makes sense when the project's goal has been completed, like a temporary cleanup project or a former maintenance task that has since been automated. In those cases an editor should be discouraged from spending time on that project. However, a geographical Wikiproject does not have an end and will constantly expand as historical research is conducted and contemporary people do notable things. Discouraging editors from working in those topic areas would slow growth and improvement, so I'm not sure how marking a geographical Wikiproject as inactive would benefit Wikipedia as a whole. Thanks, Mcampany (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I object. I believe this project continues to be active and valuable. DaKine (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

AfD for Hannah Kihalani Springer

Here is an AfD discussion which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Kihalani Springer

Cielquiparle (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Article was kept. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed Merge discussion for Shave ice

Here is a proposed Merge discussion which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. The proposal is to merge Shave ice into the main article for Shaved ice. One of the suggestions so far is to simply rename Shave ice to Hawaiian shave ice.

Talk:Shaved ice#Proposed merge of Shave ice into Shaved ice

Cielquiparle (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom § Treaty of Reciprocity

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom § Treaty of Reciprocity. Peaceray (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Content assessment

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about the use of Hawaiian diacritical marks at Talk:2023 Hawaii wildfires#Use of Hawaiian symbols in names

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2023 Hawaii wildfires § Use of Hawaiian symbols in names. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this, @Aoi! This is a discussion I'm also quite invested in, and I have a lot of thoughts just like you. Orthography and the linguistic landscape of Hawaiʻi is one of the focuses of my research. I've left some comments there previously, and I look forward to future discussion there and/or here. –Fpmfpm (talk) 04:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I just wanted to ask what the general WikiProject consensus was on adding kahakō and ʻokina to other pages relating to Hawaiʻi? I was the one who added it initially on the page Aoi referenced (though I honestly didn't check what Wikipedia's stance was on it), and was wondering if it was sort of a by-consensus ordeal or if there was a general rule. I know with some other topics that I've tried working on, such as Classical Composers, certain things are on a page by page basis, so I'm interested in what the general rule is.

I also have no idea if this is the correct place to discuss, so apologies if it's the wrong place! Pacamah (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I’ve commented extensively in there, but I think it’s time Wikipedia started using the correct spelling, as opposed to assuming the mainland perception is WP:COMMONNAME. Plenty of movement from the state (with references) towards an increasing use of the ʻokina and kahakō, and it’s simply incorrect that many articles list the dropped orthography as the “English” spelling and the correct spelling as “Hawaiian” when realistically with the exception of the state itself (where the statehood act lacked the ʻokika) the spelling in English generally uses the correct orthography.

There’s also some very fair criticisms that mainland sources are not WP:RS for Hawaiian place names whereas local sources are much more consistent. Warrenmck (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Campaign to upload Lāhainā photographs

Aloha! There has been tremendous attention to the 2023 Hawaii wildfires article. The prediction from ORES is that it could already be at Featured article quality, if not for its lack of stability. This is with the article being less than a week old. A lot of people truly care about what has happened to Lāhainā.

It has occurred to me that we have another opportunity here, which is to ask for pre-wildfire image that are culturally or architecturally significant so that we can codify the memory of Lāhainā as it was. Such an effort was done after the National Museum of Brazil fire with this campaign on Commons. I am in conversation with an Commons administrator & one of the Upload Wizard campaign editors on how to do this.

Meanwhile, there is a category for anyone uploading pictures for the first time that we have set up, c:Category:Images of Lahaina, Hawaii (review needed). Categorization is really helpful, but at the same time it is difficult for new uploaders to navigate.

The Commons administrator also suggested this: When you do your request, probably remind people that if they have existing images online & don't want to do their own uploading to Commons, they can just license them appropriately (recommend CC-BY-SA, ideally 4.0) and let your WikiProject know where they are so someone can upload them, citing the original post as a source. Especially useful if they are on Flickr, where we have the Flickr2Commons tool available. One can find information about that licensing at c:Commons:Licensing#Well-known licenses.

