From Meta

[edit] Discussion

Contents 1 Framing a project 2 Informal Project Proposals 3 Archive 4 Discussion 4.1 This content page is a MESS! 4.1.1 Guidelines suporting the Semicolon (;) 4.1.2 Guidelines supporting the (*) 4.2 DEMO 4.3 Discussing Re-Factoring This Page 4.3.1 PROPOSAL On Page Organization 4.3.1.1 Comments 4.3.2 PROPOSAL on subpages 4.3.2.1 Comments 4.3.3 PROPOSAL on each individual proposal 4.3.3.1 Comments 4.4 Re-organization finished 4.5 Wikitainment Guides needs a DEMO mailing list 4.6 Rodovid.ORG -- the fully unnecessary long header 4.7 my 2 cent 4.7.1 my proposal (informal) 4.7.2 WikiWorldJournals 4.7.3 Proposal:WikiCatalyst 4.8 WikiKids 4.9 Request for a Urdu Wikiscience 4.10 Independent Projects 4.11 Wikikids Interest Poll 4.12 Wikitainment Guides is now working 4.13 Comments 4.14 Funny 4.15 Messy proposals 4.16 Unsigned comment 4.17 Pig Latin Wikipedia 4.18 at user's election, advertising to support Wikimedia 4.19 Wikirioke? 4.20 Proposal: WikiBiography 4.21 Concerning Holocaust & Genocide 4.22 New Project: lolicon 4.23 Proposal: The Philosophic Method 4.24 WikiJoke 4.25 WikiProverb 4.26 Can we merge WeRelate with Rodovid? 4.27 New project propsal: Wikigenealogy, Wikifamily or something like that. 4.28 Promoting or removing proposals 4.29 Wikimedia Incubator Status 4.30 Incubator 4.31 Suggestion of a new wiki project: Wikilaw. 4.32 Wikicorp 4.33 Wikilaw and wikicorp 4.34 Wikibin as in - WikiRecycle 4.35 WikiMovies? 4.36 GeoNet Wiki 4.37 n:WN:RADIO 4.38 Wikiflashcards 4.39 dividing up the content page into more specific pages and archiving the talk page...

[edit] This content page is a MESS!

Someone please, PLEASE refactor it! An admin seriously needs to do this, because an admin especially can have the say-so on removing dead proposals and rearranging such a key page. But please, please, PLEASE someone tidy all this up! --131.111.8.98 02:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC) (w:User:Alfakim)

Indeed I agree, even though I've just joined today. I was surprised that this Meta-Wiki page is a total mess. I reckon we need to make the page like en:WP:FA on English Wikipedia. So each project is placed in a different page. Then we can put the templates in the main proposal page. Can we do that? Cheers -- Imoeng 12:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean it, I will do it now. Probably after I contact one of the admins. Cheers -- Imoeng 12:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly sugest to move the comments to the respective proposal page. Or better yet, to the respective proposal talk page. Notice "comments" is not part of the copypast-able format.

I hope you dont mind, but I'm going to shape some of the lower projects in the page with some formatting according to the respective guidelines. --T-man 01:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

...I was trying to shape this thing a little. But I can't make further changes without asking this: What's better

The

semicolon

• or: this?

Both formats seem to be used equally to write down the characteristics of the proposals, but the * comes from the original format. --T-man 05:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines suporting the Semicolon (;)

• x
• x

[edit] Guidelines supporting the (*)

• x
• x

[edit] DEMO

oh, and how can I make a demo? I want to create one for Wikitainment--T-man 05:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussing Re-Factoring This Page

This page is a complete mess. Proposals on Meta is a complete mess. Many people probably want to fix it up, but aren't sure if they have the authority. Therefore I suggest we rethink how this works, come to a decision here, and then implement it upon consensus and/or admin permission.

I will outline below my idea for how to refactor this page nicely; post your own, or comment on it! --131.111.8.99 22:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC) (User:Alfakim) (w:User:Alfakim)

--T-man 02:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)==User 131's proposals== As we've seen, a lot of proposals can be made! I suggest the following structure for the page. These structures can be automatically generated by preloaded substable templates.

[edit] PROPOSAL On Page Organization

Intro text

=Proposals with working demos=
[{{fullurle:{{fullpagename}}/With_demos|action=edit&section=new}} Add a proposal to this section]
{{/With demos}}

=Proposals without demos=
[{{fullurle:{{fullpagename}}/Without_demos|action=edit&section=new}} Add a proposal to this section]
{{/Without demos}}

Outro text

[edit] Comments

• Pardon me, but I fail to understand how would that look like. Could you elaborate?--T-man 23:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PROPOSAL on subpages

The subpages at /With demos and /Without demos are split into a section for each proposal. Each section has the following format:

==[[Project name]]==
''Short description'' --~~~~
[{{fullurle:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Project_name|action=edit}} Discuss this proposal]

[edit] Comments

[edit] PROPOSAL on each individual proposal

Finally the subpages for each individual proposal have a structure like this:

;Info title : Info
;Info title : Info
;Info title : Info
;Info title : Info
;Info title : Info
...

