Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Move

It's already been said that this suite of pages should be moved to Wikipedia: namespace. Before we do, though, could we consider a more descriptive name, since after all everything on Wikipedia is a wiki project ;) I suggest "presentation schemes". BTW, once we agree on a rename (and if so a name), I volunteer for the moving -- Tarquin, Wednesday, June 19, 2002

Quoting maveric149 from the mailing list:

Wikipedia:naming conventions is (more or less at least) a policy article and the WikiProject idea has never been much more than a way for wikipedians to collaborate on a certain set of related articles (which hasn't been used much BTW). Only part of what is determined in a WikiProject is what to name articles -- but those names also should conform to standard(ish) naming conventions.

Coming to those pages after the event, they seemed to be primarily about presentation of pages of similar type.

It seems to me that we currently have 4 rough meta- areas which overlap somewhat:

  1. naming conventions
  2. WikiProjects: presentation guidelines for types
  3. basic topic pages, eg "Music basic topics"
  4. WikiProjects: gathering wikipedians to work on a subject area

I feel that guidelines for presentation should live alongside naming conventions for pages: standard templates for things like the opening paragraph on an article on a person; chemical elements; countries; animals & plants. Tarquin, Thursday, June 20, 2002

This part of your query is policy related and should be continued on the wikipedia mailing list. I was talking about moving the issue of what to rename the WikiProject pages to when they do get moved over to the wikipedia:namespace. It looks like an emerging consensus is that the name should be wikipedia:projects and that wikipedia:naming conventions should be separate but cross-linked. --maveric149

m:Presentation Conventions, just add an m: --mav

BTW, I kinda like the term "WikiProject" now so please don't change it. Also, many of the templates here would not look as intended if these pages were moved to the wikipedia:namespace -- the yellow background will interfere with things. --mav

My general idea is to unify projects / naming / templates into one tree, but still give several ways in. I don't like the yellow background at all. Maybe link back out for templates -- Tarquin

New WikiProjects

Anybody interested in WikiProject Movies? Though I'd hate to have to rewrite all of the movie articles I've done.  :) -- Zoe

It depends on the specifics. The current hap-hazard way movie articles are created seems OK. This is probably something that can ge taken care of with Wikipedia:Manual of Style conventions. --mav 22:51 Oct 11, 2002 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to the project format, and if someone develops a format I should have no problem adapting to it. As for rewriting Zoe's fine contributions, she'd be far more valuable contributing new movies, than moving data to boxes in her old ones. Eclecticology 07:34 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)

Anyone interested in WikiProject Battles?

It can also solve the problem on sorting the battles chronologically, geographically, alphabetically or on any other criteria have not been thought of yet. If we have all information about a battle oragnizeg properly on its page, creating sorted lists is simply checking watch links and look for the specific criterion. Say one wants to sort by the alphabetical order on the first alphabet of the battle sites. One can copy-paste all geographically names, sort them and saving them on 

[[List of battles (geographical order)/A]], [[List of battles (geographical order)/B]] etc.

The parent page of List of battles became linking page of all sorted lists.

eg. 

[[List of battles (geographical order)]], [[List of battles (alphabetical order)]], [[List of battles (chronological order)]], etc.

A primitive prototype can be seen here Ktsquare Oct 19 2002

I have an idea... anyone interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Constellations? --Lorenzarius

Anyone interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Age? --PuzzletChung

Temp pages

Hi WikiProject folks, I just wanted to inform/remind you that according to our policy, temp pages should go in the Talk namespace, not the article namespace. See for example Egypt/Temp. Cheers, Cyan 02:14, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

WikiProject notice

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump/March 2003 archive 3 on Thursday, September 25th, 02003.

So Epopt organizes Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships, and we start applying it to keep the growing number of ship articles in order, then poor Zoe comes along to fix an apparent lameness in German battleship Bismarck, unaware of the obscure WikiProject that might have answered her puzzlement. What's a good way (other than posting here :-) ) to inform would-be energetic editors that a WikiProject exists, and that an article is being edited to conform to the pattern recommended by a particular WikiProject? Stan 06:28 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)

How about a bold type link to WikiProject Ships inserted as the top line of the talk page? Tannin
See talk:Lithium for an example. --mav

Special consultants

From the village pump

This idea came to my mind: We should have special consultants for specific topics. For example, if an administrator is a lawyer or a law connseur, every article that has to do with law should be sent to that person for revision..what do you guys think? -- Antonio Who's that girl? Quien es esa nina, senorita presumida? Martin

