Proposals for new projects/Archive 1

Proposal archives : 2004-2006 | 2006-2007 | 2007-2008.

Inactive proposals are here because they have not gotten significant support after sitting on the main voting page for several months.

Superceded/redundant proposals are here because an existing project has been identified which can be used for the purpose described.

Some related proposals are sorted by topic to make it easy to find and compare overlapping proposals. These are also inactive, redundant, or both.

Please feel free to re-activate a proposal on the main voting page if you feel it has merit. Be sure to read the notice there about proper formatting, and check for similar proposals and existing projects.

Social edit

WikiSingles/Wikipeople edit

Alternative names: WikiPeople, WikiSocial

WikiSingles would be a place where people can post just a bit about themselves and their interests, and create a network on new connections based on shared interests, location, etc. A wiki would be a great place to meet people in a safe yet dynamic way. Userpages are sort of a way to do this right now but the intent is focused on the work of developing the content, not socializing with each other.

There are enough internet dating services out there. The main purpose of Wiki is not social interaction, though this is necessary to keep everything from rapidly breaking down. Wiki exists so that people may freely and openly share knowledge. - Calmypal 01:53, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Comments edit

It's an interesting idea. However I think that WikiMedia Foundation has no interest in such a project since its mission is different. But yes, a socialising wiki would be great! Optim 10:13, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

+1 on this. Nifty idea. One question: does it have to be "Singles"? Couldn't it just be "Wikipeople"? I'd participate, but I'm neither single nor lookin' for love. --Evan 06:40, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think this is a fabulous idea, but it doesn't belong in the form of a wiki. One of the great strengths/purposes of wiki projects is a large community of volunteer editors and writers. But who should be editing a person's bio except that one person? Also, information about individuals can rapidly become outdated. One last point: if a significant component of the project is socialization, then the all-essential histroy pages become superfluous/wasteful. Is it really necessary to include the history of online chit-chat since the foundation of the project? I know of no parallel to this idea (free all-inclusive online biographies and socializing) but does it need to be it be wikified?

I'm not convinced a wiki is the right place for this at all, but there is a Wikicity where it can be attempted. Angela
Yes and no -- yes, socializing makes little sense on a wiki if it isn't for some third purpose (e.g. the socialization that takes place between WikiProject participants). But the personals pages themselves (which are basically bios) could be on Wikipeople. Wikipeople would, according to the current suggestions, include living people anyway. So people could have pages there, listing their interests, age, whether their looking to meet people and what kind, and so on. From there, the best way to socialize would seem to just be email/IM, or on other sites, wiki or otherwise. Zach 15:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Solution edit

Wiki Dating

I've gone ahead and made my own dating-social-community wiki! Wikipedia/cwolfsheep 1:21AM EDT, 27 Jun 2005

I know it's WELL after the proposal was rejected, but WikiSocial is now on a subdomain of Wikia. Ccool2ax 02:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikichat edit

a chat program

  • You can already find GPL'd chat programs. I thinks we should delete this proposal. -Hapsiainen 14:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Or maybe just letting it so that people see it has already been suggested

Wiki Talk/Chat edit

Would it rather be "Wiki Talk" or "Wiki Chat"?

Sorry, I didn't want to debate: "WikiBate", but "WikiForum" would be great.

WikiMeet - Real-Time Concurrent Editing edit

WikiMeet is a blend of the Wiki philosophy with the productivity potential of MoonEdit and the grace of SubEthaEdit.

Being able to see the changes that are happening in real-time in a rich-text editor would push the wiki philosophy in a new direction. While admittedly, it would often be distracting for large-scale sites with many users editing at once, it is ideal for many situations.


  • A blending between chatting and wikying. Rather than discussing changes in one window and then implementing them in another, it would be a huge time saver to both discuss and implement the changes on the wiki-page itself.
  • Coding together through this system would in many cases provide a huge boost in productivity.
  • Collaborative writing - In terms of writing books or papers, being able to see these changes in real time is crucial.
  • Online collaborative-notes for classes. As the instructor is lecturing, the students can create and organize their notes, see the changes and notes the other students are creating, etc. At the end of the class, the result should be an impressive document covering all the relevant material discussed in that session.

Real-time is the key here. Possible implementation methods include an Ajax front-end with a Java back-end, active-x (yech), flash, or some other as yet unnamed method.

It should be built as an extension to the current mediawiki project, as an optional method for editing the text, ie.


  • View other's edits in real-time
  • Edit alone

So we don't alienate people who feel uncomfortable or annoyed with this methodology, yet allow those who would take advantage of the feature to do so without jumping through additional hoops.

It seems someone else already mentioned this here, and was told to post on mediazilla. I will copy this over there as well.

Technical development needed edit

Real-time Wiki edit

Have a look at SubEthaEdit. Wouldn't something like this be great for Wiki-usage, as editing a page could be done by a live-conference?Ahamay 16:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This would be good, but this is a technical feature, not a project proposal, so it would be better in MediaZilla: than here. Angela 02:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikierrata edit

Here is the Wikierrata that I invented:

  • Link to request on mailing list:
  • Naming suggestions: Wikierrata
  • Domain name: xx (state of registration)
  • Scope: Wikierrata is an international project that gathers books' and magazines' erratas. ISBN is the correct way to identify a book. An errata gives the page number, the typo itself and the fix for the typo for each edition of a book.
  • Details:
  • Proposer: Urvabara
  • People interested joining:

What should I do to make this a real project? I do not have a server or a credit card. They (Wikimedia) say that they are not a free hosting service. Urvabara 06:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don' think MediaWiki is currently the right software in which to do this. You'd need something far more structured. It might make sense once Wikidata exists, but even then I don't see how this would be useful as a Wikimedia project. Angela 02:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Numberpedia edit

Numberpedia is an idea I have about all the supposedly evil number pages on the wikipedia, especially en. All the Numberpedia articles would be figures, e.g. Another name could be Wikinumbers. --Mero 12:15, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Comments edit

It would really solve a problem for us. - Calmypal 00:19, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've been thinking of how this could be done with a modified version of the software. My essential idea is that you could use something half-way between bots and transclusions (as in MediaWiki: messages) to generate articles from templates, which would define which numbers they applied to, and how to generate appropriate text (such as x is the yth prime number).

Of course, this would necessitate some kind of "WikiScript", but it would mean that any number could have an article, generated on request. For templates that matched only a small set of numbers, the text could be pre-generated and cached somewhere, while those with wider scope would be calculated when a matching number was requested (and then cached until the next change). A change that effected a very large number of articles would carry a warning - I was originally thinking of requiring verification of such edits, but the existing protection mechanism could be used for that.

All very much Blue Sky stuff at the moment, but I have the beginnings of an idea how it could work. - IMSoP 18:19, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've put together an incarnation of numberpedia. There's a few twists to the model, however: while all entries in wikipedia are publicly editable (unless locked), numberpedia has notions of namespaces, so users may add numbers to private or semi-private spaces that are viewable but not necessarily editable by everyone. The public namespace may always be edited, even by anonymous users. There are also collections of numbers, called projects, that users may grant varying permissions to as well. I've also worked to make it easy for people to add numbers with a firefox toolbar. Please check out and tell me what you think! -- 02:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music edit

Wikimedia Commons does accept uploads of .ogg audio files. See en:Wikipedia:Media for how-to and coordination information.

Lyrics may be added to Wikisource if they are available in the public domain or an acceptable free license. (See en:Wikipedia:Lyrics.)

There is currently no active effort to generate a wiki "music recommendation" service in any Wikimedia Foundation project. However, there are many non-wiki music recommendation sites.