=Comments=

[edit] Comments

• I strongly suggest to leave the comments for the respective talk page as per the original format. My guess would be that the comments started as some people started to write down their opinions next to their names.--T-man 23:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-organization finished

All comments were moved to the respective talk page and linked directly from here. Now, the next issue would be:

• the comments some users left after their names. I'm all for moving thiose to the talk pages just like I did with the other comments. Otherwise we risk that new signing users could follow that example.
• Grouping proposals of the same kind.

Regards.--T-man 02:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll change the order of the proposals following the next criteria:

1. Number of interested people
2. How complete the proposal is.

--T-man 00:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikitainment Guides needs a DEMO mailing list

I still need some advise on how to create a demo page for my proposals.--T-man 02:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Not an immediately easy thing. Does incubator: allow that? --131.111.8.104 12:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the Incubator is only for new versions in different languages of existing projects like wikipedia or wiktionary.--T-man 02:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I know it might be hard work, but right know I'm really commited to Wikitainment Guides and Wikshelf.

Wikitainment would finally take the controversy of werther to include or not entertainment related articles, such as episode or character articles, away from Wikipedia. At the same time it would make wikipedia look more professional and aloud entertainment related content to be *reasonably* expanded. Wikitainment would also follow most of Wikipedia policies such as no POV, imparciality, reliable and verifieble sources, writting guidelines differing only a little in article organization and content.

So in order to achieve all of that, I really need help to create a demo. Oh, and also one of those "links to original proposal on mailing list". Any help would be deeply appreciated, I don't even know where are the instructions to crate such things. --T-man 20:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I made some corrections to the Porposal page, I know that since it is my idea I'm supposed to take the lead, however I'm afraid that if I make the project too "mine" editors might loose interest. I feel I'm monopolizing the project too much. Maybe a To do box might help the situation, but I don't know.

I'd also like to point that I need the help of an experienced page designer.--T-man 23:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikitainment Guides finally has a Demo at editthis.com, now I only need the mailing list thing.--T-man 03:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rodovid.ORG -- the fully unnecessary long header

Ok, I just teasing here, I'm kidding. But seriously, All of the wikis are somewiki.org and have some slogan. What makes Rodovid so special that it has to clarify so in the headers? Did I miss some memo?

These are my problems with such header.

1. . It goes against the format all the rest of the proposals have been following since the beginning.
2. . If we make this exception every single project enthusiast will want their own special "cute" thing for his proposal. Before you notice the page will get messy again.
3. . Again, EVERY proposal has a .org domain and a slogan, there is nothing special about Rodovid's case.

Maybe other people would like to change Wikikids the header to Wikikids.org -- The best proposal ever. Now working and making your kids smarter. I know, it's a very bad example, but hopefully you're getting my message. It's disorganized, unnecessary, goes against format, and worst, looks like spam.

However, even I do appreciate the enthusiasm and good intentions.--T-man 19:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thankyou for your comment on my talk page. I hope we can resolve this dispute on the talk page without any further edit warring. Firstly, the reason the other party has not explained themselves is that he is Ukranian and does not think that he will be able to convey his message succesfully with his limited grasp of English. Now, onto my main point. Most pages, as you say are wikisomething.org, and that "something" in their names is what the project is about - wikikids, a wiki for children; wikiforum, a forum wiki. This means that a reader of the page can tell from the contents what the proposal is about. However, if an English speaker just hears Rodovid, he does not know what it means. Therefore, I think some explanation in the header is necessary. Meanwhile, I do agree that the header is perhaps longer, and is unfair on other proposals. Therefore I propose a header such as Rodovid.Org (Genalogy Wiki), which will explain the content of the site without being a special exception with a cute slogan. What do you think?--Bjwebb 09:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would be unfear to other proposals. I also think it was back firing the project itself by adding a spam-like quality to it. The parenthesis clariffication is much better.

I don't see ther reason to use such weird name, anyway. I assumed Rodovid was relatively known word to English speakers, but being otherwise, I see no good or real reason. Wiktionary, for instance, changed it's name to Wiktionario for the Spanish language version. Rodovid should be adapted in a similar fashoin. Say, if the English word for Rodovid is "Genealogy Source" (I just made that up to make my point), and these people want to follow the naming style of the original without the "wiki", the name should be genealogysource.org. But whatever, that's only my opinion. As long as it doesn't break the format of this page, I'm ok with it.

However, I'm not sure, but I think it might be a requirement for the proposal to have the wiki word as prefix or sufix to become an oficial project.--T-man 08:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad we managed to agree on a compromise. Just as some extra intormation, the reason Rodovid is called what it is because it is run by a Ukranian, who created it as a separate project. It is now trying to become a member of the Wikimedia Foundation, and a name change may be accepted.--Bjwebb 15:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my 2 cent

i believe a lot of the projects proposed can be incorporated into existing projects.

• Wikitextbook.co.uk = > wikibooks (subdomain)
• Wikinac = > Wikipedia (as long as it accepts NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V)
• Wikihistory => Wikipedia (would enhance wikipedia!)
• WikiTimeLine => Wikipedia (would enhance wikipedia!)
• Wikibibliography => possibly Wikipedia, but could also be independent, don't know.
• WikiPharma = Wikipedia
• Wikiglot => Wiktionary

Wikshelf has a bad name, but is a good thing. As is Wikiscope.