I thought I would start by posting here, then notifying WikiProject Hawaii editors. Although I lived for nearly fourteen years on Oahu, & visited Maui a few times, I have no photos from my brief visits to Lāhainā, let alone anything culturally or architecturally significant. I am hoping that some of you do. Peaceray (talk) 04:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, as that Commons admin Peaceray just alluded to: anyone who may already have any post-fire images, those are also extremely welcome. - Jmabel | Talk 19:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I live on Maui and was raised here. I don't often go to the west side, but if we're in dire need, I can always request donated photos via a facebook post. GeekInParadise (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I have photos of Lāhainā from around late 2021 – if there's any types/subjects of photos that anyone specifically requests or believes are needed, please let me know and I can take a look this weekend at what I have and try to upload some stuff onto Commons. For post-fire images, if anyone uses Reddit, I've found that users there are often very amenable to helping out improving public knowledge on Wikipedia for articles like these, and are pretty open to uploading their photos if you suggest it to them (not a lot of people think about this, or realize they need to be the one to release the rights in order for them to be able to be used!) If they don't have the technical ability to upload photos themselves, they can always give you public permission to do it in their stead. It seems @GeekInParadise had a similar thought re: Facebook too. –Fpmfpm (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Please do no campaign for images. Instead, we could try to sort through and categorize and even request for images (per guidelines) but this is something we need to understand might not be helpful at this moment. I can't even bring myself to respond to Viriditas' comment on my talk page because of his help with an image and other stuff. Probably not helpful. But I will agree with consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "campaign" (aside from its usage in the title of this topic, but you replied to my post specifically) and my interpretation wasn't that anyone was saying that this needs to be done imminently, "at this moment", or anything of the sort. I frankly don't understand what any of the second half of your reply means either. Hypothetically, casually discussing where people could collectively source photos, when needed, and asking an opinion on what/which these might be seems completely fine to me. I also offered to upload my own photos… –Fpmfpm (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mark Miller and Fpmfpm: Campaign is a Namespace on Commons specifically & on MediaWiki implementations on which it is installed in general.

Campaigns on Commons can have default categories. We intend to us the c:Category:Images of Lahaina, Hawaii (review needed) for the default category.

I firmly believe that this an opportune time to ask people to upload culturally or architecturally significant legacy images of Lāhainā. Peaceray (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia language switcher in sidebar?

I'm not sure where to ask or what to do about this since it's a site-wide MediaWiki thing, and not about editing articles or whatnot, but I figure someone here may know… for articles that have Hawaiian versions of them (i.e. a corresponding haw.wikipedia.org article is associated via the WikiData item) – for example Oʻahu – in the "Languages" section in the sidebar, it just says <Hawaiʻi>. Should this not be <ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi>? To my knowledge, that is how you say "Hawaiian" in Hawaiian – not just "Hawaiʻi". The article for Hawaiian language seems to confirm this. Other world languages follow this linguistic pattern of having the word for "language; speech" preceding the country name too, e.g. Bahasa Indonesia for Indonesian and Bahasa Melayu for Malay (these languages are also often referred to as just "Bahasa", just like people just say "ʻōlelo" to mean Hawaiian). And indeed, the "Languages" sidebar option lists Bahasa Indonesia, and Bahasa Melayu… but for Hawaiian it is just Hawaiʻi, not ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi. I'm not an expert on the language by any means but shouldn't this be changed? It's missing a word, right? How do we alert global Wikipedia admins about this? –Fpmfpm (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

"English" vs "Hawaiian" names

There appears to be a standard on Wikipedia of presenting the version of a name without the ʻokina or kahakō as "English" and the other as "Hawaiian", which is a pretty arbitrary distinction on Wikipedia that isn't reflected in local usage. See Waikiki, for example:

"Waikiki (/ˌwaɪkɪˈkiː/; Hawaiian: Waikīkī; Hawaiian: [vɐjˈtiːtiː, wɐjˈkiːkiː]; also known as Waikiki Beach)"

But that very clearly is not true. Discussions on this topic in the recent Maui wildfire talk page have made it pretty clear that there's a high degree of misunderstanding on this. I'd like to get some discussion going to develop consensus about how best to handle this, because what exists on Wikipedia now fails WP:VERIFY spectacularly.