External links:

WikiScores is a project to create the ability to store sheet music in a standardized fashion.

Wikimusic edit

Well, someone put a link here to this, and I think it's a kinda of a good idea even though we already have band and musician information on Wikipedia. I myself have a diffrent idea, which would be like a Wikisource or Wikimagery for music and could hold public domain music such as Beethoven or Bach. Of course, we could move on to Creative Commons lisenced music...if the terms and conditions are right though.


  • Free, acessible copylefted music.
  • Could all be in .ogg.


  • Could turn into a Wiki-verison of Napster.
  • Possible uploads of copyrighted music.

Also, the project could be combined with Wikimagery, to create a Media Libary as suggested by User:IMSoP on the Wikimagery page. --Patrick Mannion 21:13, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Maybe this could be combined with the Wikimedia Commons? Angela 21:34, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Then commons should include a way to write music seets with wiki --Suisui

I think the real power of a project like this would be to recreate in Wiki/GFDL. all music guide is immensely popular and I think we could almost top them with a wiki. Just music reviews and discography. Some kind of a more strict and searchable format than basic wikipedia; for instance you could search recordings by year, by genre, etc. Possible could be movie and book reviews too? --Lussmu 20:34, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Re Allmusic: Absolutely. We could totally top them. Although, to be useable it would have to be done, as you say, in a more strict and searchable format. Which would mean a ton of thought and preparation before people started creating lots of pages. (Although of course any rules should be "SoftRules" and not set in stone.) We don't want to risk getting ourselves into a "cataloging crisis".

With the disastrous relaunch of, whereby users are only allowed to use the site with Internet Explorer 6.0 for Windows, and with their setup not allowing direct linking, I think this project is a lot more important. --Ilya 03:21, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think the proposal for a WikiMusic should combine public domain and copyleft music sources with the band and artist information of the Wikipedia entered.

You can see what we tried to develop to furnish a music wiki: we called it Music City, and it mixes collaborative informations and wiki with music and artists DB.

I think we should just include all freely licensed music, not just copyleft and pd.--Mac Lover 18:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music edit

Wikimedia Commons does accept uploads of .ogg audio files. See en:Wikipedia:Media for how-to and coordination information.

Lyrics may be added to Wikisource if they are available in the public domain or an acceptable free license. (See en:Wikipedia:Lyrics.)

There is currently no active effort to generate a wiki "music recommendation" service in any Wikimedia Foundation project. However, there are many non-wiki music recommendation sites.

External links:

WikiScores is a project to create the ability to store sheet music in a standardized fashion.

Wikimusic edit

Well, someone put a link here to this, and I think it's a kinda of a good idea even though we already have band and musician information on Wikipedia. I myself have a diffrent idea, which would be like a Wikisource or Wikimagery for music and could hold public domain music such as Beethoven or Bach. Of course, we could move on to Creative Commons lisenced music...if the terms and conditions are right though.


  • Free, acessible copylefted music.
  • Could all be in .ogg.


  • Could turn into a Wiki-verison of Napster.
  • Possible uploads of copyrighted music.

Also, the project could be combined with Wikimagery, to create a Media Libary as suggested by User:IMSoP on the Wikimagery page. --Patrick Mannion 21:13, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Maybe this could be combined with the Wikimedia Commons? Angela 21:34, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Then commons should include a way to write music seets with wiki --Suisui

I think the real power of a project like this would be to recreate in Wiki/GFDL. all music guide is immensely popular and I think we could almost top them with a wiki. Just music reviews and discography. Some kind of a more strict and searchable format than basic wikipedia; for instance you could search recordings by year, by genre, etc. Possible could be movie and book reviews too? --Lussmu 20:34, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Re Allmusic: Absolutely. We could totally top them. Although, to be useable it would have to be done, as you say, in a more strict and searchable format. Which would mean a ton of thought and preparation before people started creating lots of pages. (Although of course any rules should be "SoftRules" and not set in stone.) We don't want to risk getting ourselves into a "cataloging crisis".

With the disastrous relaunch of, whereby users are only allowed to use the site with Internet Explorer 6.0 for Windows, and with their setup not allowing direct linking, I think this project is a lot more important. --Ilya 03:21, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think the proposal for a WikiMusic should combine public domain and copyleft music sources with the band and artist information of the Wikipedia entries.

Integration with [http:/ MusicBrainz] and AudioScrobbler seems entirely possible. The MusicBrainz information is open source, as is the data for artist similarity, song popularity, etc. from AudioScrobbler. Integration with these services, combined with the additional information provided by users of concert dates, band biographies, etc. similar to AllMusic would make this a very powerful and popular wiki. 22:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(I'm sorry i don't know how to edit properly). I hope we can do much better than allmusic. Also I remember some years ago reading a website wich purpose was to easly send money to the artists you like, thus bypassing their record company. I don't know if they still exist. They had a real huge database, and were nonprofit. The idea of being able to send money to an artist when you browse his "informations and reviews" page on Wikimusic would be a great step for a community of "listeners and artists together". Just my 2 cents. I think maybe someone should look for this website if it still exists. At least they had a database i think they would give. 13:33, 18 Feb 2005 (CET)

Ok, i found the infos, the site was called form 2000 to 2001 (you still can found it on fairtunes @ ) then it changed name to musiclink . Anyway i pick them just as an exemple, there may be others better, or it way be something to create. I don't know what Musiclink is worth exactly, i think it's a brilliant idea. Just read the their FAQs, its very interesting (both old fairtunes and new musiclink). If we could make Wikimusic integrated with such a system and link all the localised versions together, it would make a hell of a good international realistic music platform for 21st century. This is where listeners and musicians could befriend again. 12:41, 19 Feb 2005 (CET)

I don't think downloadable music would be any good for Wikimusic. It's seems dangerous. And anyway there are so many other ways of getting thoose mp3s, oggs and so. And depending on laws and lawsuists it changes all the time. We don't need to get involve in that, it's not even needed. 12:58, 19 Feb 2005 (CET)

WikiAudio edit

I saw that there are two similar ideas for a music database. I think that it should be a WikiAudio data base. This could hold a collection of audio recordings. I would like to see both classic music and music that is donated, but I would also like to see audio books. There is a great deal of liturature with outdated (or never implemented) copyrights. Just Poe, Twain and Shakespear would be many hours of audio. With the increasing popularity of MP3 players, I think that this would be very popular.

That could be incorporated into Wikisource. Files can easily be uploaded to Wikisource, and linked to from the actual notation of the music, or a copy of the book. -- user:zanimum
Bandwidth: I'm all for something along these lines, altho this might (?) be the most bandwith-intensive project so far, which raises $ and advertising issues. Zach 16:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spoken-word recordings are now part of Wikisound. -- Beland 22:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note Try

WikiMusic - Different (No Actual Music hosted ... just info) edit

See also Wikimusic

Many people know they like a certain type of music, but don't always know what other musicians and/or songs are similar to songs that they like.

I believe a database of music which can be organized a number of ways (none of them exclusive), such as by genre, mood or tempo, could be used by users to find new music.

This database can also be used by programmers to make programs which would allow a user to pick a group of songs they feel like listening to and then have the program pick other songs the user has that fit in with that grouping (user can decide what grouping that is - again: genre, mood, tempo) or it can suggest songs from a central database.

In this way, users can have a computer pick songs that fit their mood based on community input.

Wiki fits in beautifully with this concept as it is difficult to characterize whether a song is happy, sad, upbeat, rebellious, et cetera. Everyone will have their seperate opinions, yet the more people you have contributing, the more likely the song will fit in the right category.

I think this project would explore a completely different outlet that WikiMedia has not yet tackled.