I doubt WikiBrain, WikiConspiracy or WikiCitizens will be adopted. I don't quite understand the scope of Wikilists, and i dont understand PermaWiki at all.--83.181.84.38 15:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. With all your comments. Wikshelf came from following the idea of virtual books. The logical thing would vbe to contain them in a bookshelf, We have a wikipedia, a wiktionary and wikibooks so I turned the bookshelf into a "wik"shelf.--T-man 05:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikilists sounds like a project that would offload all of the "List of..." articles—which are not encyclopedia articles as such, and are only marginally encyclopedic—from Wikipedia.

Wikshelf is not a terrible name. It could also be something that alludes to the idea of a reference library or reference librarian: bibliowiki, wikibrarian?

Wikitainment Guides is an excellent idea. Currently in English-language Wikipedia pop-culture trivia overshadows actual encyclopedic content of pop-culture topics. This type of information is valuable, but doesn't belong there, and there ought to be a place to take the pressure off. An open alternative to IMDB, allmusic.com, treknation, etc. —en:user:Mzajac

Yes those are the exact ideas behind both projects. Wait a little for the Wikitainment Guides. The place will be ready to go in a week or two.

The main difference with allmusic or allmovie.com would be the encyclopedic style and the absense of reviews (unless the reviews are quoted from a good valid source, of course) and the main difference with Wikipedia will be the focus on non-academic content and clear acceptance of verifyable trivia.--T-man 01:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the editors there could be called "wikibrarians", I think the idea is good and goes with the original spirit of wikipedia and wiktionary.--T-man 01:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my proposal (informal)

WikiAbstract, a collection of abstracts and summaries of books, inspired by a commercial service[1]. this would be far too much material to incorporate it in a wikipedia article, so it should be stored in a different project and linked from wikipedia, and, if the complete text is also free, from WikiSource.--83.181.84.38 15:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiWorldJournals

Please read my proposal for a project entitled "WikiWorldJournals" and PLEASE leave feedback, let me know what you think, and hopefully support it. See it here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects#Wikiworldjournals

[edit] Proposal:WikiCatalyst

I am a thesis student looking at the behaviors of people and how they interact and learn within their environments. The object of my thesis project is to create a method for people to share their learned experiences to one another through a taxonomic archive. If Wiki is the connection to foster all those experiences, allowing people to learn through interactive experience the value of people to people sharing to one another becomes a commodity. '''If you could learn anything you wanted no matter what it was in any way possible''' interactive, textual, visual mapping, interactive experience, numerically, through storyboard, image bound etc... then the possibilities of learning information for understanding are limitless...the trick is, how can wiki be the catalyst or the HUB for all types of learning and connect all information in a platform for new universal learning where content isn't limited to basic methods.. i.e reading text, image source, youtube videos etc.. if we understand people and peoples ideas or experiences with a greater meaning...then understanding becomes the new............... this part is up to you. the idea is simple...the project goal is "fostering learning through any tool"...'''how is wiki going to strategize their methods of knowledge retrieval for the expanding knowledge base that accesses wiki'''... to contact me about opportunities, insights, involvement, collaboration please do so at. themaster_plan@hotmail.com

[edit] WikiKids

I would like to start "WikiKids". This would be for kids ages 6-18 and others are welcome to help edit. I would like to set-up a website but I don't have the money. Please feel free to contact me at resourcesofsheboygan@yahoo.com and let me know your ideas! 209.103.228.71 01:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Start it on http://editthis.com although I think the project has already been started as wikichildren. I think WikiKids is catchier, but whatever. --T-man 01:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No project has yet been set up, but if you do set it up let me know and I will be willing to help. See Wikikids. The project was not started as wikichildren because people liked Wikikids better but they still haven't gotten enough votes for Wikikids to start. You may wish to host it on meta.wiki so it is a wiki project but in your own way, if you know what I mean. Thanks. T®eebark 15:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What about Wikijunior? NuttyGorilla 23:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for a Urdu Wikiscience

Dear Sir, My name is Afraz and I came to you with a request to start a Wikiscience in Urdu language. Angela have guided me to request here, my talk with Angela CAN BE SEEN HERE. According to the suggestion of Angela, I have tried my best to work on science topics at the Urdu Wikipedia, an example of my work can be seen in the science category taht is cmopletely DONE BY ME. But I strongly believe that a SEPARATE Urdu Wikipedia just for science is absolute necessity. Name can be Urdu Wikiscience, or any if you suggest another one.

• I take the full responsibility of keeping the high standard of the contents.
• I will do my best to make science easy and correct, that can change and improve the minds and life style of people.
• I will do my best to popularize all the different wikimedia projects too.
• I will keep all the minute details of scientific terminology both in Urdu and equivalent English in front of Urdu term in brackets.

Please reply here on the same page or at my User page at Urdu wiktionary. Thank You, Afraz MD PhD

Wouldn't it be more practical just to expand Urdu wikipedia? Besides, this is a global community, you don't have to do the whole thing alone.