Interesting idea, not least because a special consultant would have a good idea of what other articles and lists need a link to the new article. It's also trivial to implement, the simplest I can think being a discussion page per topic on which the self-declared consultants list new articles as they appear along with comments ranging from "looks fine to me" through "we should lobby to have this user banned" ;-). The danger is if consultants start to feel possessive about their topics, or if they feel they are the definitive Wikipedia authority on the subject. It's not much more of a danger than there is already, since anyone who chooses can already decide to police a particular topic. Pick one topic and do it, see if it flies. -- Onebyone 13:50, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be done through the wikiprojects. For example, there could be a WikiProject Law where such articles could be listed. Angela 13:58, Oct 2, 2003 (UTC)
Never met a law "connseur" (or connoisseur?) but I thought the list of legal topics was the way to get a handle on topics in this area. I am not sure what a Wikipedia:WikiProject regarding law could accomplish because there are so many areas of law and no general way to discuss any particular topic or even deal with fundamental differences between legal cultures. What I do is try to add articles to that list as found (I am still finding them though the list is much more comprehensive [approx. 500 articles] that in was when I got here about 6 months ago [150 articles])or just add the names of proposed articles to the list. Still that is just the tip of the iceberg of legal topics that could have detailed general interest articles. (And let's not talk about legal encyclopedias for example NY Jurisprudence 2nd ed. shows how much can be written in this area. It is an introduction to NY State law and it is over 120 bound volumes! When I get a chance I check the related changes and try and add something to every stub I come across. I try to add and edit stuff when others add stuff (I don't just want to write articles myself, that is why I am volunteering here) but there is still a lot of work to do and a lot of the focus just depends on what other legal beagles (there are a few of us here) are interested in and have time to achieve. regarding other subjects I was assuming that the same approach is done by regular editors in their area(s) of expertise and that is why there is a list of lists. I for one am against giving volunteers lots of offices or titles, sysop and developer are already too many categories. Alex756 15:02, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Agreed. We don't need landed wiki-baronets and wiki-duchies. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 22:59, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

How do I join a wikiproject?

Do I just put my name down? Or do i have to have contributed to articles on the subject or..?? —Noldoaran (Talk) 02:58, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

Adding your name to the list of participants should be sufficient; it would, however, be polite to leave a note on the project's talk page and/or contact some of the other members. Regardless, you should at least familiarize yourself with the goals of the project and make sure your edits are consistent with them. --Eequor 10:47, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wanted: people to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry: please just sigh uo on that page. Bmills 09:16, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I started a Wikipedia:WikiProject Space. First of all, I would like people to join it. Also, would it be possible to include astronaut's, for example, as subcategories of both WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Space, or should they just be listed under Biography? Sennheiser 20:07, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Namespace poll

This poll is to determine the opinions of the Wikipedia community regarding a separate namespace for WikiProjects.

Support

WikiProject: should be a namespace.

  1. [[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 12:55, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Andrewa 14:49, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) (But consider Benc's suggestion below as a way of implementing it)
  3. Etz Haim 00:36, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. john k 03:52, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) Seems like a good idea to me.
  5. Tuf-Kat 07:34, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Chuq 05:37, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Presumed support

Please move your name to the list of votes above if you still support this idea.

  1. 戴眩sv 18:07, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  2. Sennheiser! 21:35, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  3. Tannin 22:58, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 00:39, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As a pseudo-namespace redirect

See: #Pseudo-namespaces.

  1. • Benc • 18:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Donar Reiskoffer 13:12, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

WikiProject: should not be a namespace.

Comments

These are older comments from February of 2004. For the September 2004 discussion, please see #WikiProject namespace.

I love the idea - there are a few project ideas I'm going to add - but why not use Wikiproject:Name instead of Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Name? It sakes more mense to me. -戴眩sv 18:07, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wikiproject is not a namespace. --mav
Sennheiser! believes that Stevertigo understands that Wikiproject is not a namespace. Stevertigo seems to be suggesting that it should become a namespace. This seems like a valid suggestion. (I think it might be a good idea myself) Sennheiser! 21:35, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Much more convenient. Tannin 22:58, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Me too. Tuf-Kat 07:00, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
The shorter form of Wikiproject:Younameit is much more practical. I'd support the creation of a separate Wikiproject namespace. Etz Haim 10:13, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Telescopes

Would anyone be interested helping with a Wikipedia:WikiProject Telescopes and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Telescopes? Should a telescopes template include space telescopes? It/they could be modeled after the following articles:

--zandperl 15:21, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject prototypes

Would anybody be interested in the various WikiProjects choosing something to be their representative article -- the one that includes everything an ideal article should, and is written well, etc. Perhaps to be a running list at Wikipedia:Featured articles (i.e. every WikiProject that has reached such a stage has the article listed at the top, with more added as they develop). Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles. Tuf-Kat 07:00, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

Removing projects that don't exist

I'm going to remove links WikiProject that don't exist, haven't existed for a long time, and are unlikely to ever exist (unless they have child projects).