I would love to help start this project, but I honestly don't know how (honestly, I'm new to the whole WikiWorld). Thus I put this forward to the community at large. Since music is so important and powerful, a service like this would be wonderful since it is not capable of infringing on copyrights, yet provides a great deal of information when backed by community, such as the Wiki Community.

I would love to hear feedback. I will check this page again. If you have suggestions on how even to receive feedback besides this page (email address on the web = not such a good idea), I'd love to hear those as well.


Ryan 08.26.04

One comment here, things like genre and mood are somewhat relative, depends on each editor's opinions of the music, would it not? -- user:zanimum

You're definitely correct ... it's very subjective in many cases. But the more opinions you sum together, the more likely you are to have a classification of mood/genre that makes most people fairly happy. Having something close is better than having nothing at all. I believe most people would agree.
So ... anyone want to pick this up?
What about WikiLyrics?

I am momentarily thinking of a wikimusic as well, but i think i mean something different as the above. I just would permit free music (PD, GFDL, CC-free etc). At the moment that will mean classical music, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart etc. People dead over 70 years. And I would like to add three major topics with every musicpiece, to know: The audio, the score and in some cases the tekst. This would prefer some kind of wiki-notation for notes, but easier than the way as it is now (see ). I am still trying to prepare a plan, and I would like to hear more ideas, what people think of it. I leave here this, but I will probably not check this page a lot of times. Therefor, please give reactions on my nl.wp-usertalk, my talk at nl.wp, or email me, effeietsanders AT wikipedia DOT be . I will approach some users as well in the future, but I can not guarentuee that I will find you. So, if you know about music, if you are interested in music, help with ideas to make an acceptable plan for this whole procedure. Free the music! (As I understood, a quote from Jimbo). Effeietsanders talk

Inactive proposals edit

Medical advice edit

Internet think tank(s) edit

A proposal for "owned" pages.

See Internet think tank(s).

Wikipeople edit

The marriage of GlobalFamilyTree and Wikimorial.

See Wikipeople.

Wiki Scholarly Journals edit

Using the wiki approach to develop a set of open source scholarly journals.

See Wiki Scholarly Journals.

WikiResearch edit

For cataloguing primary, authoritative sources of research and information.

See WikiResearch.

WikiCapsule edit

  • Mailing List Link: [1]
  • Naming suggestions: Enkipedia, WikiHeritage, Capsulepedia
  • Domain name: (suggestion)
  • Scope: The name "Enkipedia" invokes the idea of Sumerian clay tablets in clay envelopes recording "articles" we can still read after 6000 years. Will Wikipedia last that long on magnetic drives and CD-ROM? Think "The Day After Tomorrow". It's in people's nature to think of stuff like this only after it's too late. If the internet and CD ROMs were to go away temporarily or for a long time, it would become all the more important to have permanent records of not only HowDoesItWorkWiki but perhaps also all or part of Wikipedia. I propose copying pages from both spaces to highly-resilient media likely to survive fires, floods, or severe cold, as well as archival copies designed to survive at least 1000 years. I think this project could profitably partner with the HowDoesItWorkWiki project.
  • Details:
  • Proposer: User:Steverapaport
  • People interested joining:
  • Relevant links:

A fair, effective and free rewarding system for Wikipedia volunteers edit

Wikectory edit

Wikectory is my proposal for an open source directory using MediaWiki. It could be started by sourcing from DMOZ, the Open Directory Project initially.

Take a look at - Jimbo started it a long, long time ago ... --Kurt Jansson 02:54, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The project can be found under now. --Kurt Jansson 08:05, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Cool idea, terrible name. I'll try to think of something. --Maveric149 04:08, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Why not WikiDir? Optim 23:27, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Because all Wikipedia spin off projects have to start as horrible name proposals. It's an unwritten law.-Erik
Wikirectory. - Calmypal 00:14, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Nah, that sounds too much like a building adjacent to a church. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, blog) 22:38, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
What about Wikiportal? Zach 11 Apr 2005
I've launched (a few months ago) a mediawiki based directory at (or alternately at Wikia is a neat concept, but is more of a search index than a directory (and is still very much in development - I hope to be able to work on that too). By the way, from what I've read DMOZ's license is incompatible with GFDL, so I started from scratch. Come on by! --Aerik 05:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is this just for Internet sites? Could it also be a directory of local organizations? It could be more than a phone book by including information like "non-smoking" and such. AdamRetchless 12:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidweb/Wikidirectory is just for web sites (well- I guess it could be expanded to be for any internet content, using differnt tags - but right now just web sites), but Yellowikis sounds like it's close to what you're describing. However, I am interested in pretty much any (no illegal/porn content) webisite, and the categories are structured both hierarchically and with vertical cats (regional / local). --Aerik 04:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea.Wikirectory is better.Tux3

WikiReference edit

There should be a centralized list of references to good/up-to-date textbooks/monographs in various topics, just what an expert would recommend for starters. Something like wikipedia:List of publications in science, but aimed at learning instead of listing remarkable publications (imho these lists do a bad job mixing learning resources and important historical publications). This could be used for better division of labour: some expert (without time/will to contribute) could write his recommendation here and then some fanatical wikipedian could read the books and write articles/wikibook about the subject. Samohyl Jan 14:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikifilm edit


Not sure if this or in the linked page above is the best place - I'm not attempting to spam, just make some headway on this project. So, as posted on the Wikifilm proposed project page, "I had the idea to start a filmmaking wiki, to cover all the aspects of filmmaking and movie production. I've created one and started adding content, but right now, it's still in a embryonic stage. It is currently hosted on my production company's website at I was considering buying if it were available, but it's not. However, there's no content, only a single line of text which reads, "on this side the collective filmmaking with wiki is under construction." Does anybody know the person or people responsible for this, how to get into contact with them, and/or what plans they have, if any? Otherwise, in the absense of any similarly purposed project, I'll just keep at what I'm at, but I'd like to see if there was enough interest to fold this closer into the Wikimedia community."

I am interested to work whatever the name is. I am a Graduate Engineer working in Electricity board of a Govt. Department. I have done a Diploma in Digital Film Making,PG Diploma in ADvertising and Certificate course in Acting.I made 2 short films and doing freelance work.

Wikijobs edit

A wiki version of or People can post their resumes, and others can post job requirements. It can be a service free for everyone!

  • Do you mean that everybody could edit other people's resumes? Wikimedia Foundation is for education, not for employment exchange. I think we should delete this proposal. -Hapsiainen 14:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This already exists at
That site doesn't have job postings. is somewhat similar, though there is a fee for for-profit businesses to post jobs. -- Beland 20:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikigSpot or WikiDev edit

WikigSpot :

- a place for news articles / review / preview, of the current, and upcoming Game Events arround the world, with press coverage, from the actual users of the Wiki ( example of : E3, CeBit, CERF )
- the "Discussion" - of the curent articles / reviews / previews - CAN be used as forums of discussion, a thing that many game sites are missing. ( the article, to have it's own discussion )
- a place to talk Development ( mainly GameDev, or Platform Development ) - of the current software used in Platform/Game Development ( something like, or )
- a place for Press Releases - arround the world. ( something like )
- a place for Images / Print Screens - of the actual games, software - of the WORK done by other wikipedians, or by software companies.
- a place for HardWare / SoftWare reviews and discussions.