If this wikiscience idea you talk about implies writting stuff from primary sources instead of published material, I don't think starting with Urdu would be a good idea. This site would grow faster if the first version is in English, so that the whole world can coperate and expand the site, and then, as soon as you can, an Urdu Wikiscience would be easier to create.

I also speak English as second language, but I know geting editors for wikitainment in spanish would be a lot harder, so I started Wikitainment in English.

Now, if Wikiscience's scope is only to create more articles from secondary sources, wikipedia is already supposed to do that, so such site wouldn't make sense at all.--T-man 22:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is a SEPARATE Urdu Wikipedia just for science an absolute necessity?--T-man 22:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Independent Projects

I would like to do an independent Wiki project with the wikimedia software! I have a great idea but only loosely want to associate it with wikipedia (links to information and such). Once it is complete, how can I advertise it? Can I advertise here on Wikipedia or is that a no no? There would be great interest to have my Wiki linked to from wikipedia in a lot of locations! Could I just start adding links to my new Wiki in Wikipedia? What about advertising? Am I limited to non-profit status as long as I am using wikimedia software? By the way, my idea does not really fit in with the encyclopedia matrix and that is why I want to start a new site but would still like to link lots of wikipedia articles and topics.

Advertising on Wikipedia is not O.K. If you go to an article such as Europe and you have an article about Europe in your wiki project you can add a link to it under External links at the bottom. Also log in, to register as an account. You may not link your website to a Wikipedia article unless it has something to do with that article like you can't put a resource on Brazil in a United States page. T®eebark 02:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikikids Interest Poll

It's now been almost a month in a half since the new proposal of Wikikids and shouldn't an Interest Poll be started by an outsider now? Thanks. T®eebark 01:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please respond ASAP!...T®eebark 23:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

ASAP!...T®eebark 02:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikitainment Guides is now working

http://wikitainment.selfip.org/Wikitainment/index.php/Main_Page

Wikitainment Guides is now working!! I'm looking for Administrators, tell your friends!!! --T-man 04:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If you need any help, if you want me to become an adminnistrator let me know. T®eebark 16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I need as many enthusiastic people as possible. Just go to the ling and have a blast!! (and that also goes for everybody interested) Enjoy--T-man 18:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Would it be ok if I keep moving comments to the respective comments page? The Proposals for new projects is not supposed to be a talk page. That's why there is a link to the specific Comments page of each project.

Some of the comments, for instance are from people who are too shy to modify the proposal by adding a new naming suggestion and make the proposal next to their signature. Others are voting for names or pointing the need of a version in another language... that's rather material for either the respective proposal page or the site.--T-man 18:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funny

Isn't it funny the way ExchangeWiki has been around only for a month with no demo and already has 5 signatures and most of them have empty talk pages and all of them have empty user pages?... --T-man 08:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll take the signatures off unless anyone objects. I totally think that's a sock puppet case.--T-man 01:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Messy proposals

At the bottom of the content page there are some discussions about some proposals, most of them are not about new wikis but about new languages for existing wikis...I'm not sure that belongs here.--T-man 08:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsigned comment

Independent Projects

I would like to do an independent Wiki project with the wikimedia software! I have a great idea but only loosely want to associate it with wikipedia (links to information and such). Once it is complete, how can I advertise it? Can I advertise here on Wikipedia or is that a no no? There would be great interest to have my Wiki linked to from wikipedia in a lot of locations! Could I just start adding links to my new Wiki in Wikipedia? What about advertising? Am I limited to non-profit status as long as I am using wikimedia software? By the way, my idea does not really fit in with the encyclopedia matrix and that is why I want to start a new site but would still like to link lots of wikipedia articles and topics.

• No signature

[edit] Pig Latin Wikipedia

Hi, I and a couple of friends are interested in starting a Pig Latin version of Wikipedia, called "Ikipediaway". Can you please create this wiki at piglatin.wikipedia.org? Thanks. AddedImage 22:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This proposal has already been rejected at Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Pig Latin. Angela 02:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] at user's election, advertising to support Wikimedia

I would like to have the option of seeing advertising while viewing Wikimedia pages as a way to support its cause. Perhaps the user could choose between advertising from Google, Yahoo!, Wikia, etc. I know forcing advertising on users has been rejected, but what if they're okay with it (no pop-ups, flash, etc.)?

[edit] Wikirioke?

wouldnt it be great to have a wikipedia project about lyrics? organized by song, artist or album?

[edit] Proposal: WikiBiography

Being a member of numerous social sites and having read a number of virtual "biographies" of people on the Wikipedia, I find myself wondering if this might be a good Wiki Project. Much discussion would be needed in order to determine the actual implementation and legal challenges due to the potential for slander, spoofs or other forms of abuse. Personal safety is also an important consideration. It could be that it is necessary to limit entries to "notable names", for example, but ideally it would be open to all. An extra benefit of such a project could be raising awareness for WikiMedia projects and potentially lead users to educate themselves or perform more accurate research when attempting to verify claims made by peers rather than Googleing an urban legend and having it "verified" by a random site, for example.

[edit] Concerning Holocaust & Genocide

I was hoping that wikipedia may be able to make a section for Holocaust & Genocide as either a project or portal. I thought that it might be part of the Military project of the History section. Looking for assistance with this. Thanks. I would appreciate comments & assistance to be left on my talk page [[2]]. I hope to hear from you soon. Eric Rodrigues.

