Wikipedia talk:List of WikiProjects

message: Should the "Intelligent Design" WikiProject be placed in "Pseudoscience", as it is now, or should it be put under "Religion"?  I would argue for a move and deletion of the "Pseudoscience" heading. Courtland 01:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
:Putting it under "religion" would only inflame people who want to claim that's not what it is.  The whole issue should be sidestepped by putting it under something neutral sounding like "Non-falsifiable hypotheses".  ;-)  Or even "definition of science" or "philosophy of science" where questions of scientific method and the question chain should be discussed.
::'Pseudoscience' is a WP:NPOV violation, since it's a pejorative Cynical 20:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support putting it under "philosophy of science". Balso Snell 21:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thinks it should be put with a title "Crackpot Theories", cause my sensee is that crazy dudes like Rick Perry and the chick Michelle Bachmann are into it.  And they make a bunch of stuff up when they be talking.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.36.165 (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: We've opened up Wikipedia:WikiProject Media and are seeking editors, advisors and input. At present, we are developing our list of articles, creating templates and looking at the initial stages of the project. We've added other projects where they seem to fit the various suggestion categories. In some cases we might reduce the number of added to those lists and focus to the ones most relevant and likely to prove complementary or helpful to our project.  A related project that also needs editors and advisors is Wikipedia:WikiProject Journalism. Calicocat 23:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media project discussion

message: Hello all -  I have a question about appropriate listing here.  We are starting WikiProject Game theory, about the interdisciplinary study of game theory.  While game theory is traditionally studied in economics, it is used by evolutionary biology, mathematics, and others.  Should I list the wikiproject in several different places on this list?  Or just under economics?  Thanks!  --best, kevin  ···Kzollman | Talk··· 17:39, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
:I would suggest that you list it once and cross-reference to other page sections, but I wouldn't add a lot of cross-references.  For instance, the evolutionary biology and mathematics are both in the major science column. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not have a separate section for 'interdisciplinary studies'? --Fenice 18:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost anything that is general (about 30% of the wikiprojects, I'm guessing) could conceivably go into such a section. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think so. Which other project would you see as an interdisciplinary field? --Fenice 07:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For instance, many things under "Games and Recreation" are cross-postable under "Entertainment"; all "encyclopedia" topics (such as "Music encyclopedia topics") are cross-postable under "Wikipedia:Content"; many of the "Transportation" items are cross-postable under "Geography"; "Computer science" items are cross-postable under "Technology"; "Sociology" items are cross-postable under "Science"; "Philately" is cross-postable under "Games and Recreation" (as a hobby).  Thirty-percent is high, but it's not unreasonable if this list is considered saying "a couple of dozen".  The term "interdisciplinary" has both a formal and an informal definition and I do not expect people to use the formal one. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe most wikipedians will tend to understand the term in its formal meaning. And Game theory would as of yet be the only subject in this field. Let's give it a try.--Fenice 16:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norms of listing 

message: I've added Portals to the listing here (one even earlier today), as have others (within the past hour or so the last one appeared), but I'm thinking that maybe these should be removed because there is a place to list them: Portal:Browse.  We could reference this portal listing page in the introduction to this list.  What would best influence this decision is the actual relationship between Portals and WikiProjects.  Is there one?  Are most Portals the spawn of a WikiProject?  Do WikiProjects with a like-named Portal use the Portal as a presentation or organization tool?  Thanks for your thoughts on this matter. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing of Wikiportals on this page 

message: Seems to me, there are a lot of inactive Wikiprojects here that need to be archived appropriately. Anyone want to help me find those that are inactive and move them to Wikipedia:List of inactive WikiProjects? Gflores Talk 20:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone through the Wikiprojects up to Science. Gflores Talk 20:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update? 

