Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transhumanism

Tools and design

Glad to see this project. I am involved in maintaining WP:POLAND and WP:SOCIOLOGY, and I've significantly redesigned their pages, and implemented numerous tools. See if you'd like me to copy something from them here. I'd particularly suggest enabling the Article Alerts, Most Popular, Copyediting and New Article feeds. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• It's good to have you on board, we could definitely use a more experienced editor, especially when setting up the project. Your recommended tools look promising. Also, missing biographies and B-class review seem like a good idea.--Pereant antiburchius (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

@ portal:transhumaism, personal development is not a technology. do someone wana change what the list is called or exclude it? skakEL 16:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Small bug in template or in section in name?

Go to a page like Talk:How_to_Create_a_Mind, in the WikiProject Transhumanism banner click on the words "importance scale". It tries to take you to:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Transhumanism/Assessment#Importance_scale

But there is no section "Importance scale", instead the section is called "Importance assessment". So either the template or the section name has to be changed. I looked at the template and could not really figure out where the section name was in there. I would say just fix the landing page, but I didn't want to break something. Silas Ropac (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Duplicated places to ask for assessment

On Wikipedia:WikiProject Transhumanism there is a section "requesting an assessment" which says "place requests here". But on Wikipedia:WikiProject Transhumanism/Assessment there is also a section which says "requesting an assessment" with an invitation to list articles there. I propose one or the other be removed. Silas Ropac (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I boldly took care of this. Made it like WikiProject Books, where the main points to the assessment page. Seems to make sense to have the list of articles to assess live on the assessment page. Silas Ropac (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Nayef Al-Rodhan Rewrite

The biography is copied verbatim from his website: sustainablehistory.com . Should be up for deletion, suggested whole rewrite. It's within your interests so I thought I'd let you know. I'll have a gander at it. amosabo ^t@lk; 09:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

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) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

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) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

There is an RFC that may affect a page in this project

There is an RFC that may affect a page in this project at WikiProject Tree of Life. The topic is Confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)?

Please feel free to comment there. SPACKlick (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Transhumanist politics and Transhumanist Party

See Talk:Transhumanist politics. The long section on the Transhumanist Party had a lot of terrible sources. There's talk of spinning it out as a separate article, but a separate article failed AFD once already and a draft prospective replacement has failed once. More eyes needed - David Gerard (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Tracking anti-transhumanists

I'm pretty happy with Category:Transhumanists and hope it'll grow in time. However is there any reciprocal category for anti-transhumanists or similar?

What is an anti-transhumanist? I was researching Amir Taaki who I was interested in meeting, but came across some very clear anti-transhumanist statements which has put me off. The problem is, there are very few notable anti-transhumanists, simply sceptics to different degrees. Can this idea go anywhere? Deku-shrub (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Well there's Category:Anarcho-primitivists. I don't think creating a category for that (e.g. Transhumanist critics/Critics of tranhumanism) is necessarily a good idea because people might falsly be categorized in there just for being skeptic (e.g. about specific aspects or subideologies of it). I think the transhumanist movement/ideology is far too broad to enable such a plain category (speaking of "Anti-transhumanists" as a category). A category "Critics of transhumanism" might work though. --Fixuture (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I begin accused Wiki User:David_Gerard and the former User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc to be somewhat Anti-Transhumanist views by start begin "questioning" pages to ultimately deleted Transhumanist Pages without other users apporval like [1] and recent [2] pages as claimed they not belong to wikipedia even they been existed for decede (Parahuman page being made in December 10, 2004 and IEET page being made in January 21, 2005). 2606:A000:85E7:4E00:1119:D8AC:53B1:DCD4 (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

This paragraph is close to being undecipherable. Just because a poor article has been included in Wikipedia for ten years without sources or an acknowledgment of notability does not mean that we are under an obligation to retain it. jps (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if that's serious. But it's a good showcase on how hard it would be to maintain this category. Not that categories that are hard to maintain aren't worth it though. But I think there aren't that many people openly explicitly self-identifying as anti-transhumanist to make it category worth creating as such is imo needed for how easy people can be misunderstood in that context. @2606:A000:85E7:4E00:1119:D8AC:53B1:DCD4: categories aren't for wikipedia users. There might be userboxes that allow people to self-identify as anti-transhumanists but that's something else than claiming other people are such. If you think those two editors are biased in that way you could make a post about it on some noticeboard or their talk page. --Fixuture (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, not the talk page: [3][4] - David Gerard (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no need for tracking. Everybody chill. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hplus pedia

Humanity+ has installed their own wiki where we can better track the minutiae of transhumanist goings on without the Wikipedia notability bar.

