Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience/Archive 6: Difference between revisions
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience) (bot |
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience) (bot |
||
Line 431: | Line 431: | ||
Thank you. <span class="nowrap"> — ''[[User talk:The Transhumanist|The Transhumanist]]'' </span> 07:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC) |
Thank you. <span class="nowrap"> — ''[[User talk:The Transhumanist|The Transhumanist]]'' </span> 07:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
== [[Draft:Visual Antipriming]] == |
|||
Input invited about this draft. [[User:Calliopejen1|Calliopejen1]] ([[User talk:Calliopejen1|talk]]) 21:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:I've commented there. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Memory]] == |
|||
As I don't like to do multiple reverts, I wonder if interested editors might take a look at recent edits to this article? [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 14:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:I've revised it, relocated it, and tagged it for a non-primary source. I figure that's a reasonable alternative. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 19:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::Cool. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 19:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:23, 27 December 2018
This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience. 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Referred to this space by a wikipedia editor (in the public chatroom)
I created this page and submitted it about 4 weeks ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Allan_Combs
Perhaps someone can tell me if this meets the criteria for publication, as the regular page editors are unsure. Any feedback would be more than helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allan Combs (talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- I have "accepted" the draft -- it's clear to me that he is notable enough for an article. I would suggest that you add an infobox to the article (probably using template:infobox scientist). Looie496 (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- I've also left a message for the editor about WP:COI. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017
Issue 2 – 13 July 2017
| |
---|---|
|
Facto Post – Issue 4 – 18 September 2017
Issue 4 – 18 September 2017
| |
---|---|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC) |
Facto Post – Issue 5 – 17 October 2017
Issue 5 – 17 October 2017
| |
---|---|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC) |
Facto Post – Issue 6 – 15 November 2017
Issue 6 – 15 November 2017
| |
---|---|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC) |
Facto Post – Issue 7 – 15 December 2017
Issue 7 – 15 December 2017
| |
---|---|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC) |
Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018
Issue 8 – 15 January 2018
| |
---|---|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC) |
Proposed merge
I have proposed to merge Auditory evoked field into Evoked field; discussion is at Talk:Evoked field#Proposed merge. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- Merger complete. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
RfC: Should the WP:TALK guideline discourage interleaving?
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#RfC: Should the guideline discourage interleaving?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- And this has what to do with neuroscience content? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- I thought it was obvious that the RfC has to do with Wikipedia as a whole, which means it affects the members of this WikiProject just like it affects every other Wikipedia editor. Explained further on my talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree, and I've replied at your talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- I thought it was obvious that the RfC has to do with Wikipedia as a whole, which means it affects the members of this WikiProject just like it affects every other Wikipedia editor. Explained further on my talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Would appreciate input on a potential article merge
See Talk:Reticular activating system#ARAS vs RAS.
In a nutshell, the question at hand is whether to (1) merge Reticulospinal tract into Reticular activating system, (2) merge both those articles into Reticular formation, or (3) neither. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Merger complete. (2nd option) Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Type of sources to use at the Sex differences in intelligence article
Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Sex differences in intelligence#Primary source after primary source. Concerns what type of sources to use when reporting on the intelligence studies. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed that WP:NEURO is included in Category:WikiProject Medicine. Is this a correct categorization? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- I hadn't realized that there are categories for WikiProjects, but I guess I should have expected it. Oh well. My gut reaction (as a PhD) was "bleep, no!!!!!". But after looking at all the categories here, I don't think that it makes this project subservient to other projects, but just serves to show relationships between them. Since we are also categorized with Biology and Psychology, and neuroscience unquestionably does have major applications in medical science, I don't have any problem with leaving us within that parent category. It's OK with me to leave it as is. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- I also think it should be left in the category per its ties to medicine (including anatomy, psychology, and psychiatry). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
- I wholly agree with Tryptofish, including the initial "bleep, no!!!!!". These are categories, not power structures. --Mark viking (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone have institutional access to textbooks on the McGraw-Hill Medical website?
I need these three textbook chapters: [1][2][3]. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I've obtained them. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Merge discussion
Editors here may perhaps be interested in Talk:Single-unit recording#Merge Extracellular field potential. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
2017 best article prize (WikiJournal of Medicine)
There are 8 weeks left to submit an article to the WikiJournal of Medicine for it to be eligible for the 2017 prize. For more information, see this advertisment from January or visit this author information page.
- Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start (example)
- Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review, either solo or as in a group, process analogous to GA / FA review (example)
- Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram (example)
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 04:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I just found out that this page exists. Is it really a thing? Any thoughts about taking it to AfD? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Why, sure. Neurophysics is the study of neuroscience using ideas and techniques from physics. No different in principle than neurochemistry. On the theoretical side, physicists created early models of neural function like Hopfield networks and associated spin glasses. Plenty of folks study neural systems as classical dynamical systems or even classical field theories. Natural scene statistics and sensory neural adaptations thereof are also an example of a neurophysics approach. On the experimental side, biophysics techniques for neural imaging (PET, MRI, etc) are also sometimes considered neurophysics. That said, I am stating common knowledge among physicists in the neuroscience field, rather than from reliable sources, so RS should probably be looked into. --Mark viking (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, you are very likely right. But aren't those things really described as being within areas like computational neuroscience and neuroimaging? I'm wondering if those are the terms that are actually used, whereas coining the term "neurophysics" (as opposed to biophysics) was original research. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Here are PubMed results for it being in the title: [4], or anywhere: [5]. (I'm amused by "Did you mean: neurophysins?") The word exists, but compared with neurochemistry: [6], 862 in title versus 8, it seems a lot less widely recognized. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that there is no doubt that neurochemistry is the better established cross-disciplinary field. Neurophysics also sounds cool, so there a a number of fringe works out there claiming to be neurophysics. Still, there are secondary sources like the books Methods and Models in Neurophysics and Electric Fields of the Brain: The Neurophysics of EEG. It's probably notable. --Mark viking (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- The existence of those books does count for something, I agree. In any case, I don't intend to take any action until after the SfN meeting, if at all. In the mean time, further comments here are welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Given that the article has essentially no content, I don't think it would be a tragedy if it went away. Looie496 (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- The existence of those books does count for something, I agree. In any case, I don't intend to take any action until after the SfN meeting, if at all. In the mean time, further comments here are welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that there is no doubt that neurochemistry is the better established cross-disciplinary field. Neurophysics also sounds cool, so there a a number of fringe works out there claiming to be neurophysics. Still, there are secondary sources like the books Methods and Models in Neurophysics and Electric Fields of the Brain: The Neurophysics of EEG. It's probably notable. --Mark viking (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Connecting To Psychiatry Portal
Hey, I just noticed that this project is included under the list of related projects in Psychology portal. I am currently working on remaking the Psychiatry portal. Wanted to know if it's right to include this under Psychiatry too (As Psychiatry is already included under the project's scope) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadha1998 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- I personally think working on portals is mostly a waste of time, because there is no mechanism to motivate readers to look at them. The neuroscience portal, for example, gets less than 50 page views per day (some of them no doubt from robots), whereas the nervous system article gets almost 3500. But to address your question, there is no problem with treating neuroscience as an area of psychiatry -- the medicine project already does something similar. Looie496 (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand why this topic redirects to artificial neural network instead of biological neural network. In fact, I'm surprised that biological neural network isn't located at the page title "Neural network". Do others think it's worth creating a proposal to address this at WP:redirects for discussion? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- There was a lot of discussion about this a couple of years ago, not that it precludes a change in consensus, of course. But here are links to the previous discussions, which should at least be taken into consideration: Talk:Biological neural network#Proposal to rename and restart, Talk:Neural network/Archive 2#Merger proposal - sorta, and Talk:Neural network#Proposed merge with Artificial neural network. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm. What do you think about changing neural network to a
{{Set index}}
article? There appears to be a mix of articles on neuroscience and machine learning topics that link to that page at the moment, so I don't think any of them need to be changed due to the present state of the links to that article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC) - @Tryptofish: Set index articles aren't DAB pages, so those backlinks won't need to be modified. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Edit: neural networks would also need to be redirected to neural network if it's turned into a set index page. Here's the list of the article backlinks to "Neural networks". Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- The idea of a set index article is an interesting one. (It's also a kind of page that I had never heard about before!) I'd like to hear other editors' opinions before really making up my mind about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Edit: neural networks would also need to be redirected to neural network if it's turned into a set index page. Here's the list of the article backlinks to "Neural networks". Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm. What do you think about changing neural network to a