[edit] New Project: lolicon

Will ya be giving over a blank wiki or is this something that will cost me money?--Lolicon 17:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: The Philosophic Method

Since I am not espeically computer literate, I will just write my idea here (it seems to be the right place) and see if it gains any interest. If not, I may have means to pursue this independantly several months from now. I apologize for making it kinda long, but this idea has to be seen in its entirity for it to make any sense. Basically, it is a way of conducting original research in a manner that is peer-reviewed and has a means of falsification.

Mission Statement: While the natural sciences gain rapid progress in advancing humanity’s understanding of the world, the discipline of philosophy seems to spend a great deal of time floundering in idle speculation and endless arguments that shed more heat than light, especially in the areas of politics and religion. Through the Philosophic Method, it is my intention to develop a systematic means of answering the higher-level questions about the world with a level of efficiency comparable to that of the natural sciences.

Format: The Philosophic Method should be published in a hypertext format in order to accommodate all of the additions, deletions, and revisions that will be applied to it. It is also recommended that venues hosting the Philosophic Method utilize some form of rating system or other means of preventing it from transforming into a glorified discussion board.

Universal Guidelines: All venues claiming to host the Philosophic Method must follow the eleven guidelines listed below but are free to decide all matters that these guidelines do not explicitly address.

I. New theories can be brought into discussion by simply submitting one that has not yet been discussed on this venue. Once a theory is submitted, it remains until its validity, soundness, or coherency is successfully challenged.

II. Alternate theories to existing topics can be submitted in the same manner as above. It is not necessary to challenge an existing theory in order to submit a new one. The existence of opposing theories, however, should be seen as an invitation by others to challenge one of the theories or find a way to reconcile them.

III. If someone wishes to challenge the validity of a theory, it is not enough to simply assert that one disagrees; one must point out the logical fallacy in the challenged theory’s argument. If the contention is successful, then all parts of the theory that follow from the fallacy are sent to the “Philosophic Graveyard”, an archive where all failed theories are kept (along with the arguments that defeated them) in case someone finds a way to salvage them in whole or in part and also to prevent people from making the same mistakes over and over.

IV. If someone wishes to challenge the soundness of a theory, they must devise some form of experiment to test that theory. If the theory is demonstrated to be false, the theory is sent to the “Realm of Hypotheticals” (unless it has also been proved invalid, in which case it will go to the Graveyard), along with the results of the test, in case someone wishes to repeat the experiment. Results of testing will also be attached to a theory when it is not demonstrated to be false.

V. If someone wishes to challenge the coherency of a theory, an alternate presentation must be submitted. Simple grammatical and spelling errors can be fixed in whatever manner is most convenient and efficient. When two theories are reconciled as being different ways of saying the same thing, then the presentation that is more coherent will remain and the other will be deleted from the database (or the two can be combined if each is clearer in different areas). Judging coherency will require the attention of trained professionals. Some criteria might include:

1.  Simplicity of argument (unnecessary material should be minimized)
2.  Clarity in writing style.
3.  Engaging to the reader.
4.  Precision of language.
5.  Concreteness of expression.

VI. “Interesting Explanations” of existing topics—such as metaphors and analogies—can be submitted directly. These will be published alongside the topics they are about for anyone who is interested in reading them. “Interesting Explanations” will not be subject to the same level of logical scrutiny as the theories they are attached to—they cannot be challenged, but readers can rate them (so others can get a sense of whether the “Interesting Explanation” really is interesting enough to be worth reading) as well as discuss them (see IX). If a theory is challenged for coherency and loses because it is not expressed concretely (see V-5), then the losing theory will become an “Interesting Explanation” attached to the winning theory rather than being deleted altogether.

• VII. Each theory shall include a glossary at the end of the article where terms can be defined. Articles that use terms in nonstandard ways and don’t define them will be suspect.

• VIII. Each article will be prefaced by a list of all the premises and assumptions that it is based on. Articles that leave this section blank will be suspect.

IX. Links to discussion boards will be included wherever they are useful, including but not limited to: theories, “Interesting Explanations”, glossaries, and premise lists.

X. Each venue that follows the guidelines of the Philosophic Method should include an easy-to-find list of the arbitrator’s assumptions, including but not limited to what they consider a logical fallacy.

• XI. To eliminate arbitrator bias, several venues following these eleven guidelines will be maintained so that they can compete with each other. Distributors may restrict permission to submit articles in whatever manner they like, but all information published under the Philosophic Method will instantly be copyrighted into the public domain.

• Added by the suggestion of Nicholas Boydston.

The Philosophic Method was originally written by Will Petillo on January 20th, 2007, 12:53am.

[edit] WikiJoke

A lot of the e-mail we get is jokes. Wouldn't it be great to have an online catalogue of jokes? Most people would prefer jokes to encyclopedic articles wouldn't they? -Weedrat 10:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that is something for Wikia. SPQRobin 14:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea. NuttyGorilla 23:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProverb

Please make "WikiProverb".
Proverb is wisdom.