Ideally it will become a good article incubation space.

http://hpluspedia.org/ Deku-shrub (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi all

@The Transhumanist: @Pereant antiburchius: @Piotr Konieczny: @Gap9551: @Adam9389: @Kenfyre: @Rhododendrites: @Raelifin2: @Voyaging: @Waters.Justin: @Mechanic1c: @Fixuture:

I will be doing an introductory event about H+Pedia, what has been created and what possibilities it holds the weekend after next. (Sunday the 6th).

Do feel free to attend, ask questions, or just watch the recording of the event at a later date.

• Facebook Event
• Google+ Event
• Youtube stream
• Meetup.com event

Deku-shrub (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC notice: transhumanist politics

There is a Request for Comment at the Talk page for transhumanist politics. The Transhumanist Party recently finished an American bus tour – should it be mentioned in the "History" section of the article? –Haptic-feedback (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Anarcho-transhumanism: sources?

An IP editor came by, annoyed that anarcho-transhumanism redirects to libertarian transhumanism which is basically the opposite (it's left-wing anarchism, not anarchocapitalism). So they changed it in this edit. This was reverted, but it did make me think there was probably cause for an article here. Trouble is finding Wikipedia-quality sourcing - there's lots of blog posts, but nothing remotely citable. Any ideas, or a better place to redirect it? - David Gerard (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@David Gerard: It's tiny, but already written up on H+Pedia here. Deku-shrub (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I had a look at that and there's nothing there that's Wikipedia quality sadly ... - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:Transhumanism

There is a debate on the talk page about whether fringe science is a suitable see also, whether there should be a hatnote for posthumanism and how to cover the Mormon Transhumanist Association. Fixuture has asked for more eyes and I concur, so mentioning it here - David Gerard (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge project with WikiProject Futures studies?

Whilst I'm well aware that transhumanism and future studies are not synonymous, given that future studies actually has a level of traffic right now and this one does not, I suggest an effort be made to merge this project into the other, thoughts? Deku-shrub (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Strong oppose - they only overlap. A low level of traffic is imo no reason to merge. Also that could change. (Should actually; people should promote and recruit interested people via WikiProjects such as this one for Wikipedia on relevant websites.) Many reasons not to merge including that it would cause conflation and many pages would have to lose the banner. --Fixuture (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

A mass update of banners etc would be trivial to automate simply by redirecting the existing templates Deku-shrub (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Can I help?

Hi, I've just joined the project and I was wondering whether I could be of assistance. Regards - Heptanitrocubane (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

There's not a lot of activity on the project. If you're interested, there is more cutting edge stuff at https://hpluspedia.org Deku-shrub (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.Heptanitrocubane (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Michael Anissimov CSD

Feel free to weigh in. Smooth alligator (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

"Collective Intelligence"

The article on collective intelligence seems to be of quite low quality, though it has lots of text on the page. Is it legitimately "B Class"? I think it is a better match for "C Class": "The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup." The first step towards improving it might be to downgrade its current rating. Arided (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

FAR for philosophy of mind

I have nominated Philosophy of mind for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 22:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for Collective intelligence

An article that been involved with (Collective intelligence ) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (General collective intelligence). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

RFC regarding the life-extension practices of Bryan Johnson

There is a discussion at this talk page as to whether or not the life-extension practices of Bryan Johnson (entrepreneur) should be mentioned in the article. Given that it is what he is most known for by the general public and media, I feel as though it would be violating both WP:notability and WP:NPOV to not include it, as long as his practices are described neutrally. The other editor feels as though it is too fringe to include and that it cannot be properly contextualized. We would appreciate if others could give their input. Thanks!Vontheri (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)