Wanting Domaing : ( or ) and ( or )

WikiDev :

- a place for news articles / tutorials / articles about SoftWare Development.
- a place for any wikipedian, to propose theories, methods of development
- a place for books - axed MAINLY on Development
- a place for wikipedians - TO TALK about curent software / and develop MODULES for them.
- a place where all the software on the internet - CAN be indexed, and talked, and criticised ...
- a place for HISTORY of the "fenomenon" of Software Development since the `70
- a place for HardWare / SoftWare reviews and discussions.

i wish these to project, to become ONE : WikiSpot ( WikigSpot, or WikidSpot )

... hope it hits ya hard :)

This will provide, free acces to software / knowledge arround the Wiki ... Covering the large part of the IT&C domain, that's really controling our lifes, i see it as a succesfull project.

The ideea of users actualing making some press coverage, from arroun the world ( they, the users, participating on events, taking images, and articles from there ) - is quite new. We never put our users, into going, voluntary to events, and taking images, or any other content, that fits the Wiki. Should be tryed.

Shoah memorial edit

Like the 9/11 memorial we can create the "Shoah memorial". In the wikis of this projects will be all the people which were dead in the Shoah. The nazists wanted to kill, but we will collect all the biographies of the people which were killed and all the testimoniances of the people which are in life now. Excuse me for the English, I am Italian -- 20:20, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Elvish edit

  • I propose that there be an Elvish Wikipedia, based on J. R. R. Tolkien's Sindarin language. —JarlaxleArtemis 01:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WikiLanguage edit

In wikibooks, someone had the idea of creating a language in a wikibook module. They called it "Neo". While I find the implementation heavily problematic (Wikibooks is not really an appropriate place for such an endeavor; creating an International language in an English-only wiki is silly; "Neo" is a dumb name; The language as started there was really just a jumble of English-heavy Western European; etc.), the core idea I find fascinating. Certainly artificial languages have been created in the past, with mixed success. But utilizing a common wiki, it seems like there would be an opportunity to create a truly international language that bore not too much similarity to any existing language (as Esperanto, et al, do), but utilizes certain characteristics that are common amongst languages and fairly easy for humans to understand. Certain core features of the language (e.g., ideographic vs. phonetic vs. a combination of both) would have to be established fairly early, but from that groundwork, it should be possible to create a usable, consistent, fairly easy-to-learn, and not-especially-biased-towards-speakers-of-one-language collaborative language. Jun-Dai 18:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also The Sigsumeidsi Wikia (ShakespeareFan00 on en Wikipeda) 15:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiportal edit

See also Talk:Proposals for new projects#WikiCatalog

I would love to see a wiki which could take up a project, akin to what metafilter has done. People could come and share urls to the most useful, unique, and interesting websites on the net. The internet, as it is today, is unnavigable for many people. And that's because one, businesses with vested interests have taken up the job of providing the switchboards - the directories and search engines. Secondly, most commercial sites design webpages which weigh in heavily, at the 250-350kilobyte size range - which size is impossible to surf fluently on a 56kilobit dial up connection. There's a vacuum for a well designed non commercial portal, and I believe the wiki format would invite the talent and the knowledge to do this. Rainbird 00:04, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

WikiLit / Wikisummary edit

I propose WikiLit, WikiLiterature, or maybe WikiNotes. It would be a wiki based around literature in many languages, offering analysis, interpretation, summaries, etc, and deriving inspiration from Sparknotes. People could edit a book's page to talk about the motifs, the symbolism, the purpose, cite their favorite quotes, and so on, of famous works of literature (or any work for that matter). Links to the book's page on Amazon or a link to the online text through Gutenberg would be available. What do you guys think? LockeShocke 23:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • no way. WikiBooks allready publishes Literature. D.Evil
    • I don't think Wikibooks offers what this proposal is asking for. Wikibooks is for textbooks, not articles about books. Wikicities:c:LitCrit would be a better place for this. Angela
      • Can't any of these projects be moved to Wikicities? What decides if it gets to be a Mediawiki project or a Wikicity? LockeShocke 18:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikinotes I think if this were done, by WM or elsewhere, it should be called Wikinotes, since -notes seems to be the industry standard name (E.g. Sparknotes, Cliff Notes in the US, York Notes in the UK)
  • Where Currently, there's a lot of work to be done within Wikipedia -- important works that don't have articles, or don't have good ones. E.g., w:Canterbury Tales could be expanded a lot. But eventually, if we want longer-than-article-length study guides, I see no reason at all why it shouldn't be in Wikibooks. Study guides are typically short books anyway. Zach 17:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Basically a free source of summaries online, sounds great.

WikiWorld edit

A wiki where people describe how the world is actually governed. Presumably many different viewpoints would be accumulated in such a wiki. It would be a great resource for learning about the world propoganda machines work, how governments really function, as opposed to how the say they function and the like. It would be good place for describing the activities of multi-nationals, and their global influence. Presumably it would also be heavily linked into the main Wikipedia, and may be more suited to being a part of the Wikipedia, but I don't know.

Possible things to include would be:

  • A basic atlas to reference things
  • Descriptions of the not-so-obvious chains of ownership of corporations (eg, what does Time Warner actually own etc.)
  • Descriptions of the spheres of influence of corporations/nations etc.
  • Case studies of how ways of governance in the world have actually worked (eg, experiments with negative-interest money systems that have gone on already).
  • Anything else to do with how the world actually governs itself.

this is hugely work in progress. i just wanted to get the idea out in open so people could look at it, destroy it, love it, whatever.

Comments edit

Such a project would probably found better home at Disinfopedia. Nikola Smolenski 11:51, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The problem is to ensure accuracy, so that such a tool does not itself become an instrument of political propoganda.

I like the idea but Disinfopedia already exists. Also, I do not think it it a good idea for WikiMedia Foundation to host/manage WikiWorld. If you plan to host such a wiki by yourself, please inform me. Optim 23:18, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This is an idea whose time has come.

The basic elements of this sort of Wiki could be government documents. Governments can be recruited to submit their own documents, when the project gains sufficient momentum. The starting point would be public presure on govermnent agencies to release documents. Laws requiring document release are already in force in many places. Open records laws need to be exercised. The project needs an organizing tool that would provide active citizens guidelines for obtaining and presenting government documents in an encyclopedic format. Operations of government are usually simple organizational charts, with powers of each level enumerated in ordinances, constitutions, charters and rules. Many laws and ordinances are already available on-line, but some are moving toward pay-per-view sites. This is just the time to start with an aggressive campaign for government transparency that removes the veil of media filtration between citizens and government information.

I have proposed a related direction, but which focuses on developing more visual resources more so that generating content related to public processes. The latter is absolutely an element of the whole-earth Wiki I am suggesting. I think I will change the name of that article and post it to the front page of Wikimedia. Thanks for this one. Lets make this thing move forward! - WholeEarthWiki --Bird 18:56, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

WikiPorn edit

Given how the pornography market is dominated by sleazy, sketchy, unorganized people of low morals, perhaps Wikipedians, the elite cybercitizens, may be convinced to support an intellectually-driven, high-standards, open-source porn site. This one area of WikiMedia may generate traffic, and perhaps revenue, far in excess of existing WikiProjects. Subcategories would include WikiPorn:HardCore, WikiPorn:Amateurs, WikiPorn:Teens, etc. - user:Naif

Here Here! --Alterego 05:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Strongly opposed. --Aphaia 07:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with education and would collapse the credibility of Wikimedia Foundation. Oppose. -Hapsiainen 13:09, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
I dunno, I got much of my education from porn magazines :-). But the credibility thing could definitely be a problem.

