Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/BMW Motorcycle

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Council‎ | Proposals
The following discussion is an archived proposal of the WikiProject below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.

The resulting WikiProject was created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling/BMW Motorcycles

Description edit

DAFMM (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This WikiProject would have the aim of creating and developing a page for each model group (eg. R2, R35, R50 and R60, R69, R24 and R25 and R27 etc.) of BMW motorcycle produced in the company's history. The primary aim of the project, would to be able to create a highly valuable resource for both enthusiasts and restorers such as myself, where all the information and history about each model (both new and old) could be found. Not only this, but it would encourage motorcycle enthusiasts, who would not normally have used Wikipedia, to both use its resources and to contribute to the project's pages, becoming part of the motorcycle fraternity which would be the driving force behind this community. Once this task has been completed of English Wikipedia, I, with help of other editors and members of the project, would like to then translate the pages into other languages (particularly German, in order to make the resources available in Germany, where many BMW enthusiasts and restorers are concentrated), and so contribute to the wider Wikipedia group. The WikiProject, would also contribute large numbers of pictures to Wikimedia, as part of its galleries.

In order to promote the group and encourage the growth of the articles in our scope, the WikiProject would not only be promoted to present editors who are active editing articles on BMW itself and motorcycles in general, but also notify groups such as the Vintage Motor Cycle Club and the BMW Club in the U.K., which would encourage members (20,000+) to contribute some of the extensive knowledge of the topic which is demonstrated by members of these clubs. Members of the WikiProject who are active in clubs outside of the U.K., would also be encouraged to promote the Project to their respective society, making the WikiProject multinational. Current, more experienced editors, would then help the 'new boys' to use Wikipedia and share their knowledge, which has often been built up during the course a lifetime of passion for BMW motorcycles. This would enable us, together, to produce a resource which will help generations long into the future and help preserve and catalogue BMW's legacy in the motorcycle industry.

If successful, the idea could serve as a blueprint and be replicated for other motorcycle manufacturers.

Subject Categories edit

However, the WikiProject would not only like to add to the current articles, but create new ones on each individual model. This would mean that the number of articles would dramatically increase. A full list of proposed articles (primarily models which are not yet covered specifically by the present articles) will be published in the near future.

Present Related Projects edit

List of important pages and categories for this proposed group
List of WikiProjects currently on the talk pages of those articles
Please invite these and any other similar groups to join the discussion about this proposal. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory to find similar WikiProjects.

Why Start a New Group? edit

Currently, there are no such WikiProjects which would be dedicated solely to the BMW motorcycles (not even BMW itself) and the development of pages on each individual model, in opposed to the current situation where some models are briefly referred on a BMW related page. This WikiProject would allow this community of people who are highly knowledgeable about this specific topic to develop articles in extreme depth, something not possible with larger groups, which could then be published on the world wide web, available gratis, as with all Wikipedia articles, to the public.

Support edit

Please specify whether or not you would join the project.

  1. DAFMM (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC) It should be a non-independent task force under WikiProject Motorcycling[reply]
  3. Thruxton (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jeffrey M Dean Jeffrey M Dean (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Andrewa (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support this proposal for a standalone project. I do support a special interest group or similar within the existing motorcycles wikiproject. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

  • Comment I would join this group. However, here are some users who object to me uploading and posting photos of BMW motorcycles. User:Biker Biker for one feels that when I upload a photo and include it in an article, I am "pushing" myself on Wikipedia even though this has been done thousands of times by hundreds or thousands of users.

    Thus this warning. If I contribute to your articles, you may well find my contributions repeatedly deleted by others who have their own agendas and apparently surveil me.

    Perhaps my better contribution to you would be to help you research models and answer questions.

    [http: //bmwdean.com/index.html The Dean of BMW Motorcycle Web Sites]

    [http: //bmwdean.com/r100gs.htm R100GS]

    [http: //bmwdean.com/r75.htm R75/5]

    [http: //bmwdean.com/r60-2.htm R60/2]

    [http: //bmwdean.com/r69s.htm R69S]

    [http: //bmwdean.com/r68.htm R68]

    [http: //bmwdean.com/r32.htm R32]

    [http: //bmwdean.com/scarlett.htm Red R60/2]]

    [http: //bmwdean.com/r51.htm R51/3][http: //bmwdean.com/r67-3.htm R67/3]

    [http: //bmwdean.com/r24.htm R24]

    [http: //bmwdean.com/r1200rt.htm R1200RT]

    [http: //bmwdean.com/slash2.htm BMW /2s]

    [http: //bmwdean.com/r25-3.htm R25/3]