My proposal is we replace the above quoted section, where appropriate (which would be most articles except the state, which is officially "Hawaii" per the statehood act) with the following structure:

"Waikīkī (/ˌwaɪkɪˈkiː, wɐjˈkiːkiː, vɐjˈtiːtiː/ often simplified as 'Waikiki'), also known as Waikīkī Beach"

Which is an accurate reflection of the usage of the kahakō in the state, as opposed to the construct above which attempts to relegate the Hawaiian orthography to exclusive use with the Hawaiian language. This would also involve changing the page name and creating a redirect. I expect, given the Maui fires discussion, we're going to see a lot of resistance from people with a fundamental misunderstanding of what an ʻokina is, so building some consensus first is probably a good idea. Note that this proposal is already in place for the most part in MOS for Hawaii-related articles, so the only real change I'm proposing is changing how the information is presented in the initial line, plus suggesting we go on a cleaning spree. Warrenmck (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• Right off hand, I don't know where the dictates of this are on this project. But it has always been that the use is the ʻokina is correct on this project. — Maile (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• Warrenmck I found the guideline. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles. Hope this helps. — Maile (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Maile I likned that in my post, but thank you for making it clearer. It's a good resource for others, but like I said my big concern is that a single user attempting to enforce the MOS without wider consensus for some of the less clearcut changes (see the indented examples in my original post) there's going to be concerns I'm out to right great wrongs. Warrenmck (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with the changes to the lead sentences, but for the article titles, I'm leaning oppose. MOS Hawaii still recommends following WP:COMMONNAME, and Google gives 65.9M results for Waikiki and <1M for Waikīkī. Most of the sources you shared are local organizations which don't reflect a worldwide view of the topic. Changing the article titles feels a bit like righting great wrongs, like you said. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 03:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  @TarkusAB I think it’s erroneous to treat it as the common name when it’s generally just a result of not having access to the correct keys, rather than any kind of convention, but I also don’t think that one is cut and dry. The issue is the correct orthography is often the common name locally, as well. Sheer numbers aren’t the end-all of this imo, but again, I think that’s open to discussion. “Waikiki” vs “Waikīkī” is a simple factual issue, for example. Warrenmck (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  @TarkusAB I think it’s also worth considering that the cultualral attitudes around indigenous names have strongly changed since the last serious time this was discussed in, I believe, ‘06. @Turnagra‘s examples about NZ are good ones in this case. I think there’s an issue with treating something as WP:COMMONNAME when it’s factually incorrect, and the preponderance of English language sources would fail WP:RS on this one. That may be a hot take, but I’d say the reliable English language sources we should be using are predominantly local ones. I’m very aware this is likely controversial and hence me trying to not act unilaterally here. Warrenmck (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  OK, I guess I'm feeling more neutral on this. I'd like to hear other comments. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 22:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Have you had a look at the New Zealand Naming Conventions? We've had similar questions in our corner of the Pacific around the use of tohutō (the Māori word for a macron) in the past, and have settled on a reasonably strong policy in favour of their use. We've got an official government gazetteer which is pretty good at recording accurate spellings of Māori names, which we use as a basis for our names - even if the spelling without a macron is common usage. I'm not sure if there is an equivalent database in Hawaii which is as good at recording kahakō and ʻokina, but that could be an option if there's a reliable database which could be used to determine proper spelling.

For what it's worth, I'm very much in favour of what you're proposing - there seems to be a worrying trend of people claiming that any name that isn't derived from English isn't the "English name", regardless of actual usage. Properly using kahakō and ʻokina seem like a no-brainer when there's a clear example. In the case you mentioned, I highly doubt that anyone would look at Waikīkī and think that it's something different from Waikiki. Turnagra (talk) 06:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Women in Green's 5th Edit-a-thon

Hello WikiProject Hawaii:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2023!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)