Here's the ones I'm planning on deleting:

Please, somebody remove the abandoned Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiAwards--Joao Campos 17:45, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikiprojects and ease of use vs. ease of editing

More and more article types (Space Shuttle Missions and Albums, to name a couple) are getting rather complex standard formats, apparently under the heading "Wikiprojects". While I can see that from a user's perspective these are nice, if not necessarily more useful than straight text, but from a potential editor's perspective they are daunting. Two weeks ago if a neophyte potential editor clicked "edit this page" at Four Symbols, for example, he/she got a nice window with the first couple paragraphs of source text in it. A few formatting characters, too, but nothing he/she had to know to make an edit. Today if a newbie tries to edit the same page they get a faceful of quasi-HTML code -- run away! Yes, they can, if they are brave, scroll down to where the meat is, but I think folks who know and are comfortable with such markups highly underestimate the chilling effect they have on potential editors. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia has always valued content over form; it seems we want everybody, not just web gurus, to be able to effectively participate in the 'pedia both as a user and as an editor, right? Then there needs to be a way to do a formatless edit (actually an edit of text only keeping the existing format in place). I'd go so far to say that fancy formats should be put on hold until such a tool exists.

Forgive me if this has been or is being hashed out somewhere else, and if so, please point me. I think it's important, though. Jgm 06:03, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've been trying to put comments at the beginning and end of the table code to make it clearer what's happening. This has apparently been suggested several times in various places but it bears repeating. Try Edit this page at German Short-haired Pointer. Elf 06:17, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Jgm makes a very good point, in my opinion. Content should always be more important than form, and we should be actively working to remove anything that might put new contributors off. I'd like to second the request that fancy formatting should be put on hold until "formatless editing" is the default. GrahamN 06:47, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
While I completely agree Jgm your point, I think this is a problem of dillema--dillema between the goal of wikipedia and wiki-like writing. For example, I usually cannot put fancy math equations because I don't know about the syntax of <math>. Of course, you can learn the syntax but the premise of wiki is you can just write contents without learning syntaxes. But the question can we get rid of those fancy syntaxes? The new image syntax, while complex, solves a number of problems. The virtue of UNIX is solve 90% because the rest of 10% is inherently hard to solve probably. Because we want to make wikipedia a 100% encyclopedia, we have to sacrify some simplicity, quickness and low-learning curve. I suspect we eventually adopt some sort of database feature or something, possibly with xml formats. -- Taku 07:12, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
Maths symbols are a special case, because they are content, not form, so they should not be suppressed in formatless editing. But I see no reason why "form-only" mark-up could not be suppressed. GrahamN 07:31, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have also been concerned at the growth in complexity of the wiki-markup. The mix of tables and {{msg:}} can be daunted. With parameterized messages on their way, things are only going to get more complex. There are of course advantages: power users are able to do more with the time they donate to Wikipedia. One way to mitigate the problems a bit is to use HTML comments in the markup. E.g. if you see an article that begins with a horrendous bit of a HTML (like the articles with taxoboxes do) consider adding a HTML comment at the top : <!-- This code is to needed to draw the table on the right. To get to the main body of text for editting, please scroll down -->
If it were possible to transclude articles in the same way as using {{msg:...}}, we could put complicated tables such as in Four Symbols in a "sub-article" (say Four Symbols\\table--note that the \\ currently breaks the link so we could probably subvert use that :-) and transclude it into the main article. Then the table could be edited separately and not clutter up the main article. Hey, is that a feature suggestion? I bet it's been thought of before. HTH HAND (thinking of adding that to my sig) --Phil 09:32, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
I heard that parameterized messages are coming real soon now.. so before what you suggest happens we are going to start seeing stuff like {{template:UK Prime Minister|Tony Blair|Labour|1997|to date}} at the top of articles instead of html tables. The template namespace will of course look hellish... it will be HTML code inter-mixed with positional parameters e.g..... <tr><td>$1</td><td>$2</tr> ... but at least they are out of sight of new users... Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:45, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The WikiProject Aircraft data table includes a comment line that tells new editors that the actual "meat" of the article can be found by just scrolling down a little.
[interjecting] Hmm... I could sworn I heard that somewhere before :) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:21, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Adoption of the wikicode for tables also makes things look far less daunting than html table code. --Rlandmann 11:19, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to reorganize the list of projects on this page. I don't mean to step on anyone's toes -- revert what you don't like. Tuf-Kat 06:15, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

