Talk:Project list


Page Format

I have temporarily mixed 2 different formats on the same page. Which format looks better? The first 2 categories (Artifical Intelligence and Astronomy/Chemistry/Physics) are in format A. The last 6 categories are in format B. I like format A. Dagorath (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I prefer B:
  • It's easier to read the project name if it's black (external links have an even lighter blue than normal links).
  • It would be quite likely that somebody wants to easily copy the project URL, to paste it on the manager. Many people may not know there is a "copy URL" in the context menu of links.
  • If the project is a heading, not only bold text, it's possible to give links taking directly to a project description.
OK, I will make the project names bold black and put the URL on a bullet. Dave asked me to shorten the TOC so that's why I make the project names not-headers. Is there a way to make the project names headers and not appear in the TOC? Another idea would be to create 8 new pages (1 for each category ), link to those 8 from the current page and put the disclaimer on each of the 8. Dagorath (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm searching; doesn't look like it's possible to remove TOC levels in MediaWiki. (well, there is a way, but applies to the whole wiki, can't make it for a single page). Nicolas (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll make the project names anchors again. It will make the TOC long but you've moved it from the left to the right so maybe it will look OK. I can always change them back, no problem. Dagorath (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. The long TOC looks OK to me now that it's on the right. Dagorath (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Found how to remove TOC levels. Implementing... Nicolas (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks good :) Dagorath (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


I modified the whole page to use templates. This lets us change the layout without having to edit every single project one by one, and removes some redundant information. It's on my user page here: User:Nicolas/Project_list.

I would be able to do more things if ParserFunctions extension was installed. For example, completely removing "institution" if the project doesn't have one. It would probably be useful to list the platforms as well.

If there are no objections, I will soon move the page from my user space into here. The template will probably have a shorter name too. Comments? Nicolas (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No objection. Dagorath (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
On second thought, I like the idea of using a template but I think listing the platforms is a mistake. If we use a link to the projects' own list of platforms then readers will automatically be presented with the most up to date information available. If we list the platforms then what is the plan for updating the lists? If it involves visiting the 50 listed projects periodically then I'll tell you right now that I certainly will not be doing it. Dagorath (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
My page currently has just a link to apps.php. I agree with not showing the platforms. Currently some projects have a "platforms=" parameter, but the template doesn't use it at all anyway. Nicolas (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I read your post wrong. Where you said "It would probably be useful to list the platforms as well", I thought you were suggesting that the link to */apps.php should be replaced with a list of platforms if/when your proposed page is substituted for the existing page. Dagorath (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
What I meant was that ParserFunctions would be useful to list the platforms (if we wanted to do that) — or maybe even the only way to do it correctly. "It" = "ParserFunctions extension" :) Nicolas (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't had time to read the ParserFunctions extension docs. If I understand you correctly, if that extension were enabled then you might improve your template even further by having it grab the pages at */apps.php, parse the platforms from the html and plug the platforms into a "platforms=" item. That would be nice... current platform info without a link. Dagorath (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh, not that much. But the only thing I can do now is showing a default value if a parameter isn't passed. Any other fancy "logic" is impossible. With parserfunctions I could even replace "Windows, Linux" with icons! BTW, it might be possible to make a separate script that loads apps.php, parses the platforms, and edits the wiki. Wikipedia has lots of such bots doing boring automated tasks. Nicolas (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
A bot idea plus icons would maximize the coolality factor. Dagorath (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Criteria for Listing Projects

I propose that we draft a short list of criteria which will be used to determine which projects may be listed and which may not. The criteria could be listed at the top of the list along with the disclaimer. I open the discussion with the following points.

Excluded projects

  1. have no science app
  2. have no forums
  3. are in earliest stages of setup
  4. projects in blacklisted domains (controversial)

Included projects

  1. have a science app
  2. are sending tasks for at least 1 platform
  3. have working forums

Dagorath (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Add minimal computing power?

I'd like to suggest adding something to give users an idea of the minimum amount of computing power needed. I might like to participate in more projects, but, in the past, I had to withdraw from some because my computer couldn't process the work units in time. (My computer is 8 years old, and wasn't state of the art when it was built.)

Some inconsistencies

There is still some inconsistency between this page and Choosing and joining projects on whether this list is comprehensive. It's not, and should not be, and that should be made clear. If BOINC is truly successful nobody will be able to maintain a complete list of all the projects that use the software.

Also, the text said stuff like "BOINC does not endorse..." which I changed to "the BOINC developers do not endorse..." and similar. BOINC is software, and is inanimate (so far :-) so we should not use "BOINC" to refer to the project or the developers. --Eric (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)