    [http: //bmwdean.com/weiss.htm Dover white R60/2]

    [http: //bmwdean.com/earles-fork.htm The Earles Fork]

    [http: //bmwdean.com/Stafford.htm The Art of BMW Motorcycle Restoration]

    --Jeffrey M Dean (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any contributions, especially photos, would be greatly appreciated. I have just had a look at your web pages and they look very good indeed. It is these sorts of contributions and this knowledge which I mentioned in the description and which is invaluable for the task. Thank you very much for your interest hopefully we will be able to see some of your work transferred over to Wikipedia in the future! DAFMM (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have another possibility for you to consider. You could email me your email address and I could then send you photos directly that way. You could upload them instead of me and then there would be no problem with the photos being used on Wikipedia because my name would not be associated with them, thus avoiding the "Dean surveillance." If you want to try this or have any other ideas, my email address is jeff@bmwdean.com.
F.Y.I.: Verill's web page Vech's web pageJeffrey M Dean (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok sure. I will drop you an email tomorrow if you think that's the best way forward. Many thanks. DAFMM (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links by the way. The other very useful site based here in the U.K. is Phil Hawksley's BMBikes. DAFMM (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm all in favor of a new BMW Motorcycles WikiProject if it improves articles and increases participation, especially if it recruits new Wikipedians.

    However, the aims of the project cannot include "creating and developing a page for each model of BMW motorcycle", and the project's pages should not encourage editors to create a new article for every single BMW model. Doing so would contradict the guideline WP:Notability.

    Specifically, see WP:NRVE, where it says, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition." Just because a model of vehicle was designated by a company does not in itself imply a new article. Many "models" are just badge engineering or different names for geographic marketing purposes. There's nothing special about cars or motorcycles that gives them more notability than a film or a video game or a toaster. Each must meet notability on its own merits. See also WP:PRODUCT.

    This is not really bad news for the project. Many vehicles, and BMW Motorrad in particular, have numerous sub-models which are only trivially different. As David Robb said in the early 90s, "We had 19 models covering just two and a half market segments, and we were fighting ourselves for these sectors." There's no good reason to make readers browse between two articles just because one version had different size tires and a different handlebar. Many closely-related models belong in an umbrella article that includes an entire series, such as BMW GS.

    The BMW Motorcycles WikiProject's goals should be to create comprehensive coverage in a hierarchical way, beginning with BMW Motorrad and spawning new sub-articles as needed, per Wikipedia:Summary style. When sufficient material has accumulated in the parent article to justify a new article for a model, and WP:N is satisfied, then a new article might be called for. Often, an article that covers two or more related models is more useful and interesting for the reader because it includes more context, history, and logical narrative, e.g. Honda CB900F. Scattered stubs from a closely-related series can be annoying to browse, and relatively useless, and should be merged: e.g. Honda CBR600F, Honda CBR600F2, Honda CBR600F3, Honda CBR600F4 and Honda CBR600F4i.

    Note that other editors have Prod'd articles like BMW R1100RS that didn't assert notability. Having that happen to new editor recruited from the Vintage Motor Cycle Club or elsewhere is likely to discourage them from participating. Therefore it's better to encourage editors to only create new articles when justified, avoiding hurt feelings and frustration. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your views. By 'every model', I would propose a page for the 'R2' for example, and under that cover the Series 1, Series 2/33, Series 2A, Series 4 and so on, or a page on R25, not one on R25/1 and then another on R25/2 etc. (or perhaps in this instance one article which covers the R24, R25 and R27 since they were all developments of each other). Do you see this as more appropriate? There should easily be another information here to justify a new article. Thanks again and apologies for the previous ambiguity (I have since amended the description). DAFMM (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is nothing in this proposal that cannot be achieved with the current project though a task force will focus better on this one area of interest. There a few enough motorcycle editors available for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycle racing, which appears to be virtually dead, to effectively run a fully functional wikiproject. A far better suggestion is to have a specialise group to deal with the BMW article in the form of a Task Force of the active motorcycling project. That could be effective and still retain the close association needed to encourage other motorcycle editors to join in. Starting a separate wikiproject will likely cause the BMW material to be less well associated with the main project of which it is currently an integral part. There is absolutely nothing in the current project to stop or deter editors from writing more in depth articles about BMWs as appears to be a one justification by the proposer. ww2censor (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But as them WikiProjects are 'virtually dead', is there really much point in trying to join that, and then be an active of a dormant group? As I suggested, if this group were to be successful in a few months, then I would stretch out and either create a wider group which this would then become a constituent member of, or promote the current 'WikiProject: Motorcycles' and encourage editors to build new/improve existing articles regarding their particular marque. Wouldn't it be easier to maintain smaller groups with specific interests, rather than have one large group, which really appears to be claiming all the articles but not doing anything? Many thanks. DAFMM (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm a bit reluctant to join the group simply because I have difficulty keeping up with my existing WikiProjects as is, but I support its creation and commend the initiative. I have mixed feelings as as to whether it's better as a task force or an independent WikiProject; It looks to me as if there may well be enough support for a fully fledged WikiProject, and if so, go for it.