Steverapaport 14:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I Actually LOL'ed on that. I agree that, if properly written and patrolled, it can be educational by showing the benefits AND the ramifications of porn. --Hourick 17:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What sort of "intellectually-driven, high-standards" porn is there? People would never look at WikiMedia the same way. And I mean that badly. LockeShocke 04:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose:
  • This idea has merit; porn's been around and driving tech and lots more for eons, and it certainly calls out for some "Don't be evil" to be brought to bear on it, but this shouldn't be at all connected to anything WikiMedia. Even if it were to run on MediaWiki software, which is open-source, right? Go just do it, somewhere else. This would be like a lightening rod for headaches for WikiMedia.
  • And,, WikiPorn:Teens?!?!! If your idea for 'high-standards porn' has room for teen porn (especially at first-pass mention of it here), then I would humbly submit that you're probably headed in the wrong direction already. Already you're heading towards some of most foul stuff that goes on. Show me the nice large group of female middle-aged former teen porn "stars" that look back fondly and feel to this day that they made healthy well-educated choices to make porn while still teenagers.
Ozzyslovechild 12:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a very bad idea. An actually high-standards and woman-positive project (Wikirotica?) could maybe be worth doing, but it couldn't be connected with Wikimedia in any way. Zach 16:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Vehemently Oppose:
  • The terms "high-standards" and "porn" are mutually exclusive. The hypothetical subcategory of teens has obvious very bad legal implications. That the person who came up with this idea could seriously say that - they are completely out of their mind. MediaWiki would never be redeemed in the public mind. Very, very bad idea. -- 03:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support wholeheartedly, I think this proposal could really help me come to terms with my sexuality on the internet. Christiaan 23:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, a WikiPorn might be a good idea, but it should be implemented somewhere apart from WikiMedia for sure!
Maybe the people who oppose WikiPorn would do well to remember WHERE Jimmy Wales got the money to start Wikimedia? *smirk* Remember, without porn, there wouldn't be a Wikimedia! --Ce garcon 10:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-Indeed. Maybe they should, and maybe you should reference via link that to which you're alluding if it is your contention that WikiMedia should get itself involved with porn at this point in time. -Ozzyslovechild 05:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
<Jun-Dai 17:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)> I bet it wouldn't be up for a month before the most popular video turns out to be a 15 year old girl, and the whole project gets brought down. </Jun-Dai>[reply]

Note It's been up for several months andnis still running (mainly because nobody knows it's there)

  • Strong support It should be implemented independently, initially supported by Jimbo & others, as a non-profit-but-money-making porn organization whose bylaws state that all profits not used to provide for its own bandwidth & administration needs must go to the wikimedia foundation. Nyarlathotep 20:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikijoke edit

Wikijoke is a proposed project to record all humor from earliest Egyptian and Mayan double entendres to the choicest sniggles doing the rounds at this very moment.

Comments edit

Brilliant. Andrevan 14:23, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
How would it be categorized? By Time heard, or alphabetically, categorically? How? --Cimulation

Awesome Idea

I see it as being categorized by any number of means. You could do it based on the subject of the joke itself, by the time frame in which the joke can be traced to, i.e. "I heard this joke from a guy who heard from a guy..." but that would tend to get a little sticky. I know that there are some out there who are studying jokes and are able to pin point when they originated, so I don't think that would be too much of a problem. Jdl32579 02:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This could go at Wikicities:c:Comedy. Angela 02:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WikiLifeGuide edit

From the proposal:

WikiLifeGuide would be a project that attempts to harness all the How-to guides related to mananging one's life that currently exist and maybe even many that don't exist at this time. Alternative names could include WikiLifeManual and WikiLife101. This will ultimately become the How to Do Everything in Your Life Guide. This proposal borrows from the now-deceased Know-How Wiki as well as the current proposal for HowDoesItWorkWiki.

Go to the above link for more details. Please leave suggestions for changes on the proposal's talk page. Thanks! Stevietheman 21:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia in Ebonics!!!!!!!!!! edit

The time has come! Wikipedia in Ebonics, it would be much more entertaining and fun to post and read articles in Ebonics. The url should be

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be "entertaining". It might be useful, though, as a genuine education tool for... inner-city schools or what-have-you. Didn't some school district in Oakland or something recognize and teach ebonics as a language? LockeShocke 20:31, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Dude, where's your .org/wiki/Sense_of_humor ? :)Ozzyslovechild 04:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think the whole ebonics thing has lost its street cred, know what I mean?
)Jdl32579 02:03, 7 Feb 2005 (CST)
I'd like this to happen. errr... bitch?

--T-man 03:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yearbook edit

Some comments on the Talk page for w:September 11 2001, Terrorist Attack got me thinking. A number of people rightly say that much of the Sept. 11 material, especially the individual 'memorials', though they are laudable in themselves, really have no place in a true encyclopedia. I basically agree. Then it occurred to me that both Britannica and World Book have for many years issued 'Yearbook' editions with the distributions of their new encyc. sets. These Yearbooks are devoted to the major events, scientific achievements, etc. for each individual year, allowing the editors to expand somewhat on issues that will only end up with a passing reference in the main encyc. I think Wikipedia stands much in need of something like this. No amount of cajoling will keep people from posting detailed stuff that seems important today but will only merit a few blanket sentences in the ongoing encyc. Much of this stuff would be just right for a Yearbook, as would material like the Sept. 11 memorials. What say you to a WikiYearbook side project? JDG Oct. 9, 2002

If you want to, go for it! Jimmy has said in the past that he'll host just about any wiki, so I'm sure he'd be glad to host a project somewhat related to Wikipedia.

Personally, however, I can't say I'm very enthusiastic about the idea. Encyclopedia yearbooks are a relic of the past. They were designed to keep a printed encyclopedia set from becoming hopelessly outdated, and they didn't even do a good job at that. World Book would send me a $50 yearbook every year, complete with stickers to put in my encyclopedia volumes saying , "This article has been updated", with a yearbook cross-reference.

If something no longer fits in an encyclopedia article, it can either be moved into its own article, or even moved to the meta. --Stephen Gilbert 11:01 Oct 10, 2002 (UTC)

But we're not limited by paper. Granted, that means that recent years will get way more material compared to past events. If we one day come to produce a paper version of Wikipedia, we'll have to do some trimming then. The point about the September 11 2001 stufff is that much of it isn't encyclopedic.

Wikipedia's Current Events page already has archives. This might make the project easier, at least for indexing a few years. – Mxn 23:51, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Never mind, I guess I should've read the page better before commenting. :) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, blog) 01:07, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitrans edit

With the wiki software it should be possible to introduce pairs of words in any language to any other and create the first GNU translation project with the maximum possible number of languages.

The web should generate a page with the often non translated words... Interesting. Any language could be translated in any other. And if a pair of words doesn't exist ("Buenos días" -> "Good morning" Spanish/English), the program could translate trought a third language ("Buenos días" -> "Bonjour" -> "Good morning" Spanish/French/English)

Comments edit

The idea is interesting and revolutionary, but needs lots of changes in the software, I suppose. A word-by-word translation project seems easy, but how could the grammar be programmed? The grammar would be very conflictive.
This could be used to translate pages that already exist into another language where a page on that topic doesn't exist.

If it was done word by word, the page would not make very good reading sense in the other language, but it then becomes a lot less work patching up the grammar, than completely translating it from scratch, or re-writing it from scratch.Naturally it would be better to have it written in another language from scratch, so you can get what that topic means to those people, but this could help just to start people off. --Cimulation

This is a good idea. But the problem with this approach is that the software required to do the translation is usually proprietary, and very expensive. Systran server would probably be the one to use. The translation it produces is decent, but often runs into problems with generating schisms which are impossible to translate, unless one is sufficiently bilingual. However, at least machine translation can assist in the bulk of the work, and the task of dealing with hundreds of thousands of documents can become feasible.
The other problem is that the real point of translation isnt just to spread English around. In fact, from Wikipedia's point of view, this represents more of a Foreign->English language issue. I.e. people are more interested in reading something they cant yet read, and there are way more English speakers —so the texts of other language wikis can find themselves rapidly integrated into English. While this is really a Good Thing, its also only a one-way process, which without feedback will tend to simply be pruned of the balance that non-Western views represent. The benefits far outweigh the defecits, however.-KuniShiro 23:22, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't think MediaWiki is the right software in which to do this. Angela 02:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WikiFacts edit

The Wikipedia grows more and more, with more articles being edited, produced and unfortunately influenced with wrong information as well. This is why a new approach should be taken to ensure that a) more secure information are being spread in all Wikis and b) this without restricting the public access to all people.