Do you know a Japanese proverb "nakute-nanakuse - 無くて七癖"?
"船頭多くして船山に登る" means "Too many cooks spoil the broth." in Japanese.

I think this falls under wikiquote. user:aozeba

[edit] Can we merge WeRelate with Rodovid?

What's the guideline to follow? Both proposals are exactly the same with differnt names?

Plese remember that we don't need voting (voting is not aloud in any Wikimedia wiki), we only to reach concensus to determine what's the guideline to follow and how to approach it better.--T-man 01:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New project propsal: Wikigenealogy, Wikifamily or something like that.

Hi, this is my first post on a Wiki, so please do not get angry if it's in the wrong place :o) My idea is rather simple: create a humanity-wide family tree. People would enter their own family trees, governments could enter archives of marriages, births, funerals etc. Ideally in the end, you would have people discovering ancestors, distant relatives, etc. going back to Adam and Eve, and everybody being cousins :o) So, why would we want to do that? 1. The opportunities for knowledge are great, both on a personnal level (learning more about who your distant cousins & ancestors were, where they came from) and on a public level (showing the ties between people who are famous enough to have their own wikipedia page) 2. A lot of people out there are probably looking to figure out their own roots (people who were displaced, who emigrated in bad conditions, etc.). This could help them. 3. The same way Wikipedia does a leap from a publisher controlled knowledge to a people's controlled knowledge, this project would make a leap in the definition of what knowledge is: not only being able to look up very famous people, but also individuals, at first through their most important features (years and places of birth and death, number of marriages, and kids) but why not in the long term to other features of this person's life. 4. Showing how people around the world are connected is a great metaphor for what the web does

What are the obstables to this project? 1. vandalism, with people putting themselves as beoing Oprah's daughter and married to Brad or Angelina, but there's already that problem with Wikipedia, and that is managed. 2. Civil liberties: the information should only be publicly available information, through government held registrars, books, etc. 3. To be really cool, this project would need to move beyond wikis, not in the editing process, but in the way to explore the family tree. Some kind of graphic interface would be nice, but I have no idea whether it is possible...

Ok, I hope this interested somebody

Cheers

[edit] Promoting or removing proposals

Some of these proposals are dating back to summer 2006, making it impossible to contact the proposer about the proposal because he/she isn't really watching the proposal anymore. Also, some of these proposals have 30+ users supporting it, while some others have none. Is there a set criteria for promoting and/or removing these proposals? Diez2 18:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If not, I propose that we give any and all future proposals 3 months (1 month for projects nominated beyond 3 months ago at time of passage) to accumulate 20 or more users wishing to join the project. Also, that proposal must not violate any policy concerning project proposals here on meta.

• If a project hits the 20 user threshold, then that project is given space on the Wikimedia Incubator (or some other "incubator") for 1 year to grow and develop the new wiki.
• Afterwards, the final proposal would be brought before the entire Wikimedia community for inclusion as a Wikimedia project. Diez2 18:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, as I said in another place already, I oppose. Incubator has a policy that it should be a new version of official existing Wikimedia project. You cannot change it without any discussion with incubator editors. --Aphaia 13:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we at least agree on a policy for removing some of the items? Sitting around forever does no good, and there are some items that just won't ever be promoted. For example, Wiki Simplify already exists in the form of the Simple English Wikipedia and has been sitting around since January, while WikiCook is redundant to Wikibooks:cookbook and was submitted in May. I can understand the proposing editor getting pissed off at a quick dismissal of their ideas, but at the same time, sifting through so many dead proposals is a bit of a waste. EVula // talk // 15:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the process should be that if a consensus is reached against establishment of the project on the project talk page, then the proposal will be considered rejected, and it will be removed from the list. 71.114.79.165 22:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong support for concept. This is the type of proposal that definitely needs to be implemented if we are ever going to see innovative new Wikimedia projects started. We have to deal with that backlog.--Pharos 03:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

support. These proposals don't seem to be going anywhere. There needs to be a mechanism for categorising proposals, for merging similar proposals. for editing and developing proposals. This suggests each proposal needs a page where it can be developed until it is ready to call for discussion. Discussion would be a bit like feature article nomination and a bit like deletion discussion. Conclusion could be that tit's a good idea but should be within an existing project: That it's a good idea but outside our remit and they should do it elsewhere; that it's a terrible idea; that there is the germ of an idea there but it's needs further work ot even that it's a great idea and we should go ahead.85.133.32.66 16:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongly against It is the board that approved new projects. When you build a procedure that takes this away, you will get all kinds of project proposals where people say; "we have build our incubator project, we have content and community and now we should be allowed to go life." It just does not work that way. This does not mean that we should not allow for new projects or approaches, this way is just not going to work. GerardM 10:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no process currently. We need something like the language proposals, where there is an initial evaluation in a timely period, and the failed ones are archived quickly, when they fail to receive initial support. That reform alone would enormously reduce the backlog. But certainly, just because something gets in the incubator doesn't mean it should be passed. There would of course be a harsher review of the proposed project after the incubator period, and no expectation of success just because people put work into something.--Pharos 23:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No there is no process. So you either are creative and make your project happen or nothing happens. There is no committee procedure that makes something happen. Consider what happened with Wikiversity, the last new project, it took dedicated effort over a long time for it to be realised. GerardM 08:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia Incubator Status