Nice work! Much easier to navigate now. --mav 03:13, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Msg for Talk

Do people like placing the talk notices at the top of talk pages directing people to the WikiProject page? Primates and Albums both have msgs, and the Rambot put brief notes at US cities and counties. Any thoughts about what kind of links should be included in these? Should there be somewhat standardized messages among WikiProjects? Tuf-Kat 08:32, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. It provides an easy way to get to the template. Matthewmayer 11:39, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't like placing them, but I think they can be useful, and probably preferable to commented-out references in the article source (e.g. WP:Japanese prefectures). BTW WP:Numbers now has one at MediaWiki:NumberTalk --User:Docu
Yep - we need more of them. They are especially useful for WikiProject tables that have specific heading fills - I like to check those to make sure they are correct. Links to the WikiProject page on the article's talk page makes this easy to do. Such links will also encourage others to follow the same guidelines. --mav 03:13, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think they're nice, but I don't like it when they are added by bots, such as the rambot ones. anthony (see warning) 20:25, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anyone interested in the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine?

TheWikiproject on Alternative Medicine aims primarily to facilitate the development of professional looking articles on all aspects of complementary, alternative and integrative medicine. One of its goals is to end the never ending edit wars that exists in many of the alternative medicine related articles. At this stage of development, I am seeking:

  • Comments and suggestions from any Editor.
  • Editors interested in becoming participants.

Please take a few minutes of your time to leave your comments on Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject:Alternative Medicine. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 17:06, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Revisiting project talk notices

I've created a hybrid WikiProject box and opentasksbox at Template:Album. Any opinions on it? Tuf-Kat 07:29, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Why not simply hide all that open task information in a hyperlink? Also, it would be called a custom message or a talk namespace. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:33, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Saints

Hi, I've just started a new project, Saints. --Kpalion 22:58, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Restructuring, renaming, creating and removing Wikiprojects

Hello, I just did a little restructuring of the Wikiprojects list today, renaming some of the categories. I don't think any of them should be objectionable, but please let me know if they are. More importantly, I have renamed/ changed the content of two of the Wikiprojects - Authors (empty) and Novels, under the Literature section. They appear not to have been much of a success. There is already a Wikiproject for Books, and I feel this is far too vague, and I have split the Books section further into Classic & Canonical Fiction, Contemporary, Poetry, Mass Market and Genre Fiction (previously called Novels), and Miscellaneous Prose. To include really vague sections - "novels" and "authors" under an already very vague section, makes things far too confusing. We should list either Authors or Books, not both (I prefer Books, since one Author might fit in too many categories); I am keeping an Authors LIST to make navigation quick, but that's all (it needs editing and lengthening); the link to the "Novels" section has been removed, but the page is still available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels in case someone wishes to retrieve for some reason. If it's not needed, please delete it.

I would also like to bring together as many people as possible to contribute to the main Literature Wikiproject, under which I hope to incorporate the History of Literature and mention numerous writers from all the world who may or may not be well known in the West, but are not given enough space anyway; similarly for the (new) Painting and Sculpture, Opera, International Cinema and any related projects. All comments, contributions etc welcome.

PS I haven't created the templates yet, just the Projects, as I am really really tired and will get back to them later. And I might post this on the Mailing List, so apologies if it gets repetitive.

Simonides 08:34, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Archiving?

There's a lot of WikiProjects here, and a lot of them are not very active. There's also quite a lot of cases where, some months ago, someone has decided to create the thing, has never gone on with it, and so it has never really gotten off the ground. In amongst these, there's quite a few that are very active, and are doing a lot of good stuff.

I think it might be a good idea to divide this page into two, for active WikiProjects, and inactive ones. Thoughts?