But how to do that? Engage more people to have a look at long articles which are harder to review with increasing size? Locking more and more articles for editing, so only people with professional competence can do changes? This would bar the concept which made Wikipedia famous and popular, the liberty of each visitor to edit articles. No, this would be a deep break and could lead to forks. The Wikipedia will be forked, too, when it continues the current way - ignoring the problem that there are some very good articles being filled with misleading and wrong information. Of course, there are people who revert those articles back, but what's with people who are dependant on secure information as well? They cannot be sure when they load a page in Wikipedia, because misleading information can be included at any time.

Therefore I propose a new Wiki Project which could ensure more secure information which can be trusted in, WikiFacts. I assume that a collection of well-sorted and well-reviewed facts with full list of references could improve the quality of all Mediawiki projects in all languages, because it is only an addition. References in statements to WikiFacts could show the reader whether a passage can be trusted in or not. Those references may be hidden and be shown with a click onto a new link in articles.

As such a new project would need to be filled with trusted facts, a policy for ensuring high quality and references would lead to facts which could be taken almost for granted - and high quality leads to a quick adoption as well. --Samweis 16:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

cockney rhyming slang version for wikipedia edit

Just a proposal; but would it be possible to create a cockney rhyimg m slang version fo wikipedia. the url could be: - fonzy

This might be more appropriate in the Wiktionary. Unless you mean to have an entire encyclopedia translated into CRS? Surely not... Neolux 14:33 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think that's resonable, to have wikipedia translated into another dialect, but if we do that with cockney rhyming slang, we also need an ebonics wikipedia at LittleDan 15:26, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This could be neat! I think you'd prolly want to have as it's "thing" an audio file of a true cockney reading each entry to really work, which would be neat for any version of Wikipedia, actually. Ozzyslovechild 12:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1337 speak a viable dialect edit

Is elite talk a viable enough language/dialect enough to have its own wikipedia? I guess it falls in the same vein as having a ebonics language version, and it depends on if anyone would actually want to work on it. As far as practicality goes though, I know I'v come across this 'language' a number of times with no way to 'translate' it. Retekp 13:45, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For the most part, l33t is just a cipher, a handful of new words like n00b or meanings like camp, and a few purposeful misspellings. It's not a completely different language with different grammar and mechanics. Replace "the" with "teh" and tack on a couple "z0r"s to verbs and I think you'll have the gist of it. LockeShocke 04:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This would be better at Wikicities:c:Conlang. Angela

Associative Wiktionary edit

The goal of the Associative Wiktionary proposal is to convert Wictionary to associative one. It means that we shall add multilingual links to every word entry of Wiktionary.

Multilingual link - beautiful sensible sparkling phrase or sentence which combines words of several languages.

Examples of multilingual links

listen (English) lesa son(dream of forest, Russian)

know how say (English) ni2 hao3 (hello, Chinese)

dog polite (English) ne laet (does not bark, Russian)

zusammen (together, German) на экзамен (to exam, Russian)

xue2 sheng(student, Chinese) - sure handshake (English)

Ohayoo Gozaimasu (good morning, Japanese), go (English) йогой (yoga) заниматься (to make, Russian)

каждому (to everybody) скажите (say, Russian) - Hajimemashite (nice to meet you, Japanese)

malheureuse (unhappy, French) - мало роз (has not enough roses, Russian)

было мало (was not enough, Russian), но (but) molto bello (very good, Italian)

rebe(rabbi) zar(alien, Hebrew) - miserable (English)

tout a coup (suddenly, French) cop (English) тут как тут (here, Russian)

zloi(unkind, Russian) lawyer, ready for (English) redifa(chase, Hebrew)

Reasons to do Wictionary an associative

  • At present the languages coexist almost independently. Amount of links between words of different languages is much less than amount of connections inside a language. Each language as though exists in its own plane presenting its own reflection of the world.

Creation of numerous links between languages will convert the structure of many parallel language planes to 3-dimensional structure which will be much richer than any individual language.

  • Associative dictionary helps to learn languages fast.
  • Common language helps different people to understand each other.
  • Gives new opportunities for creative work. This is like poetry using not one but many languages. It also can be considered as a multilingual game.
  • Will help to save weak languages connecting them to stronger ones.

Development of associative Wictionary requires participation of many people speaking in different languages. To take part just add multilingual links to Wiktionary entries.

more examples of multilingual links

User: shlomo

Sounds like very nice exercise to begin, to get into translation, the essential thing of every conversation, even of speaking at all. It's all permanent translation, multilingual communication.
MattisManzel 18:32, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

WikiRecipies edit

Superceded/redundant proposals edit

Software catalog edit seems to be the most active site that serves this purpose. It runs MediaWiki and uses a Creative Commons license, but is not an official Wikimedia Foundation project. -- Beland 22:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiware and Tuxfutter edit

Charter: Intended to serve as a comprehensive categorized catalog of software.

Organization: Any developers/users will be allowed to add an entry for a software, detailing homepage, license status, download links...etc

It might make a good free alternative to websites like A user rating system would be nice to put in. One potential problem is it could be abused by companies wanting to promote their software over that of their competators.

Related projects: there is already a german soft.ware.catalog called "Tuxfutter" ("futter" is the german word for
it is also based on and it also uses gnu.fdl
at this moment it has 432 articles, and it is growing very fastly
an english Tuxfutter is also planned
i am actually preparing for the new desing
the url is

Well, folks, the english version of Tuxfutter (it is then called "Tuxfood") is installed but not yet accesible for the public. I will drop a note here if the website is ready for the world :) -- HaukeZuehl

ok, the english tuxfutter is ready now! actually it's very small, but it mustn't keep so ;) --marti7D3

Wikilogue edit

Charter: To provide fora and resources for software developers to discuss issues related to software development. The proposed wiki is NOT meant to host pages for specific software projects, sites like Sourceforge et. al. are available for that. It is, however, intended to host resources and fora for specific software applications, e.g. community-blogs, calender applications, media players..etc. Discussion is intended to revolve around users discussing possible features in such a generic application. Also, discussion of general algorithms and issues. The resources counterpart for an application would center on informing the reader of the typical complexity, tools, experience, methods that are involved in such a type of application. So, for writing blogging software, resource section would focus on how PHP/perl/MySQL are used, what the typical user interaction issues are, link to some well-implemented blogs..etc. The associated wiki forum would allow contributors to suggest related ideas, improvements, algorithms..etc

Merger: On closer thought, instead of establishing a separate Wiki, maybe this project could be merged with Wikiware. You could have a catalog section and the above.

WikiTech edit

  • Naming suggestions: WikiTech
  • Domain name: (i would need someone to get, i could get or simular though.
  • Scope: Technology based wiki which would be a collection of technology info
  • Details: WikiTech
  • Proposer: User:Ryan524
  • People interested joining:
  • Relevant links:

How-to and FAQ wiki edit

Implemented on Wikibooks; see the how-tos bookshelf.

Archived discussion on How-to and FAQ wiki.