Transporter reversal (i.e., Wikipedia's article on neurotransmitter efflux & reverse transport)
This article was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transporter reversal. I'm mentioning this here in the event anyone wishes to comment on this topic's WP:notability. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Resolved– Closed as keep. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish: I'd be okay with merging Transporter reversal into Membrane transport protein as you suggested. What do others think about that merger? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. Just to be clear, what I advocated was keeping the page and also doing a WP:Summary style merge into Membrane transport protein, so it's not a redirect-and-merge. I also think it would be a good idea to move it (over a redirect) from Transporter reversal to Reverse transport. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've moved the page to reverse transport. I summarized the concept (i.e., copy/pasted the lead paragraph) in Membrane transport protein#Reverse transport earlier today. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- That looks very good to me, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- I've moved the page to reverse transport. I summarized the concept (i.e., copy/pasted the lead paragraph) in Membrane transport protein#Reverse transport earlier today. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. Just to be clear, what I advocated was keeping the page and also doing a WP:Summary style merge into Membrane transport protein, so it's not a redirect-and-merge. I also think it would be a good idea to move it (over a redirect) from Transporter reversal to Reverse transport. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish: I'd be okay with merging Transporter reversal into Membrane transport protein as you suggested. What do others think about that merger? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Neuroscience
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 17:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018
Issue 9 – 5 February 2018
| |
---|---|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC) |
This article was recently created.
The cited sources either aren't reliable (i.e., the wiki reference) or don't cover what a "trigger zone" is (i.e., the first reference – full text URL: http://sci-hub.tw/10.1177/1073858409341973
– makes no mention of a "trigger zone" at all; the textbook reference is about the chemoreceptor trigger zone). Based upon https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/trigger+zone - a "trigger zone" is a region where stimulation can cause pain. That definition seems to be consistent with what most of the articles in this pubmed search are about, but that's not what our trigger zone article describes; the only exception in those search results is PMID 24847046, which doesn't actually use the word "trigger zone" anywhere in the text, but does state "This implies that APs are initially triggered at the AIS, and then propagate back to the soma in the neurons
" (full text URL: http://sci-hub.tw/10.1177/1073858414535986
).
In any event, I figured I should pose this question here: should this page be deleted or revised? At the moment, all of the content in this article constitutes WP:OR given what it says relative to the references it cites. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm. I would be tempted to tag it instead, because this looks like a case where a Wikipedia article could actually be useful -- the term has been widely used but never comprehensively discussed as far as I can tell. A bit of research indicates that the term was coined around 1915 by Hugh T Patrick, who introduced it in the context of trigeminal neuralgia [7]. For an RS for that assertion, see PMC 1426385. The term continued to be used mainly for trigeminal neuralgia through the 1920s, but then broadened to encompass areas of the body that trigger other types of responses, including pain, seizures, calcium waves, and nausea, and has also sometimes been used to encompass the axon initial segment. Looie496 (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- That's reasonable. Maybe I got triggered too easily. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hit you right in the trigger zone, huh?
- On a more serious note, what reliable sources should we use to cover and cite what you mentioned Looie? The article currently needs revision; I can do that myself if I have relevant source material. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Well, my "research" consisted of time-range-limited Google Scholar searches. But as I said above, it looks like PMC 1426385 should be a reliable source for the initial coining. Looie496 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- That's reasonable. Maybe I got triggered too easily. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Is wikipedia the right place to discuss the term? Shouldn't that happen elsewhere? It seems that at the moment the term does not describe one single subject, but is used sporadically in various contexts. I see no harm in deleting the article for now. It can be recreated easily when it gains more notability.VENIVIDIVICIPEDIAtalk 13:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying, but I don't quite agree with it. I think it is a big win for Wikipedia if we have an article that is a better source of information than anything else available, even if it requires a bit more synthesis than usual.Synthesis is not necessarily a bad thing, if it is disciplined and neutral. Looie496 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- There is certainly an option of, for now, aggressively stubifying the page, by adding a little bit of reliably sourced content and getting rid of the rest. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- I might be able to do some work on this tomorrow. I was bombed today, and am brain-dead at the moment. Looie496 (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- I've done some work on it -- maybe it's good enough to survive now? Looie496 (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- I took a quick look and I think that it's much better and probably should be kept. If I look for things that are wrong with it: (1) it strings together some disparate things that get a little coat rack-y, and (2) it gets a little close to not-dictionary. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- If you're using "coat rack-y" in the sense of WP:COATRACK, then I'm very puzzled. Looie496 (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- That's what I meant, but it's probably not really a problem. I was just observing how there are multiple examples in multiple systems, as opposed to a single unifying process within the nervous system. Basically, it's that the page is sort of like "trigger zone means this, and this, and this, and this". It's probably an exaggeration to call it a coat rack, and I was just trying to cover all bases (because the question was whether someone might propose to delete the page), but personally I'm not bothered by it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Um, I basically agree with all that, but, um, I also think that maybe you should go back and re-read WP:COATRACK. I think you are talking about something more like WP:DISCRIMINATE or WP:EXAMPLES. (In wikislang, a "coatrack" is an article that purports to be about one thing but is actually about something else.) Looie496 (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was clumsy of me, so please don't worry about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Um, I basically agree with all that, but, um, I also think that maybe you should go back and re-read WP:COATRACK. I think you are talking about something more like WP:DISCRIMINATE or WP:EXAMPLES. (In wikislang, a "coatrack" is an article that purports to be about one thing but is actually about something else.) Looie496 (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- That's what I meant, but it's probably not really a problem. I was just observing how there are multiple examples in multiple systems, as opposed to a single unifying process within the nervous system. Basically, it's that the page is sort of like "trigger zone means this, and this, and this, and this". It's probably an exaggeration to call it a coat rack, and I was just trying to cover all bases (because the question was whether someone might propose to delete the page), but personally I'm not bothered by it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- If you're using "coat rack-y" in the sense of WP:COATRACK, then I'm very puzzled. Looie496 (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- I took a quick look and I think that it's much better and probably should be kept. If I look for things that are wrong with it: (1) it strings together some disparate things that get a little coat rack-y, and (2) it gets a little close to not-dictionary. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- I've done some work on it -- maybe it's good enough to survive now? Looie496 (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- I might be able to do some work on this tomorrow. I was bombed today, and am brain-dead at the moment. Looie496 (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- There is certainly an option of, for now, aggressively stubifying the page, by adding a little bit of reliably sourced content and getting rid of the rest. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying, but I don't quite agree with it. I think it is a big win for Wikipedia if we have an article that is a better source of information than anything else available, even if it requires a bit more synthesis than usual.Synthesis is not necessarily a bad thing, if it is disciplined and neutral. Looie496 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Is wikipedia the right place to discuss the term? Shouldn't that happen elsewhere? It seems that at the moment the term does not describe one single subject, but is used sporadically in various contexts. I see no harm in deleting the article for now. It can be recreated easily when it gains more notability.VENIVIDIVICIPEDIAtalk 13:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tryptofish: Re: Basically, it's that the page is sort of like "trigger zone means this, and this, and this, and this"
– I think trigger zone is likely going to end up being written as a WP:Broad-concept article. If so, that sort of topical coverage (i.e., "X is A, B, and C") is perfectly normal for that class of articles. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- That's true. I feel like I said what I said yesterday rather badly, so please let me make clear that I was thinking about it in terms of whether or not there was still a risk of someone taking the page to AfD, so I was trying to anticipate potential reasons such a person might have, as opposed to expressing my own concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Neuroanatomy
Hi, I am not a member of your project but do most of my work at Wikiproject Anatomy. At the anatomy project we recently finished classifying our articles and we have more than 2000 articles and redirects related to neuroanatomy (central nervous system including the spinal cord, cranial nerves not includeed).
- Would you like to have these articles tagged within your project?
- How about cranial nerves and their associated ganglia and branches?
- How about the perifial nerveous systems; things like individual nerves, their ganglia, branches and so on?
If you could discuss among yourself what should fall under the scope of your project, I will gladely add your project banner to the articles (in the hope that your project members can find and will work on some of the articles of interest to both wikiprojects). Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Speaking for myself, I would say that if it is any of those bulleted points it does indeed fit here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Adding: anything that is neuroanatomy is by definition a subset of neuroscience. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2018 (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.
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 07:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Input invited about this draft. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've commented there. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
As I don't like to do multiple reverts, I wonder if interested editors might take a look at recent edits to this article? Looie496 (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've revised it, relocated it, and tagged it for a non-primary source. I figure that's a reasonable alternative. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Cool. Looie496 (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)