There is definitely a need for something, as the BMW R1100RS debacle shows. IMO this should never have been deleted, it should have been merged and redirected to... where? We don't have an article on the model series of which it is part as far as I can see, but we do have an article on the BMW R1100GS. Perhaps History of BMW motorcycles#1983–2003 would be the only option at present, but it's not a good one; What we want is a higher-level article where the material from the deleted article can fit in (and I'm happy to recover that material and edit history when we do, as an admin that's exactly the sort of chore I'm supposed to address). Then when and if there's enough material to justify an article, we have a civilised discussion about splitting it out. Avoids all the problems. Putting old and new heads together to work on such issues is IMO the best part of any WikiProject.

This also touches on an important issue raised above. Probably we won't ever have an article for every single model designation. But for every model designation we should aim to (soon!) have at least a higher level article that does cover it, and a redirect from the specific model designation to the most detailed article that does cover it.

PS and let's not be scared of stubs. Good stubs make good WikiProjects (and conversely). Part of being a fully fledged WikiProject should be to have our own talk page header template and stub category. Andrewa (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Long term we can even develop our own notability guideline, to regulate the level of the lowest level articles. How many units have to be sold, races won, etc, to make a model (or series) notable? But I don't recommend jumping in to that yet. Focus on content, develop the structure as needed.

Other WikiProjects (maybe on cars or cameras?) will have dealt with this issue, there may even be something in the MOS, if not there should be. Andrewa (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the R1100GS/RS issue, the best solution I would see and what this project proposes is the creation of a page entitled R1100, which could then contain subsections with regards to the different variants etc.. Even if you do not have the time to contribute much, your support would be appreciated and we could keep you 'in the loop'. If you don't aim high, you can't get high! Many thanks for your support for the project and your comments. With compliments. DAFMM (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that a BMW R1100 article is probably the way to go for now. We should have sections on the R1100GS and R1100RS, the GS section being a single sentence summary preceded by a {{main}} template pointing to the GS article, and as the RS article deletion was PROD rather than AFD I can then immediately undelete it and redirect it to the section. Andrewa (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. If you want you can start and it can be the first example of the WikiProject's new system and we can see how it works. I will have more time in around a week's time and shall start an article on the R2, with the same format (ie. not have separate articles on the Series 1, 2/33/, 2A etc., but have them included under one article). Good luck with it! DAFMM (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the idea about stubs, I shall create this WikiProject tomorrow and sort all of them sort of things out, and create some headers and stub categories and place them on the relevant pages. DAFMM (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will also distribute the WikiProject page on the talk page of every user who has contributed regularly to the existing BMW motorcycle pages in order to promote the new ideas and hopefully gain some more users. Yes, if we start building the articles up we can then start concerning ourselves more with the structure of the project. DAFMM (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion of BMW R1100RS is an easily fixed problem; no permanent harm done. Except that whichever editor created it probably feels snubbed by Wikipedia. That's the central issue for me; new editors often create articles before understanding Wikipedia, then leave in a huff when they're deleted. The solution is to not encourage article creation, and give them time to get the hang of things first.

