 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Active/All Projects?
Can we merge these two into All Projects? The division is confusing and unnecessary. Andre (talk) 02:04, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with this. It should be made clear that WikiProjects aren't "owned" by their participants or founder. The WikiProject page allows people to state and discuss informal guidelines, templates and observations on certain goals/areas that others can use in their editing right They are part of Wikipedia and so everyone is welcome. My point is, any project can be resumed and edited at any time by anyone. At the very least, any goals and structures outlined might be useful on the individual level. Listing projects as "inactive" discourages people from reviving them, IMHO.--Sketchee 13:56, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
- I hear this a lot mainly from people who are either not a participant in a project, or who totally fail to understand the concept of a project and why one would register as a participant of a project. I, myself, fully understand the concept of Wikiprojects as they are implemented in Wikipedia. John Gohde 22:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Very insightful. I've removed the active projects section, and we'll see if it gets any response. Andre (talk) 19:34, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
- I hope to explain the benefits of the Active projects list. WikiProjects can have multiple uses. One use of them is to find live, active wikipedians interested in a given subject, in order to ask their advice about that subject, or enlist their help on a article related to the subject, etc. This requires a list of projects which have people paying attention to them, i.e. active projects. Another use of WikiProjects is to find guidelines on a subject; this requires a list of all the pages with guidelines on the subject, i.e. the all projects list. While I agree that any project "can be resumed and edited at anytime by anyone", a majority of the projects which have pages do not have anyone working on them currently, and so are useless to those who want to find other Wikipedians to work with. I think the WikiProjects page gets more use by people trying to find WikiProjects to use, rather than people trying to find WikiProjects to create. However, it would be good to add more text to explain the purposes of the two lists. I look forward to your response. If I don't hear any response for a week or two, I'll recreate the two list form, but I hope that you'll respond, instead. ;-) JesseW 20:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- While admittedly there's a limited benefit to knowing which projects have been updated recently, I don't think two separate lists is the proper way to go about it. Maybe put the active projects in bold text? The two lists thing is confusing, and it suggests that the "inactive" projects can't be used. Andre (talk) 16:04, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
While not everyone might care for the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine, its project pages are very well written. Thus, they might never be edited again precisely because they are well written and well designed. Using the editing of project pages as a marker for project activity is a very bad idea. A better marker of project activity would be the editing activity of key project articles / indexes that were designed to be constantly expanded. And, I have revised our main project page to indicate same. John Gohde 22:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
WAP
I don't know whether there already have been plans in this directions, but I'd be interested in opening a mobile web version of he wikipedia at wap.wikipedia.com or something like that. Maybe I ought to post this somewhere else, bu this seams like the best place to start. Things I need to know:
- Can it be done?
- Has it been done?
- Who wants to help?
I'd be glad to hear some reactions. Just let me know. -- Redge 20:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
First Names
Not sure if this is the best place for suggesting this. I visited a number of pages concerning first names today. The style and layout varied a lot. Would it be a good idea to start a project for first names so articles concerning them get more standarized? JimmyShelter 16:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Are WikiProject Obsolete?
A certain Wikipedian has been following me around telling me constantly that WikiProjects are obsolete due to the implementation of categories. And, that Project Infoboxes are obsolete because of categories. Is this true? And, what specific policies, guidelines, and/or style guides say that either WikiProjects or their infoboxes are obsolete. -- John Gohde 15:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- This is an interesting interpretation of what I've been doing. Wikiprojects are very useful for coordinating the efforts of editors. Infoboxes, likewise, are very nice, when there is information to be had that extends beyond what a category system would garner. I remain wholly unconvinced that the CAM boxes do this. Snowspinner 15:12, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- I remain wholly convinced that specific policies, guidelines, and/or style guides are what counts rather than whether a particular person fancies light blue over orange, categories over menues, etc., etc. If something is prohibited, I will believe it only when I see it in the fine print. If something is written in the policies, guidelines, and/or style guides than directing me to same should not be a problem. -- John Gohde 15:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It would be a mistake to think that all guidelines on article formatting are presently written down or will ever be written down. Many are. Others are a matter of looking at what the normal style on other articles is and applying common sense. It is impossible for anybody to predict every strange thing that people will try to do, stylistically, to articles. You've come up with a bad idea that nobody else has come up with before.
- That said, look at other infoboxes. Look at Bosnia and Herzegovina and Born to Run. Those are infoboxes. What you have is a glorified category system. There are no categories for "Albums that are 39 minutes long" or "Countries whose high representative is Patty Ashdown."
- WRONG: Category:1000 births is one of 100's of possible examples. -- John Gohde 05:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Nor could there sensibly be categories for that. Those are infoboxes. Your infoboxes have all amounted to category links, or links to things that would be better suited to categories.
- Yes, despite the fact that you are trying very hard not to communicate useful information, from the behavior of our community over the last few months I have observed a tendency for small minds to throw the baby out with the bath water. Remove the bath water from our infobox and our community will nolonger have any excuse to throw the baby out. Remove any association to categories, and our infobox complies with all policies, guidelines, and/or style guides. And, our classical, single-purpose, infobox will be just that: an infobox. Gone will be all this constant whining. Hence, our infoboxes are in fact perfect just the way our community last modified them. And, no major drive to update our infoboxes is necessary at all. All that is required is a few more meta-edits and the restoration of a few wrongfully deleted infoboxes. -- John Gohde 05:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- On second thought, a update drive is still required. There are still traces of bath water left in our infobox. The new box designed has tainted it to categories, while the old design still taints it to article series boxes. And, there is an opportunity to add one more classification: founder. If our community is incapable of dealing with multi-purpose boxes, then a single-purpose box it will be. -- John Gohde 06:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, despite the fact that you are trying very hard not to communicate useful information, from the behavior of our community over the last few months I have observed a tendency for small minds to throw the baby out with the bath water. Remove the bath water from our infobox and our community will nolonger have any excuse to throw the baby out. Remove any association to categories, and our infobox complies with all policies, guidelines, and/or style guides. And, our classical, single-purpose, infobox will be just that: an infobox. Gone will be all this constant whining. Hence, our infoboxes are in fact perfect just the way our community last modified them. And, no major drive to update our infoboxes is necessary at all. All that is required is a few more meta-edits and the restoration of a few wrongfully deleted infoboxes. -- John Gohde 05:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- They are a bad idea. I am not citing a written policy for this statement. I am citing a combination of common sense and the observation that infoboxes over the rest of Wikipedia do not resemble yours. This can and should be taken as evidence that your view is not widely shared. Snowspinner 16:41, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- I already know what your opinion is. I did not request a critique by somebody who hates projects in general and our specific project in particular. I asked for comments from our community. You do not speak for the community as far as I am concerned. Nor, did I request another round of your interpretation of policies, guidelines, and/or style guides which probably do not even exist. I most cerntainly did not asked for comments on my views at any point in my question. I asked: Show me the policies, guidelines, and/or style guides, please. -- John Gohde 04:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That said, look at other infoboxes. Look at Bosnia and Herzegovina and Born to Run. Those are infoboxes. What you have is a glorified category system. There are no categories for "Albums that are 39 minutes long" or "Countries whose high representative is Patty Ashdown."
Pro wrestling
We have several articles on pro wrestling, including bios of wrestlers and articles on promotions, titles, terminology, and common maneuvers. Does anybody think that there's a need for a WikiProject here? — Gwalla | Talk 23:04, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)