I think it would be better (and more polite) to make a note of an project's inactivity without disturbing its place in the hierarchy. For one, rearranging the links would be tedious; for another, the project's members might not appreciate it if they were only taking a break. Maybe {{inactive}} could be left on the project's main talk page to help renew interest. --Eequor 10:30, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Good idea. That'd be a start, anyway. Ambi 11:32, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would be interested to know which WikiProjects are very active ! Most projects are inactive, and I'm not ready to go through each of them to find out.

I really think that we need to do something about this, and I support the idea of pulling a list of active wikiProjects. It could be separate from the hierarchy though. So we could have a section above the hierarchy that would list the WikiProjects that have been active in the last month (based on the history of the wikiProject page). Pcarbonn 20:07, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to do this now. It'll be a list of WikiProjects which have been edited after October 1st 2004. It'll be in the same form as the hierarchy, but the original hierarchy will still be there below. Hope it meets with satisfaction... JesseW 22:44, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Accidental move and then move back

Sorry, that was me. ^^; I'm using Mozilla Firefox, and had two tabs open to different Wikipedia pages, and confused one with the other. Then I ended up moving this article by mistake, then I quickly realized what I did wrong, and moved it back. The other article name should be quickly deleted. - Gilgamesh 08:13, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Where to put

Where should I put WikiProject Creatures?

WikiAwards

I'd like to propose something. You may consider it a bit out of the Wikipedia context but I absolutely agree it is a great way for developing articles and estimulating the creation of new ones.

Yesterday I've started imagining a project which involved the cooperation of users and would present a good way for exploring Wikipedia: the WikiAwards. Something similar to the Academy Awards but more regularly made.

In the past hours I've created the Project and I'm now working hard on this. But, in the meantime, I recieved a message warning me that this would cause some controversy in Wikipedians (sorry but I'm relatively new to Wikipedia).

So, I'm asking your opinion whether I'll go on with this or not. Please, see the History category for an example. Thanks--Gameiro Pais 00:59, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This seems well-organized. Good luck with it. --Eequor 16:54, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This does not seem to really fit with the Wikipedia concept. Maybe if you explain how this project would benefit Wikipedia as a whole, and present it a little differently, then it can get somewhere. But, apart from the trivia factor, I am really really really not sure if this project is such a great idea at all.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 17:04, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, first, thank you for your critics. My purpose was to, with the several nominations that are made, some lists and some articles could be expanded/improved and maybe some of them created. For instance, in the award for best explorer ever someone nominates Bartolomeu Dias. It is possible that many others that don't know who is this guy will click on the link. Another example, someone nominates an hypothetical Mr. Great Explorer of the World for greatest explorer, an article that doesn't exist yet in Wikipedia. It's a great way for improving Wikipedia I think. Notice that every award atributed has to have a paralel goal. And as for fitting the Wikipedia concept, I believe you're kind of right. You say that if I "present it a little differently, then it can get somewhere"... Can you help me with that, please? I am working very hard on this project. Continue to state your opinions. By the way, tks Eequor.--Gameiro Pais 03:52, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
FTR, I'm virulently neutral about whether or not this is a good idea, but I'm going to sign on as a participant anyway. Tuf-Kat

WikiProject:Stub Sorting

I don't know if there is a particular project out there with the aims of sorting stubs, but I would like to start one. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:43, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject namespace

It is apparently now possible to add more namespaces. How would everybody feel about a WikiProject namespace? AFAIK, the only practical effect of such a change would be ease in linking, though it would presumably also allow for greater flexibility for our content users choosing what pages to swipe. Tuf-Kat 07:17, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Namespaces don't seem to do much in MediaWiki, aside from a few configuration options like subpages. Is it really worth the trouble? -- Cyrius|✎ 07:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'd kind of prefer it if WikiProjects became categories, but that may be too radical. That way they are more "findable" and aligned with the category structure (which is semi-hierarchical like the WikiProjects). All the current material could become "Category talk" subpages of the relevant page, but it might be difficult to then discuss the Talk page. Hmm, maybe not then. Anyway, somehow the category and WikiProjects should become better aligned, perhaps a new namespace could allow us to do that. You could use a template like {{WikiProject}} on the Category_talk:Category which contained the following [[WikiProject:{{PAGENAME}}]], which would then produce the link [[WikiProject:Category]] or somesuch. --Lexor|Talk 07:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely not. This would effectively eliminate the usefulness of WikiProjects altogether, by making it just another talk page in some obscure place, instead of what is currently working very well. Ambi 07:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That's why my edit was a set of random semi-coherent thoughts, just thinking out loud... ;-) Anyway I got a better idea. Put this template: {{WikiProjectLink}} (Template:WikiProjectLink) on the Category_talk page with the same name as the WikiProject name, and you've got the link to the relevant WikiProject. I just did this on Category talk:Science. --Lexor|Talk 07:51, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Of course, it only makes sense to add this to the Cat talk page if there is a WikiProject with the same name as the category. --Lexor|Talk 08:04, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If understand correctly, what you're thinking of is a Projects framework which is to the Categories framework what a talk page is to the associated article. The purpose of the Projects framework would be to group articles together for the purpose of editing, in the same way as the Categories framework groups article together for the purpose of viewing. We're talking meta-levels and stuff (Godel, Escher, Bach anybody?) Am I somewhere near correct? --Phil | Talk 09:52, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, with caveats. Many WikiProjects cover more than one category, and it is quite possible for two projects' "jurisdictions" to overlap. • Benc • 18:36, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Precisely. I was thinking that Projects could be applied to talk pages in the same way that Categories are applied to articles. It would therefore be entirely possible to have them overlap. To take a current example, the Wikipedia:To-do list system, which I rather like, would become a meta-Project, and the various templates (e.g. Template:todo) would become members of Projects (i.e. Project:todo) rather than Categories. --Phil | Talk 11:26, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Pseudo-namespaces