message: Some of the Wikiprojects are "blantant copies" of other Wikiprojects. What on earth does that mean? Evan Robidoux 18:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, where did you read that?  My guess would be either two Projects with the same goals?  Or one copies another's page, then plugs in the necessary words to make it different? Esquizombi 19:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blatant copies of other projects tools/techniques/approaches/templates seem a good idea to me (subject to modification to fit project specific needs)... WP:Beatles was started as a blatant copy of the standard wikiproject template, then blatantly copied the article classification stuff from  Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, and when that needed a little tweaking, shamelessly ripped off WP:MILHIST techniques...  Meanwhile other stuff like infoboxes and project message boxes were ripped off too... (always with credit where due, we think) It's all good. Am I missing something? ++Lar: t/c 19:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a "blatant copy?" 

message: The talk page for this one is there, and the history of the Project Page is there, but the page itself is not and I can't tell why. Esquizombi 19:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countering systemic bias in religion 

message: Since this page is out of date someone may want to have a look at this report by Interiot. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dynamic list of WikiProjects 

message: As I've started editing this page, I've come to the conclusion that one of the biggest problems with navigating and using this page, both for people editing the page and for people reading it, is the monstrous amount of space consumed by WikiProject descriptions. Even worse, the majority of these descriptions are redundant, unnecessary, and repetitive: is it really necessary, for example, to describe WikiProject Star Wars' goal as "...to organize, clean, and improve Star Wars information on Wikipedia"? The same applies to dozens and dozens of other WikiProject descriptions. Moreover, all that text ends up generating countless stylistic inconsistencies (i.e. whether "..." is used or not, whether it starts with "to" or something else, whether quotations are used at all, etc.), and overall just generates way too much clutter and chaos, something unsustainable on a page of this size. I'm betting that those descriptions are one of the big reasons this page is so badly out-of-date and underused: it's just too much information, when combined with the already-huge list of projects itself.
Therefore, I propose that we remove all descriptions, mission statements, etc. from WikiProjects expect where they are needed to clarify something important that was left ambiguous in the WikiProject's own name (e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life should explain that it's really a "WikiProject Taxonomy", because otherwise some people may be confused by what "Tree of Life" means on its own; they may think it's a Kabbalistic reference, for example). By restricting descriptions to where they're absolutely necessary, not only will it clean up 90% of the text cluttering up this page, but it will also make it much easier to find the descriptive text that is important for the sake of understanding a WikiProject's scope. This List should seek only to provide enough information that users will understand what each project is about: that's enough to tell a user whether or not he might be interested in the project, and he can then follow the link to learn all about the project's specific goals, history, relationships, standards, etc. By cutting down on the amount of depth we explore for each Project, I think we'll make it infinitely easier to keep this page up-to-date, comprehensive, consistent, and useful. What do you think? -Silence 10:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combatting clutter: WikiProject Descriptions 

message: Which category would WikiProject Lists of spaceflights by year best fit into? --GW_Simulations 21:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:WikiProject Astronomy. -Silence 21:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Lists of spaceflights by year 

message: I've added a comment to the top of this page (and to the Category blurb at :Category:WikiProjects) describing alternative ways to browse WikiProjects. IMO, this page should have short descriptions, as the All pages link here (with modifications depending on your search) is what I use when I want a list. Carcharoth 09:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative ways to browse WikiProjects 

message: The idea of merging the inactive WikiProjects article with this one is a good idea. Someone needs to start doing that! I agree with the above post (Alternative ways...) Auroranorth 12:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge completed. — RJH (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger!! 