WikiCityGuides edit

  • Naming suggestions: WikiCityGuides
  • Domain name: (state of registration)
  • Scope: Create up to date free city guides
  • Details: WikiCityGuides
  • Proposer: user:sboehringer
  • People interested joining:

This seems to duplicate -- Beland 01:55, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Associative Wiktionary edit

(This is a proposed enhancement to an existing project,

Wiki Language School edit

  • Link to request on mailing list: yet to be sent
  • Naming suggestions: Learning Dictionary, wikischool, Language Wiktionary, WikiLang,Wikispeak (a good name is still needed).
  • Domain name:
  • Scope: languages - words, but also grammar, idioms, phrases ...
    • It seems like this could be a department of Wikiversity. Zach 20:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Details: Working title
  • Proposer:Flammifer
  • People interested joining:
    • Flammifer
    • Wonderfool
    • Merlin of Eragon
    • Jun-Dai 17:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC) I'd be up for this, but I'd like to emphasize the value of having different tracks for each language, e.g., a set of courses for people aiming to have basic functional skills as soon as possible with only tidbits of serious grammar, and a set of courses for people that won't really have the opportunity for field practice in the near future (i.e., have no need to learn common phrases and customs before learning grammar) and would like to master their reading and writing skills above all else)[reply]
    • Almafeta 23:25, 28 May 2005 (UTC) (I would suggest WikiBabel for its name, myself.)[reply]
  • Relevant links:
  • Comments:

Wikikids edit

ChiLef Wikipedia edit

LetterPedia edit

The idea for LetterPedia is inspired by reading about Leibniz. From 1663 to 1716 Leibniz had exchange of about 20.000 letters to over 1100 people in 16 different countries.

LetterPedia could be a Wikimedia project with a database of letters, exchanged between people from Wikipedia.

The LetterPedia may consist of a records with the following format:

  • from: (Link to Wikipedia)
  • to: (Link to Wikipedia)
  • date: (Link to Wikipedia Date)
  • content: (Free wiki text).

--Rainer Wasserfuhr, 2004-07-11

Letters are already covered at Wikisource with the same basic format, though not many. (An example). I don't see why there couldn't eventually be a few tens of thousands in there. TPK 14:04, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikiclip edit

So, a discussion started on the Sodipodi mailing list about creating an SVG clipart collection project on SourceForge. Sodipodi users have already created a huge clipart collection including flags of all countries.

Right now, Sodipodi has built up this clipart collection using email submissions to their mailing list. The proposal on Sodipodi list would use SourceForge's CVS system as a collaboration technique. However, the high overhead of collaboration needed for CVS may make that a bit tedious.

Another possibility is creating a Wiki-based clip-art collection, for SVG and other clip-art file formats. This would lower the bar for contributions considerably.

This would be related, if not part of, to Wikimagery.

Wikiclip if not images, may become the site, or a new name like Wikideo or Wikivideos, cilp can also mean videoclips.

This should be part of the Wikimedia Commons. Angela 02:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WikiTree edit

I propose WikiTree, a giant world family tree. People could make their own family tree as far as they know and if there are people who are the same, we integrate their trees so they are connected. The goal of WikiTree would be to connect everyone into one family tree and go back as far as possible. It would be a great project because with so many people using it, we could all go farther back into our ancestry. It would be very successful, too, because Genealogy is the number 2 most popular hobby today! -- Alcarinquë 14:01, 30 Jan 2005

The Mormons do that already. They are very inclusive . So what is the added value? GerardM 22:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The added value is that anyone can edit it very easily using a wiki. I expect it isn't so easy to add to the Mormon database. This is starting to happen at Wikicities:c:Genealogy. Angela

<Jun-Dai 17:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)> This does sound like an interesting project, though one that would really need a different interface. How to implement with MediaWiki? </Jun-Dai>[reply]

This is also starting to happen at --Krubo 16 May 2005

Wikistyle edit

This would have limited similarity to the style guide used for Wikipedia.

It would not attempt to develop a single consensus or give absolute rulings, but give explanations of the rationale for various styles and how much or what type of support each has. By "what type of support," I mean maybe one way is preferred for a different type of media, or a different audience, etc.

The advantage over paper stylebooks and usage manuals is not only that anyone can contribute, but that it is "living."

Many good books are too old to address contemporary conundrums, such as whether to use an exclamation point with "Yahoo," whether to uppercase "K.D. Lang," how to deal with names such as "GlaxoSmithKline," and whether certain new words or expressions (mainly in technology) are proper nouns.

- Maurreen, 12 Sep 2004

It belongs to Wikibooks. Ausir 10:44, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

WikiFact edit

A collection of all facts of this universe. More specifically, static and measurable facts (Like the weight of a proton). The 'articles' would consist of a description of the fact (with links to Wikipedia), a numeric value (with information about accuracy) and a unit. This would go allong with a world-wide unit conversion table. This Wiki project would be useful for human vistors, but should also provide quick and easy access for other wiki projects and not-wikimedia-related software. Due to the nature of the information (very small), the server load would be minimal.-- 16:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why can't these facts just be in Wikipedia? Angela

Transform discussion pages to a "real" forum edit

My idea is to transform the discussion pages to a real forum, as known from phpBB, Woltlab Burning Board or vBulletin.

So each article would have one subforum, in which everyone can create a new thread. Other users can answer these threads or create new ones. It should only be possible to edit your own posts but not the ones from others.

The forum structure could be like this:

  • Wikipedia Forum
    • Wikipedia intern
      • Bugreports
      • Proposals and criticism
    • Articles
      • (Subforum for each article)
    • Users
      • (Subforum for each users)
    • Portals
      • (Subforum for each portal)
    • and so on...

I think this way the discussions would be much more effective and purposeful.

At the the top of each discussion page there could be a notice where you are at the moment:

You are here: [Wikipedia Forum] -> [Articles] -> [Foobar] -> [Delete this article?]

The most important thing is that the discussion is really organized in forums, subforums, threads and posts, EXACTLY the way it is in the known Burning Boards.

Some example for Burning Boards:

Example for vBulletin

Example for WBB

--SwEEper 12:00, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See LiquidThreads. Angela

Wiki Translations of Greek/Roman/XYZ classics edit

I once wrote about this to the foundation-l mailing list. Now I made a more detailed plan here. It would be great to find someone who could pick up this idea... -, 20 Dec 2004

Can't this go at Wikisource? Angela

Wikiguide edit

While travelling a little and using my not-so-great local traveller's guide and seeing something called "Lonely Planet" guide - I thought it could be a nice idea to create a community-developed traveller's guide a'la "Lonely Planet"...

Most of the descriptive content (i mean - the descriptions of places, monuments, notable attractions) could be shared with the Wikipedia project, so that would be great for start...

But what I would see as an addition and which doesn't really fit into Wikipedia would be lists of tourist facilities in the regions and (hopefully objective) reviews of them... Possibly, we could also put example prices here - of course, with the dates these prices were registered on...

These facilities might include:

  • hotels, motels, and the like...
  • restaurants and other food and drink serving facilites,
  • internet cafes,
  • car rental facilities,
  • airports, stations...
  • whatever else...

We could put there the lists of available means of transport in the described countries or cities... And add to it prices (with dates) and also reviews - eg. trains running along Nile River are usually much nicer (i know that's a little non-NPOV) than buses in Egypt...

There could be something like proposed "ways" of travelling through a country - like "minimum of what you just have to see" or maybe such lists concerning cities, towns and so on... And general list of possible local or not-so-local trips you can make from a certain place...

