Wikipedia talk:WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area/Collaboration

message: I think it'd be great if this could be up and running, so I chose Oakland for this month's collaboration. This is just to introduce this idea. In the future, I hope the collaboration is determined democratically by the members of the project. Anyone is welcome to propose a nomination for March. — Emiellaiendiay 03:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: February 2007

message: March is almost here (at least by Pacific Standard Time). Here are the possiblities:
*San Francisco, with focus on maintaining FA status by adding citations where needed
*Golden Gate Park (see comments and suggestions by DaveOinSF, above)
*Joshua A. Norton, with focus on restoring previous FA status
So, which would you choose?
— Emiellaiendiay 03:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would favour either San Francisco to maintain FA (by the way, i should be able to dig up the H. congestum source) or Golden Gate Park, the latter of which really will need a lot of work (e.g. there is virtually nothing presently on geology and natural history for example). Also i really agree with DaveOinSF's comment that, in the future, we should eschew high profile articles; given the worldwide wikipedia community, they are a built in hornet's nest. Anlace 06:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with any of the proposed articles. How about the final decision be left up to Anlace, who is currently leading in Jumpaclass? — Emiellaiendiay 06:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I also vote for San Francisco – I know some people don't like going over an article that's already been awarded FA status, but work on it really needs to be done. I think there are some other things the article needs beyond just reference checking, such as a section on "Geography: Natural history" (yes, San Francisco has a natural history :), so it wouldn't all just be reference checking. (However, Golden Gate Park would be my next choice.) Peter G Werner 19:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's make a decision

message: I've seen a number of WikiProjects that have gotten burnt out on collaborations because all of the collaborations are major topics that require quite a bit of work to improve. You might think about occasionally interspersing smaller or for 'fun' articles (e.g. Emperor Norton) to allow some variety and breathing space between tackling the major articles. 
There are also two former Featured articles| with Bay Area connections, which should be easier to improve: Joshua A. Norton (aka Emperor Norton) and Golden Gate Park. BlankVerse 12:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion: 

message: I would encourage a rotating schedule of collaborations.  Since February's article is East Bay based, and March's is likely to be San Francisco-based, I would suggest that April's be based on an article involving Silicon Valley or the Peninsula and May's be based on the North Bay or Wine Country region.  This way, we spread the love around.--DaveOinSF 16:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a great idea. I second it. — Emiellaiendiay 22:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I third. Peter G Werner 09:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and i fourth it. Anlace 06:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotation of collaborations 

message: Any thought on possibly recapping/critiquing what was accomplished on this page (and future pages) after its collaborative month? --Fizbin 23:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And seeing as how this is April, did we ever come up with a March page? Or April??--Fizbin 23:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to Oakland for a Minute 

message: It's well over a month since anyone has posted anything here, so I am wondering of this Collaboration nomination is still going or not. Hydrogen Iodide 19:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it still going?