Creating special notability rules for WikiProjects is a mistake. Any rules that you make which contradict WP:N are invalid anyway, and any valid rules you make will add a layer of unnecessary complexity. Better to work to make sure project members simply understand the General notability guideline; that's clear enough for any bike, airplane, pop song or politician. Keep it simple. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the real problem is the discouragement of new editors, specifically User:Iglooflame in this case. One of my earliest articles was vandalised... there is no other word for it... by an admin in retaliation for my creating what was admittedly a deletable sub-stub but is now an article. I assume he thought it was very funny, and he escaped all censure; Others admitted he'd done the wrong thing but offered nothing but rationalisations and expressions of surprise for behaviour which would probably have had me blocked had I been similarly funny. So I know the problem.
The matter of notability guidelines is academic for now, but I disagree that it would in any way contradict the GNG. The goal is just to provide some more specific criteria applicable to this area. On reflection it's also probably something that WikiProject Motorcycling, which will presumably be a parent WikiProject to this, should do rather than us. Andrewa (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know where you're coming from with regards to the putting off of new users (when I fist started I got very ****** off when, three minutes after creating the article, I had some busy-body admin. wanting to delete the article. I couldn't believe it and it gave me a very negative view of how Wikipedia was run, and administrators in particular. I therefore think it would be agood idea if we had new users notify us of their present and we can look over them/show them how to go on when first editing, so that they don't learn the hard way and not run the risk of them leaving Wikipedia, but also earning our project a bad reputation. If demand were great enough, we could assign a position in the group, where one member could help the new users get on. DAFMM (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should start a WikiProject:Administrator Accountability, membership restricted to those who can provide a diff to prove they've been bitten by an admin when a newbie. Who knows, there might even be enough of us to organise local meetups. I predict they'd be enjoyable and well attended. But note the last sentence of paragraph 9 of User:Andrewa/creed. We're most of us volunteers, and all of us human so far AFAIK. The Board is very concerned about this whole issue, see Wikipedia:Teahouse.
And frankly, I've seen far more damage done by admin inactivity than overactivity. At one stage I endured some three months of repeated personal attacks from a highly POV single-issue user who had already bullied three other contributors, including one of the top ten experts in the world on the topic (no kidding), into leaving Wikipedia entirely. The mind boggles. That user is now banned, but the other three haven't been back AFAIK; My emails to the expert in question went unanswered and considering the history here I don't blame her. But there was absolutely no interest in this past history of the now-banned user, I was explicitly told it wasn't relevant, on several occasions. The leopard didn't change his spots so new evidence was continually produced and eventually accepted, and he reacted hysterically to the very first block and an indefinite ban was then very quickly agreed. Better late then never I guess, but if, as an admin with a pretty good record if I do say so myself, I'm so helpless in that situation, what chance have good-faith newbies who are unlucky enough to come to the attention of such a character? It's a jungle out here. Andrewa (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea! Let's get started! We've already got two members!!! There would be loads!!! I'll create it this evening and send you the details. DAFMM (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It does appear to me that small WikiProjects, with coordination between a small number of knowledgeable and passionate users wrking together with a head in contact with the members in order to administer and monitor the WikiProject's works would be much more effective than this current system of large WikiProjects, which require too much work for one person to maintain and so become neglected and lack any form of administration or encouragement for the members (many of whom join the group for the sake of it, and contribute nothing). You then argue for 'Task Forces', but how can these be effective when they are part of a dormant, massive organisation (such as WikiProject: Motorcycles and the likes) which really are achieving nothing whatsoever. I am sure that a small team such as the one which is forming here could achieve much more than WikiProject: Motorcycles alone. Just some thoughts. DAFMM (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A BMW fan club clusterfuck belongs at Wikia.org not Wikipedia. And this looks like this is off to a bad start if certain people are already assuming bad faith and starting to throw around accusations. That said, I'm all in favour of improving any motorcycle-related articles but like others I'm not sure it needs a separate project, just enough enthused people to drive it forward under the umbrella of the existing motorcycling project. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Civility. It is not optional. Andrewa (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you think I am being uncivil because I used "clusterfuck"? I simply couldn't think of another word that better explained what I fear - that a bunch of self-interested single purpose authors should presume to take ownership of a small group of articles and edit the to the exclusion of everybody else e.g. people who presume that because they are members of BMW MOA (or similar single make club) that they know better than anybody else about the topic. That would go against so many things that Wikipedia stands for. If it didn't develop into that then would I participate? Yes of course, I have already made significant contributions to BMW motorcycle-related articles and will continue to do so. Like Dennis Bratland I'm keen to ensure that contributions are based on verifiability not personal knowledge - one of the pillars that Wikipedia is built on. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm afraid I think that does infringe the civility guideline, not all that badly granted. But better to steer clear of any such emotive terms I think, even if it means using a few more words, as you have above. Having had some friends in the Sydney Gypsy Jokers (years ago now admittedly) I'm quite able to handle communication in which almost every noun and verb is preceded with a word that starts with F, but here is not the place for it.