message: Can someone add this in the right place please. Thanks -- Lost 10:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject User Page Help]] 

message: Is there a good reason why the stubmakers aren't on this page? Dessydes 18:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, is that really a WikiProject, in the normal sense of the term?  It seems more like a simple list of Wikipedians than any sort of organized group.  Kirill Lokshin 19:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Stub Makers]] 

message: How do i add a wikiproject to this page?  I already made it (but I should add more info to it): Wikipedia:WikiProject Linkification  --Shanedidona 15:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Add a wikiproject

message: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/en_wikiprojects automatically generates a list of active and inactive projects, also those that haven't listed themselves manually at Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects. When discrepant entries are discovered, perhaps it would be useful to have a talk page header template that would encourage the project participants to have the project listed here with an accurate project description? This would alleviate the current maintenance chores quite a bit. __meco 17:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a good idea, however the toolserver's database itself is lagged, so it doesn't pick up the newest Projects, or even activity in the existing ones after the toolserver's replication was turned off sometime in June. Titoxd(?!?) 22:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tool to keep the list updated 

message: I have no idea where it would fall in the categorization scheme, but I am certain WikiProject Biography should be mentioned somewhere on the list.  Badbilltucker 13:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's listed under "History". Kirill Lokshin 15:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  Please forgive my mistake.  And my constant drooling.  Us Cro-Mags do that a lot.  I feel real stupid right now.  Badbilltucker 18:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone Please Add WikiProject Biography to the list 

message: I propose to assign a Unique Identifier (a numeric or alphanumeric code) for any word / concept of Wikipedia. The UID is unique for a Language so We can create links between multiple translations of the same Word that have the same UID. 
For Example the word: Red (en) = Rouge (fr) = Rosso (it) = UID:1234
I hope this type of classification can be usefull!
Marco Cattaneo
:This might not be the right place to suggest this.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Talk) 22:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unique Identifier 

message: Im am looking for support on my new WiKiProject page. can it be added as a featured or on a list of WikiProjects? Here is the page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WikiProject:US_Governors WikiProject:US Governors  --Zonerocks 03:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Governor Wikiproject 

message: I'm wondering why there is not a project of this type? It seems like the genres are pretty popular on wikipedia, what with all the books, movies, games, and what-not. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing that the problem with a project of this type would be the fact that it's so generalized. I mean, it would have to be gigantic if it to include stuff such as the complete history of J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle Earth (which is huge in itself) or Dune, or other stuff. However, im a huge sci-fi and fantasy fan, so let me know if you want to get something like this started, and I'll help out. I'm sure a lot of other people will want to be in on this if it starts up. So in conclusion, I vote for a start.  PinkSombrero SugarTitön | PinkSombrero 21:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science Fiction and Fantasy project? 

message: The List of WikiProjects totally lacks uniformity. Under some headers, WP's are organised alphabetically, or hierarchically, or worse by date or totally random. If nobody objects, I (maybe with some help from WP:COUNCIL) plan to organise everything hierarchically, 'cause this is the most obvious way IMO. Please comment. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this plan to obsolete this page in favor of a more sophisticated directory structure? Kirill Lokshin 23:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kirill Lokshin, you are both wise and omnipresent :-) No seriously that's just a thing of beauty over there. But it would need a broad consensus.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganisation 

message: I would like to add Wikipedia:WikiProject Freemasonry to this list... but I can not find a category that it would fit into.  It sort of fits under philosophy, or under history, ... but not completely.  Any suggestions? Blueboar 02:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aint masons got to do with something like building houses or something? Put it in the constructions category and be done with it!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.36.165 (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freemasonry Project 

message: I have had peeks at the various extensive pages on Wikipedia like Wikipedia:Most wanted articles, Wikipedia:Requested articles and Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year, and have seen the pages upon pages of redlinks. I am not aware if such a project is already out there but I do think that one dedicated to creating stubs, if anything on all these topics would be a great idea. Per WP:IMPERFECT, I think that at least making these articles would go a long way. It is not something that hard to do, and anyone who wishes to contribute can contribute in their own way as per their own proficiency in using Wikipedia. The original intention of Wikipedia (WP:DEV) was that after the articles are made, a slow and steady article progress would commence including many contributors until a final perfected product had been completed. I think that this spirit should continue in a project to build the foundations before building our way up. Obviously improving articles will still be of it most priority, but I do think that getting these many backlogged articled out of the way and de-redlinked is a good idea.
Any thoughts?--Coin945 (talk) 09:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Articles Wikiproject