Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years in science

message: It sounds like a good project.
Two points:
* 1. Make sure you consider the smaller sciences (geology, meteorology, etc)
* 2. I trust you are cross referencing the various science timelines
dml 14:01, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, any scientific discipline should be included, I just put up the one's I've encountered most while adding years.Gentgeen 03:22, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 23:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 16:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: What should happen with this project going forward? It never saw much activity, given its unusual scope, and has been lifeless for a few years. We could attempt to revive it or to merge it — one way or another —  with a related project, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject History of science.
Regardless, I'd like to help improve the general quality of the year in science articles (before they're officially dumped from this project and potentially onto another). --Mrwojo (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Many of the year in science articles provide little information. Finding perspective is difficult when each page is just a list of (potential) facts. --Mrwojo (talk) 04:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future 

message: Is up for FPOC. This is one of the highest (if not the highest) visibility portal on Wikipedia, I recommend commenting on it! Cheers, ResMar 23:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal:History 

message: Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on the WikiProject X proposal 

message: Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject X is live! 

message: Metawade (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Revive The "Years in science" Project 

message: Metawade (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding the topic works as well if we find a reasonable set. Shouldn't be too hard. That way both ways to read the table are available without conversion work. --mfb (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer a separate page then to avoid duplicate content in an article. If the second page is automatically generated, it is a nice feature. --mfb (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Convert all "YYYY_in_science" pages to a consistent format 

message: My (User:Metawade) preference would be to start converting all pages from 2006 down to 1500 to a by-month format (I have code to automate this process).
I may convert the pages in 2000 onward over the next few days as a forcing function ... that will bring this discussion to a wider audience and encourage conversation).
Elsewhere, mfb comments: I'm not sure if an organization by month is the best choice. For 2016 it is great because it allows to follow the progress easily. But for past years? Using 2006 as example, do we really care if the human genome project got completed a month before or after the discovery of more moons around Saturn got announced? If you are interested in a specific topic (e. g. medicine), sorting the article by topic makes it way easier. If it is feasible, I would suggest to go the opposite direction: Convert "by date" lists to "by topic" after a few years. --mfb (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding the topic works as well if we find a reasonable set. Shouldn't be too hard. That way both ways to read the table are available without conversion work. --mfb (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer a separate page then to avoid duplicate content in an article. If the second page is automatically generated, it is a nice feature. --mfb (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Metawade (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Add "branch of science" annotations to individual entries 

message: User:Metawade and other watchers of this page, I also think that adding information on the "branch of science" to items of these articles would be very useful. I have suggested adding the branches of science to items at Talk:2020 in science, here.
What I have suggested was converting the list to a table with tags and categories. These would include the branch/es of science of items. There could also be filtering functionality via these tags and categories similar to the current Watchlist.
One examplary implementation for an article, which contains items of the list, is: 2020 in the environment and environmental sciences (without any MediaWiki changes).
Alternatively to converting the list to a table, there could also be some other options or a way to switch between different view modes (including table). These alternatives could include some way to e.g. use Wikidata for items of such lists by which you can add colored tags etc (this would be more similar to the example in your/Metawade's sandbox). Before the list can be converted to a table, there probably need to be some changes to the MediaWiki software – in particular most importantly this task for adapting tables to mobile but also e.g. for tags (the tasks are linked at the talk page). More information as well as a wealth of other ideas to improve these articles can be found in Talk:2020 in science.
--Prototyperspective (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion