Wikipedia talk:WikiProject intelligent design/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design. 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

Archive 5

Merge proposals

In case anybody is actually reading this, and actually cares, I have proposed the merger of Stand Up For Science, and Free Speech on Evolution into Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns.
If you want to read Ottava Rima's commentary that "many" articles are involved and how "odd" this is, then expand this archive. -- Hrafn

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I noticed that Hrafn placed many of the Intelligent Design pages under merge proposal. However (if memory serves me correctly), many of these pages were put together by the ID wikiproject. In particular, Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns, Stand Up For Science, and Free Speech on Evolution. Discussion is here. I thought this was a little odd, but whatever. This is just a notice because it deals with the ID project. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima: your characterisation is inaccurate. I proposed the merger of two (not "many", and your "in particular"s are the sum total of my merging efforts) articles into their parent article (Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns), as a result of this query (and a long-standing concern over one of them). I find your characterisation, and your claim that my behaviour is "odd" to be completely out of keeping with WP:AGF. I am a long-time member in good standing on this project and one of the few active correspondents on this talkpage (if you want a wider response, you must needs post on the talkpage of the parent article Talk:Intelligent design). Good day to you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact if you'd bothered to check the talkpage edit-histories of any of the affected articles, you would have noted that I am the most frequent (and a long-standing) correspondent on all of them. Are my actions "odd"? I think not. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Two to be merged into a third, no? If three cannot be "many", then please provide me with another term. Now, I found the -merging- odd, but thats it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Few" would be the adjective that would come to mind for most editors (even if you stretch the issue to include the article being merged into -- which is not something that most would do) -- generally considered an antonym of "many". I find your sudden interest in my, perfectly benign, cleanup work in an area that I am an established editor in to be "odd", to say the least. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to characterize your merge proposals in another way, please feel free and make the necessary notifications yourself. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And when you feel the need to make unnecessary (in that they are required neither by any rule that I can find, nor a convention on this page to so notify) notifications about my merges, kindly characterise them accurately. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, do we have a "designated project coordinator"? Anybody? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I propose that anyone who wants to show up should be able to participate "on our behalf". We don't have an electoral college. We don't elect delegates to speak on our behalf. We don't do members-only clubs. My proposal is that any Wikipedian who wants to participate in their discussion can do so on behalf of this WikiProject. Guettarda (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Does that include Ed? I seriously do not mean this to be snarky, but in my experience, Ed has a stronger track record of pushing an agenda than trying to improve articles. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent Design on Simple English?

Hello, I am from the Simple English crowd, and I would like to invite any one of you who like to improve the article on Intelligent Design we have there. I know that Simple English has a controversial status at the English Wikipedia; nevertheless I wanted to point out that the article we have on Evolution has the equivalent status of what is a Featured article here, while the one on Intelligent design is basically a two-paragraph article. Getting a decent article on Simple English Wikipedia may also be something desirable, because many people who learn English as an additional language probably use SEWP, rather than the regular English Wikipedia, ie. this one. Anyway, just wanted to let you know. --Eptalon (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have an account there; I will take a look. Not sure how much I can help though. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:16, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages

User:Mr.Z-man has a new service available to various requesting WikiProjects which gives the project a monthly update of the number of hits on the 1,000 most frequently accessed articles for that project. An example of such a listing can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Popular pages. Would the members of this project be interested in getting such a list for their use? John Carter (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't really see any problem with this -- at worst it'll be ignored, at best it'll help us (i) direct our energies where it'll have the most visible effect and/or (ii) may turn up some articles where the connection to ID is only very tenuously connected to the topic's notability, so should be considered for excision from the project (I see a number of articles at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Popular pages whose notability is unrelated to their connection to Christianity). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the function only rates those articles which have the project's banner placed on the talk page. I'm guessing the national articles you're probably referring to are included because of the presence of the Catholicism or Lutheranism tag on them. I do however grant their appropriateness is a bit questionable. But the list would only go by the articles already tagged for the project. I am eventually trying to go through the various articles in the overall Category:Christianity, and I think most intelligent design material is included in at least one subcategory. I may be able to address the tagging matter when I finish working on Saint Peter, which I hope will be by the end of this month. John Carter (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Understood. But I've previously come across articles which have received the ID banner for strange-and-seemingly-forgotten reasons (I think one was about a footballer of all things). This sort of list might help keep track of the more obvious of such anomalies (i.e. hugely accessed articles that project members have a hard time finding a connection with ID for). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request on my talk page, I added WikiProject intelligent design to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. I can also get provide the full data for any project covered by the bot if requested, though I normally don't keep it for much longer than a couple weeks after the list is generated. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 04:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
- This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
- This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
- There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
The data is now retained indefinitely.
The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [1]

-- Mr.Z-man 00:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

A creationism wikiproject?

I have been thinking about creating a creationism wikiproject for some time, to cover all the non-ID creationism articles. Before I do so, I thought I'd throw the idea out here & ask a couple of questions:

Can anybody think of a compelling reason why I shouldn't do so?
Would people prefer instead to expand this wikiproject to cover creationism more generally? (I could see some, though not necessarily compelling, reason for this -- post-Dover, the ID brand is running out of steam -- so future creationist efforts are likely to be less frequently and less obviously tied to that 'brand' -- meaning a decreased emphasis on ID.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I asked the second question before, I think, and got a bit of a negative response, although things may have changed since then. Personally, I'm not entirely sure that a separate project would necessarily be the way to go, given the huge number of existing projects, with banners and other material, that most of these articles already have. By saying that, I'm not at all sure which other project would be the best fit for a creationism group, but personally wouldn't at all mind seeing one come into existence. John Carter (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)