This page has indicated for quite some time that "In the very near future this page, among others, may be integrated into the process at Wikimedia Incubator." Does anyone know anything about the status of this potential integration? Also, is Wikimedia Incubator itself an approved or merely proposed project? Squideshi 22:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Incubator exists, see incubator:. Someone has added that note on this page and on Requests for new languages, but nobody has removed it since then. I support moving these two pages to Incubator, but I think most people would oppose it. SPQRobin 15:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Which two pages? Requests for new languages and this one? Requests for new languages would be possible, but why this page? The new policy (that you created) only allows hosting existing Wikimedia projects... --MF-Warburg(de) 14:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I forgot that :S SPQRobin 16:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that Incubator already exists, but is it an approved or still only a proposed project? In other words, has an official decision been made that Incubator will be maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation? If such a decision has been made, then I support moving Requests for new languages to Incubator; however, if such a decision has not yet been made, then I don't yet support such a move. Also, I agree that this page, Proposals for new projects, should not be moved to Incubator, unless Incubator is for both new language versions of existing projects and completely new projects. Please see this discussion on Incubator for more about the purpose of Incubator. Squideshi 05:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incubator

I suggest create wikilanguage.wimimedia.org for new language sister projects and use incubator only for new projects and proposal of new projects (language versions of new approved projects in Incubator can later be tested in Wikilanguage). --Mac 08:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't do that. Incubator only hosts testlanguages and projects are against the policy. If you want to create a site for new projects try to get that through. --Ooswesthoesbes 08:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see this discussion on Incubator for more about the purpose of Incubator. Squideshi 05:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion of a new wiki project: Wikilaw.

The project that I would like to suggest is a database of laws - a place where anyone could upload any law of any country, state, city, international treaties, etc. I believe such project would have an EXTRAORDINARY value for DEMOCRACIES around the world - it would facilitate the access to laws, make it easier for people to know and understand their rights and obligations. We could associate the pages for the actual laws with pages of explanation/interpretation of these laws. Or, perhaps, create pages talking about legal themes (rights, obligations, regulations, etc.) with quotes of the legal basis for those rights, which would link to the pages of the actual laws. The pages for the laws would be some sort of wikireference, whereas the interpretation or explanation of rights, obligations or other legal themes could be made either under Wikipedia or under this new project. For names, I suggest calling it Wikilaw (which would be translated to every language) or Wikilex (lex means law in Latin). The wiki format would be excellent to go through the laws, since laws do A LOT of reference to other laws (which would be easily accessible by making links to this articles or laws that are being quoted). WIKILEX would make studying the law a piece of cake, comparing to how it is done this days - and that's why I think it would be a success.

I'm convinced that such project would attend an already existing need - which is pervasive to almost the entire population, not only a specific sub-group. It would be used by legal professionals (lawyers, judges, attorneys, lawmakers, legal assistants, diplomats, etc), lay people (who want to understand their rights and obligations, be it civil rights, labor rights, etc) as well as any professional, since almost everything in society is regulated by laws (businesspeople would use, as well as accountants, engineers, administrators, small entrepreneurs, journalists, etc.) I believe that, considering the broad scope of such project, it would not make sense to be done in Wikia - it is perfect for the Wikimedia Foundation. I believe that eventually the very authorities that make laws (city halls, congresses, etc) would start publishing their laws in such database - to attend their own need and obligation to make laws available, and because more and more of their constituencies would start asking them to do so. Only a Foundation such as Wikimedia could have the credibility (because of its non-commercial nature and its commitment of spreading knowledge) to welcome such public and/or official support to make such project successful. I believe such project would be especially instrumental in poor countries, where the governments don't have the means to create such database by themselves. Basically, wikimedia would be doing a very important public service and fostering democratic participation.

This idea occurred to me because of my work and my educational background. I'm from Brazil, where I went to law school, but I've been living in the US for almost 5 years. Currently, I work for a tax software company; my position is called Legal Research Analyst (I'm not an attorney in the US). Basically, I research tax laws of 50 different countries, and, in my department, the 5 of us research tax laws of about 150 countries. One of the hardest part of this work is to find the laws - and I always imagine how great it would be if every law was under one database. Also, I know that I could already be working to build such database: since I am already doing this work of finding so many laws, I could as well just upload them in a place where it could be easily available to everyone. I love Wikipedia so much, and I would love to work to make this project happen. I would take responsibility for the project, but I definitely would need help, because my knowledge of internet systems is very limited, but I learn fast and I'm driven and motivated. And I definitely can contribute heavily with the content and engage other people to do the same.

We would need to create a skeleton mirroring the legal system with all its layers and subjects (constitutional laws, labor laws, tax laws, etc) and also by authority level (country, state, county, municipalities, international treaties, etc.).

What do you think???

[edit] Wikicorp

My idea is to create a wiki that would track corporations and their subsidiaries: for example if someone wants to know who owns their TV station or their telephone provider, etc.