The good thing would be the fact that also people local to these regions could put some info concerning places worth visiting in their own country...

so, eventually: what do you think?  :)


Wikiname edit

How about an encyclopedia of names? The idea would be to give the meanings and origins of common and uncommon names, much like baby-naming books do. We could also include in the article a short list of some famous people who also have those names (mostly the best known ones).

So for instance, here is a rough draft of an article on Linus:


The name comes from Linos, the son of the Greek god Apollo.

===Famous people named Linus===

  • Pope Linus
  • Linus Pauling, chemist
  • Linus Roache, actor
  • Linus Torvalds, programmer
  • Linus van Pelt, Peanuts character

-- LGagnon

This is already done in Wiktionary. See en:wikt:Wiktionary Appendix:First names for example. Also, some of the other Wikipedias have this sort of information (pl:Angela for example). I think there might already be too much overlap with Wikipedia and Wiktionary to start a separate project for this. Angela 02:10, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the Wiktionary section, but it doesn't seem to do a very good job at accomplishing the task as I described it. The articles that I've seen that have come of it treat them as dictionary entries rather than articles on names. This is only further complicated by the fact that some names happen to be the same as regular words (Mark is a noun & verb, bob is a verb, etc). Wikipedia may be the best of the currently existing places to make these articles, but many such articles are already used as disambiguation pages for people, places, and things with such names. -- LGagnon
Names could be treated under Wiktionary, but there is a lot of content about names that differs, so unless the dictionary entries can have addition or different content format for names, they mightn't be covered well. Besides how many people that might add names don't because it doesn't occur to them to add them under Wiktionary entries? - July 6 2004
A lot of this could be in Wiktionary. If not, there is a genealogy Wikicity which includes such pages. Angela 02:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikiconflict edit

There is a huge need in the modern world for a news source which is unbiased. Here in the UK, the media is largely anti-Zionist, with the BBC broadcasting news reports in a biased way. I'm no expert in this, but I expect there are plenty of articles around on the internet about this, they themselves biased. Also, there is a tendency to magnify Israel, Iraq, Ireland and domestic affairs. I am vaguely aware that there must be other conflicts somewhere, but the only other place I can think of is the anti-Semitic attacks in France and the conflict in Zimbabwe. I think I am an example of a biased reader with a distorted view of the world.

What I am proposing is a wiki to list and describe all conflicts around the world in NPOV, putting the reader's view of the world in proportion, and not associating conflicts and attacks with recent political events. For example, in the Daily Mail (my biased JS teacher says), an article about some more politics brewing over Israel was placed next to one about three soldiers in Iraq who were attacked by local residents. This seems, to me, to be an implicit connection between the usual attacks on the American military in Iraq and the developments in Israel. Therefore, the wiki would not use phrases like "The suicide attack came after the Road to Peace map was denounced..." explicitly giving the suicide attack a political motive, which many Zionists would disagree with.

I hope I have made my point clear. R3m0t (14) 12:27, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikitronics edit

A Huge enciclopedy of electronics circuits under the GPL license. This can be a big image with the circuit or a GPL licenced file format for the schematic and PCB design, with the respective explanation.

Wiki Browser edit

A dedicated Browser (or firefox module) to find some terms, words, images, sounds, electronics circuits, etc. for all the web which could download directly from the url the raw wikicode and parse it locally on each Browser. To reduce server processing. With all functionalies that mediawiki have but in a dedicated Browser .

Wiki Translator edit

Something like Babylon Translator but GPL'd and the comunity writes the dictionarys. Must have the ability to automake a single dictionary file (like a single database file) periodically to let clients (like a Wiki Browser or a Babylon clone) to download the complete dictionary, like in babylon. The same Babylon clone could by used with wikitionary. Must be implemented in the same way which Wiki Browser but with shorter content, to fit in a small window, and not read to much.

Just doing the script to format the current wikimedia's content as a shortly xml output will be enought, so we can develop a client.

European Wikitution edit

  • Link to request on mailing list: not yet there
  • Naming suggestions: Wikitution
  • Domain name: (working)
  • Scope: The citizens of France and The Netherlands did not accept the proposed european constitution in two national polls. Europe is facing a serious crisis. It needs a free and democratic constitution, to which everybody can contribute and which will be accepted by the great majority of all citizens in Europe.
  • Details:
  • Proposer: User:Juh (I set up the wiki and registered the domain name without knowing that Merlin of Eragon proposed "Wiki constitution/political theory"(see above). I am sorry for that. The problem in europe is urgent and we need a solution soon. I hope that we can cooperate.

Explicitly politically motivated project is not suitable for Wikimedia.

General Wikitution edit

  • Naming suggestions: Wikitution
  • Domain name: (suggestion)
  • Scope: Design the perfect government through a freely editable constitution, bill or rights, etc...
      • This is a prime example of a topic belonging to the wikibate proposal: what works would be a matter of opinion but the wiki would help to analyse the pro's and con's. User:Colignatus 2005-02-25
    • Proposer: Merlin of Eragon
  • Relevant links:
  • People interested joining:
    • User: Centroles - Absolutely brilliant idea
    • Wikithink tank is very interested in this project. I'm new to wiki, however I too have an example constitution for debating such. The think tank "LightningRod" is a proposed open-source fourm. LightningRod 13:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Explicitly political project is not suitable for Wikimedia.

Consider for projects like these. --brion 20:13, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1911 Wikipedia edit


Link to proposal on mailing list
Naming suggestions
1911 Wikipedia
Domain name,"language (code)", or "language code" See [5] for demo.
The 1911 enyclopedia brittanica is considered the best encyclopedia ever made. Many of the historical and literary aticels in wikipedia use the 1911 brittanica as the main source. A 1911 wikipedia project would work to put the entire encylopedia online in wikipedia format. This would be an excellent source and support for wikipedia articles. Current online 1911 editions are ocd scanned and thus of very poor quality. Our wikipedia editors would be very effective in editing it.
--Gary123 18:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
People interested joining
Relevant links
The content of the 11th Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica is public domain, and certainly that status would not change. The main article page for the project is clearly noting the public domain nature of the source text (not commonly done at all in most publishing situations, including other copies of this edition of the Encyclopedia elsewhere on the web), and in general we are trying to follow a "no touch" policy to the source text except for scanning errors and html markup. Wikimedia policy in general is that all contributions are subject to the GFDL (see disclaimer and licensing statements at the bottom of this page even), but in this case it applies only to the actual markup of the text. Even edited text is still in the public domain, as that is simply a matter of law. I'm curious what your specifc objection to the GFDL is about, as you are still permitted to copy this text, and even sell it for a profit if you care to do so. The only advantage of pure public domain licensing is that somebody like you can take this content, with all the hours I put into it, and claim propritary copyright status due to a very small amount of additional work you put into the content, without even acknowledging that anybody else contributed. The GFDL is mainly a way to force attribution of work added, or at least force the content provider to acknowlege that it is from public domain materials. --Roberth 10:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't know if this project is still active, but if it is: why not just put it on Wikisource? I can see the value of something like this but there's no need to duplicate. Lord Bob 09:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This project is very much alive... and a part of Wikisource right now. If you want to dig in, you are encouraged. One thing to keep in mind: If this projects succeeds, it will become more than half of all current Wikisource content (it is actually larger than Wikisource currently is... or will be) and will be a dominent feature on Wikisource. The Wikisource community seems to have "adopted" this project very well, and signifcant progress has been made toward putting the content together and organizing the effort. At some time in the future it may be wise to put this on its own domain, much as the "classical" Wikipedia currently is as an archive of the past. That is years into the future, however, and quite a bit still needs to be done to even consider that as a possibility. --Roberth 16:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not make it a prominent section of Wikisource, with being a redirect to it? Andrewmackinnon 19:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]