Verifiability and personal knowledge are not incompatible. An early moto of Wikipedia was write about what you know about or are prepared to learn about. But agree that ownership can be a problem, in fact IMO it already is with respect to some other motorcycling articles [1]. My experience is that WikiProjects lead to greater compliance with the verifiability and ownership policies rather than less, but I'm sure it can go both ways. Andrewa (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't think that "clusterfuck", or the even more accurate "wankfest", are uncivil. Inappropriate language in the eyes of some, maybe, but not uncivil. Anyway, it's good to see we agree that there is a potential for problem that needs to be carefully watched. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a potential problem, particularly when members have opposing emotive feelings on the topic. However, the idea of merely quoting other works does put of many people, particularly those new users who already have an established knowledge which has been picked up over time from a variety of different sources during the course of their lifetime's interest. I'm not saying don't use references, but merely allow more flex in the system for innovation and new ideas. We should be encouraging users to share their knowledge, not criticising them and eventually causing them to say 'ohhh bugger it'. DAFMM (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But "merely quoting other works" is the fundamental principle of Wikipedia. It is based on verifiability (WP:V) not original research (WP:OR). That's why I mentioned wikia.org which has no such rules and is the perfect place for hobbyists and enthusiasts who want to fill their boots by building the biggest and best online resource for BMW motorcycles, or beer jugs, or comic books, etc. Domain knowledge is not a pre-requisite for editing Wikipedia articles - instead an author needs to be prepared to do research and cite his/her sources, then write content in a neutral manner. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I was questioning the fundamentals on which Wikipedia is based. DAFMM (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Something's not right here. Is the goal here to improve BMW motorcycle articles? Or to create some kind of insurgent project fork with looser verifiability rules? There are appropriate venues to criticize the way Wikipedia is run, but a new project, with new editors, is absolutely the last place to bring that up. Don't bite the newbies? Yes. Try to change the course of Wikipedia with a new WikiProject on motorcycles? No. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly agree. There are some worrying aspects emerging here. But I'm still prepared to support the WikiProject. Motorcyclists (I'm not one) do seem to be a bit high maintenance, from prior experience both in and out of Wikipedia, but if a group of editors want to form a WikiProject for the right reasons, then the fact that some of them have some ulterior motives as well shouldn't disqualify it. Andrewa (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's make this clear if people have been lead astray by my comments. This is a WikiProject concerned with improving the current situation with regards to articles on BMW motorcycles. We should take note that the actions of this WikiProject are ones which one could see as being part of the halycon days of Wikipedia, centered on the improvement of BMW articles on the site, regardless of any internal conflicts and debates which may be taking place. DAFMM (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is to form a Special Interest Group under WikiProject Motorcycling. I'm not sure how they differ from task forces, I've never heard of one before, just noticed them! Andrewa (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a better option. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are they really that effective though, or again somewhere where a couple of users demonstrate their interest in that marque? A new WikiProject would be able to work independent of a bulky, disorganised organisation such as WikiProject: Motorcycling. The ideas regarding notability etc. which you are proposing have not been dealt with efectively by that WikiProject, so we, who are merely a 'Special Interest Group' under that organisation, would then be writing the rules for it. Are we best starting from scratch, finding out for ourselves with this relatively small BMW project and then applying it to other similar projects on different marques, which would use the same guidelines and ideas as this one, methods already tested and proven by a small number of dedicated users actually doing something on this project. They could then become part of a 'WikiFamily' of groups, where they were merely constituents of a pasive 'Family' or similar Projects, with different members working independent on their own subject ideas in each separate project, allowing a close knit community to develop, with their own independence and power, who would be using our ideas and organisation as a ready-to-go basis which they could work from, knowing it was effective. They would then not be held up by the bulkiness and disorganisation of one primary, much larger WikiProject, such as WikiProject: Motorcycling, which merely confuses things for users. DAFMM (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Motorcycling is nothing like that, and there's no basis for thinking a task force would be hindered by being under WikiProject Motorcycling. The idea of a separate project which explicitly intends to use different standards of notability, or article content, or a different manual of style, is guaranteed to run right into strong opposition. Not only from the motorcycling project members, but from any Wikipedian who understands policy and guidelines and the MOS.

This should be a task force, not a project. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the proposal regarding notability standards was: (i) to clarify the application of GNG, not to override it, similarly to all the other detailed notability guidelines already listed at GNG; (ii) something that would be part of the parent WikiProject Motorcycling rather than just applicable to BMW models; and (iii) proposed as a future possibility, not an immediate or core objective. Andrewa (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not create a WP:BMW? So that it can cover all BMW topics (cars, bikes, airplane engines, etc) -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Special Interest Group edit

Following the recent discussions with regards to this proposal, I shall create a new 'Special Interest Group' under WikiProject: Motorcycling, which will be dedicated to the original proposed purpose, of creating a page on every 'group' of motorcycle models in the company's history. I shall be away until the end of next week, and so shall be unable to get started immediately, but shall do when I get back.

Many thanks for your opinions with regards to this proposal and I hope this will lead to some constructive contributions by the group to the artciles on Wikipedia.

DAFMM (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now created: WikiProject Motorcycling: BMW Motorcycles Special Interest Group

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or at the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/BMW_Motorcycle&oldid=521777750"