The practical benefit (ease of linking) can easily be accomplished using redirects to define a pseudo-namespace. We already have such a thing, the "WP" pseudo-namespace. See WP:WP. Also, I would recommend the name "Project" "P" instead of "WikiProject" for the namespace name (pseudo, not or actual); it's easier to type. Example of a pseudo-namespace redirect: Project:Arcade Games P:Arcade Games → Wikipedia:WikiProject Arcade Games. • Benc • 09:08, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That prefix is already in use as the general project (in the sense of wiki) prefix, on Wikipedia it converts to Wikipedia:.--Patrick 09:34, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
May be just P:, these can be listed with Special:Allpages/P:.--Patrick 10:04, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
Interesting that the Project prefix already redirects to the Wikipedia namespace, though it makes sense. (You learn something new every day, I guess.) Anyway, I agree that "P:" is a good alternative for a WikiProjects pseudo-namespace. • Benc • 18:29, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Good suggestion. What are the pros and cons? Andrewa 19:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My understanding is that the WP prefix is built in to mediawiki, therefore it doesn't show up as part of the article space. It's important that we don't pollute the article space with unnecessary cross-namespace redirects. anthony (see warning) 20:22, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree. That's the strongest argument against pseudo-namespaces. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 13:08, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Categories can be applied to talk pages. I don't see the purpose of this. anthony (see warning) 20:23, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anyone interested in a WikiProject on Football (Soccer) Leagues

The aims are simple: - create a template for the articles on every football league - organize the existent articles about the leagues

Anyone interested?--Joao Campos 17:56, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to rm the redlined projects in the hierarchy

I assume it will be OK if I remove the projects that don't even have any pages(i.e. are redlinks) in the hierarchy. If someone creates a page for them, they can add it back, eh? If this is wrong, feel free to revert. JesseW 22:03, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Active Projects section

I just created a section above the full list of WikiProjects, called Active Projects. It's those projects whose linked page had been edited since 1 Oct 2004. I think it will help people find the projects that are still being worked on easier. Of course, if you are working on one of the projects that didn't make it into the list, and you edit your page, feel free to add it to the list! JesseW 00:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Shortcuts for projects

Er, the instructions are wrong.

This instruction is wrong. You can't use argments to a subst template(as Template:WikiProject is). 

* '''Use {{[[Template:WikiProject|subst:WikiProject]]}}''' to create a skeleton project page.

JesseW 07:27, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Africa

I tried to find an Africa-related Project, but I don't think there is one. Wikipedia is really weak in Africa-related content. We need to fix that.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 04:35, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Anybody can start Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa, at any time. Tuf-Kat
One of my aims in writing that was to put a feeler out there to see if anyone can give me a pointer to something existing—if there is something existing.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 05:07, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
One problem is that Africa is not a Country. And the list on the WikiProject page does not have a heading for continents or regions.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 05:09, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
That's one reason why we started up with the regional notice boards. Perhaps its time to create an African one. Ambi 05:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw them later. And I guess I can put the Project under Geographic.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 07:41, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject NASCAR

Just started a Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR to improve the articles about NASCAR. If you're interested, add your name to the participants and join the discussion. Recury 07:27, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject/Archive_1&oldid=512745021"