A typical page might be structured like this:

Conglomocorp-

• Conglomoairline
• Conglomocommunications

1. Conglomotelephone
2. Conglomovision

• Conglomofashion

1. Conglomo department store

-Wikipedia on Conglomocorp

-link to conglomocorp website

I have found an online directory with this type of information, however it is proprietary and requires a paid subscription. This is the sort of information that should be available to the masses for free, so that people know who owns what.

I am not willing to take responsibility for the project, its just an idea i had. I will, however, be an avid contributor if it takes off. I think it could have a structure very similar to Wikispecies, with big overarching companies like Viacom as kingdoms, and smaller subsidiaries as phyla, genera, and so on down to actual brand names or businesses like Lucky Charms or Home Depot. It could also link to information about these companies and who runs them- CEO's etc., in Wikipedia. If you like this idea or think you could be a part of it (or if you have any suggestions) please write under this post!

[user:aozeba]

[edit] Wikilaw and wikicorp

I suggest that both of you go and create your own wikis. I'll be glad to set one up for you, ad-free, but you'll be hard pressed to find a community. Besides, the talk page is not where new proposals go... 72.149.111.10 19:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibin as in - WikiRecycle

wikiasite:annex (http://www.wikia.com/wiki/c:annex) - already does what was suggested.

Wikibin.org - already exists and seems to have some articles (content) in it.

wikirecycle.org - already exists and is parked by someone

The proposed idea does not seem to be of any use at this point.

[edit] WikiMovies?

Also possibly known as WikiFilms. I was thinking that a movie site with content comparable to IMDb, but in the style of Wikipedia, would be a good idea. I was reading the Trivia and "Goofs" pages for a few movies, and I saw a lot of duplication, and a lot of unverified "urban myths", many of which aren't true. With enough users and support, Wikipedia's style of information management and accountability could get around this annoyance. I have very little experience starting such projects myself, but I hope that someone who's good at that sort of thing might be inspired by my idea and get the ball rolling. - UglinessMan 09:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GeoNet Wiki

This is a proposel for a Geographically organised Wiki not a mapping database. Google has a large following of contributors adding location specific information to their Google Earth service, however they own every commentand useful fact.

A Wiki to contain this sort of information needs to be set up before too many people invest their efforts making Google money. The development of this kind of GeoNet database will be inherently limited if it is owned by a company, as the company will not share the information with it's competitors and segregated databases will result in this concept being laid to waste.

I live in Christchurch New Zealand, a Wiki page could contain infomation about the city, not just encyclopedia style basicc facts, but entertainment, local events, sports teams, schools, universities anything. Now take this further, like Google Earth the resolution could be higher, down to suburbs. For example local clubs and organisations and their upcoming events. Not all this information even needs to be added to the wiki directly either, the most important part is the Geographic organisation.

A certain location (i.e GPS coordinates) would be its own page, this may contain a school or non-profit club, who may then add a page for themselves. However a business/big organisation may require a more elaborate web page so the wiki-location page could instead contain a redirect to the companies page. With time a detailed geo-graphically organised database would grow, and software such as Google Earth would be free to use this information for their services (donations would of course be accepted however!). It is important that this is done in an open source enviroment and not through a company such as google who owns the information and therefore inherently limits it's development.

The geographic layout would novel ways of organising and intepreting internet information, and would take services like Google Earth to an entirely new level. A novel use of this could be information on the fly. Many cellphones and pdas now come with GPS and wireless internet connectivity, which could allow constant updates telling you everything you need to know about your current location.

The result of this project would be an entirely new may to browse the net for information. Most of the time average people use the net to check local information specific to where they live, but are bombarded with irrevelent international information, instead of the local bus schedule! The information is mostly already out their, the main purpose of this Wiki would be to make the internet more intuitive and easier to use, while also making new services possible such as GPS based information.

For more information on this kind of web-structure try this link:[3]

I would appreciate any comments on this that you may have. I do realise their are several organisations dedicated to developing a GeoNet, however I do not know of a currently existing GeoNet Wiki.

[edit] n:WN:RADIO

A proposal is being developed on Wikinews for MediaWiki Radio a radio station encouraging all Wikimedia projects to produce and package audio content for use in a streaming service.

There is a great deal of detail in the existing pages on this over on Wikinews. I intent to port over the proposal within the next few days and list where appropriate. In the interim I would greatly appreciate any advice on how to formulate what we have as a serious proposal that is likely to be given consideration.

There are a number of software aspects to the project that would need resolved. This would not be a http:// service, but an mms:// service. The tools exist to create this, what would be required is "glue" software to run things like Icecast and Liquidsoap from a schedule maintained in a wiki. The liquidsoap people have shown some interest in helping out with this and given examples of how their software can be controlled.

With Wikipedia and other projects more regularly producing podcasts, it is my opinion that this is an idea that's time has come. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiflashcards

How come there is still no Wikiflashcards? Or let's put it this way: Why does Wikimedia think that a Wikiflashcards is not worth it? --Trozko 09:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because we don't already have something, doesn't mean we don't think it worthwhile. It could just be that no one's proposed it yet. I think flashcards would be a great addition to our Wikibooks project. -- 99.228.241.35 16:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] dividing up the content page into more specific pages and archiving the talk page...

Perhaps these would both be productive actions. --Emesee 09:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)