Talk:Org Spore

Untitled

Trying to get a better sense of what is envisioned here. Sounds like WP articles on defunct organizations slated for deletion might find a resting place here? (I have the impression that unfortunately a fair amount of this kind of data is already lost from previous article deletions.) What about, say, past international development projects and programs of extant organizations? One could imagine for example sub-projects on the history of development initiatives and interventions in particular countries and/or sectors involving articles on specific projects arranged in categories.--A12n (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It's meant less for short-lived 21st century organizations that have articles on Wikipedia facing AfD, than for older organizations that are mostly documented in primary sources, like historical community, social, and political organizations, for example the kind collected at the Interference Archive.--Pharos (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Have been thinking more about the idea of collecting histories of international development projects. There's a lot written about international development in which various projects/programs are mentioned as examples or explored as cases, but AFAIK no attempt to systematically catalog the them as such, from the point of view of anyone directly involved or impacted (positively or negatively). Might be too ambitious, as there's a lot of history there. But the question arises - how would one propose a new Spore (if one wanted to do something like what I mention)? --A12n (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Are these ongoing international development projects or historical ones? Maybe we can find a way for them to fit into the Org Spore.--Pharos (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Historical. Post WWII, and especially post-independences (~'50s-'60s) to, say, the end of the century. The bulk of these during this period would be national-level and donor-assisted/initiated, but the history is still interesting IMO (without implying approval of or nostalgia for the approaches taken). Longer term, one might consider gradually expanding the time frame forward. --A12n (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, just be careful not to be boosterish. Congratulations, I've enable the Org namespace! As long as it's an historical organization, and it's not too contemporary, add it.--Pharos (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! --A12n (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi A12n! Are you still considering to do development ORGs under this namespace? Was there anything preventing you in this particular work or just got busy? We try to make fresh and coordinated effort with this. Consider to join! --Zblace (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)