1486:"Framework Programme projects are generally funded through instruments, the most important of which are listed below. The application form to apply for grants is formidable, it can take up to 3 months to fill in the forms which are not written in standard UK or US English, but in some jargon that the EU has invented. In many countries such as Sweden you can obtain a 3 month grant to write the grant. The application procedure is made deliberately difficult to employ an army of overpaid bureaucrats. Can the EU afford this? look at Greece."
1154:
I noticed that many FP6 and FP7 projects I knew something about lost their page, regardless the page content, and more are nominated, that's the reason of my statement. Although I don't think so, I will check more thoroughly to see if I my impression was wrong, as you have made very precise statement. Thanks for the answer in the meantime, I'll be back when I have a more thorough understanding of what happened, besides the projects (not hundreds) I had the time to check so far. --
1150:
the topic of the project (advertising stuff was normally evicted per wikipedia policies). That was useful information for anyone willing to understand the evolution of EU-sponsored research in ITC. This is something involving quite a large number of people in EU, there is people accessing the pages long after the projects are gone. If e.g. FP6 project pages were no longer evolving, but they had useful content, deleting them is a for of recentism IMHO.
451:
433:
538:
517:
349:
328:
461:
643:
873:"Changes triggered by research policy directly affect people and enterprises, which experience broader horizons and experience the advantages of international collaboration." (Well the fact that changes caused by research effect people and businesses is hardly surprising... Apart from that: the "advantages" of collaboration could actually be downsides/failures, if the collaboration goes awry?)
987:. Many more such articles exist but have not been flagged. All these articles are peers and should be handled in a consistent way; in my opinion by merging them here. Naming all the constituent projects in a table is probably not necessary. Appropriate External References would suffice. After all, this topic is about FPRTD handling its own publicity rather than leveraging Knowledge (XXG).
622:
359:
1039:
worked for the past 10 years). I might be the one at fault though, so I'll elaborate the concept. I stumbled on the issue as I discovered the recent deletion of a project which is not even mentioned in this talk page. I also state in advance that I'm no english native speaker, so ignore the "tone" of my writing where it seems odd, offensive or whatever: I apologize in advance. --
548:
297:
715:
243:
190:
1068:(those ARE definitely self-biased). Previous pages for FP5, FP6 projects were evolving, or had the opportunity to evolve, into a form of history of the research in Europe. If instead of discussing the issues of each page, they are consistently removed, we save a lot of our time but we will actually decrease the usefulness and quality of wikipedia content.
1772:
1730:
1661:
1437:, I don't see why they can't be quoted in hindsight - except of course that it wouldn't be very nice. Of course the main reason to quote them would be to compare which parts panned out and which didn't, and that would probably be the dreaded 'original research', unless you happen to have third party sources doing exactly that. Anyway, good luck.
1413:, then who knows what else. A reader then gets a historical narrative of what evolved into what. What I am hoping for is to keep the information only, not the promotion and crystal ball predictions. Although it is sometimes tempting to quote some outrageous predictions that turn out in hindsight be way off the mark.
1072:
sense when there is already a full list for ICT, but the information is factual and useful to evaluate what was the conduction and waht were the outcomes of FP6; how much that buzzword affected the FP. If you remove too much information on the ground that Grid is no longer an active buzzword, you are introducing a
1114:
merge generally does not require as much discussion since the history is still around, so can be easy retrieved and the article restored without administrator intervention. A claim that articles on "FP5, FP6 projects were evolving" does not have much evidence. Most of the deleted articles were created by
1372:
But I'm open to arguments in favour of including particular projects, if a reasonable case could be put for their notability; I just doubt whether that is possible to do on anything but a case-by-case basis. The only 'objective' criterion I can come up with off the bat would be number of citations in
1153:
3) I've said that it's quite easy to delete a hundred pages, (you mentioned a list of hundreds of projects before), it's good to know they are not all deleted. However, I still believe it's wrong to run through the list and try to delete all of them, and I have the impression that this is happening.
1129:
It is also odd to accuse me of recentism. I tend to focus on long-term history, so the computer articles I have worked on range from the 1940s and 1950s through the 1970s and 1980s, with anything beyond about 1995 I would consider "recent" in terms of an encyclopedia that is supposed to cover all of
1113:
argument: what you are arguing against is not what anyone is proposing. Do have any evidence that "one hundred pages" have been flagged for deletion without discussion? There has been discussion for months on many individual articles, and when projects do have evidence of notability they are kept. A
1079:
One thing is to forbid overambitious, self incensing statements in a page, which I fully agree; another thing is to remove the page cause the project was financed and run, but it did not achieve its utopic target: this is hiding the facts, it should be stated that a grand challenge was failed and to
1244:
I would say that this is definitely crystal ball material and contains empty stock phrases ('be more competitive in an ever increasing globalised economy') that don't actually tell the reader anything. That a project is conducted in an EU framework and (partly) EU funded is not noteworthy in and of
1149:
2) My statement about FP5, FP6, FP7 was a bit longer, please do not answer to part of a truncated sentence, other wise I'm not the straw man here ;-) . Last time I read it, the FP6 page was a list of projects financed by the EU community, with summary information and links to short pages explaining
1059:
The fact that some projects have articles and some others have not is no good reason to discard all project articles; similarly, the practical issues of creating a summary page is no good reason to remove the project pages. While creating a standard is good, wikipedia is based on user contribution:
928:
When I saw a few of the projects up for deletion, I started merging the one line about each that had some info into this article. The articles generally read like the promotional language of the grant applications, not appropriate for
Knowledge (XXG). It seems there are many more projects that have
879:"This complements the institutional activities of the EU, building a community united in diversity capable of facing the challenges of a globalized world." (Well hurrah, bring out your blue & star banners... Why is this here? It sounds more like a promotional slogan than an encyclopedic entry)
1236:
Both manufacturing enterprise networks and society in general are expected to benefit from the results of REMPLANET. This project will enable manufacturing enterprise networks to be more competitive in an ever increasing globalised economy, through shorter times for innovation, decision taking and
1191:
of these project articles, which are written in opaque EU-grant-writing language, mostly unsourced, generally hugely overcategorized, full of puffery ("funded by the
European Commission"... Why not also add "and 27 national European governments" to make it complete... :-), etc. etc. The reality is
1071:
The above is obvious from the comment that many project were based on the Grid buzzword. While the statement is entirely true, this is no reason at all for deleting information. We can discuss how to provide the information, e.g. if a separate list of project related to grid computing still makes
1067:
We are all underestimating the value and strength of wikipedia: as each project page was subject to the scrutiny of the wikipedians, it was possible to reach an unbiased corpus of information on EU projects which was much more useful that a simple list of project names with links to their web site
1063:
That some projects have self-advertising pages IS a good reason to delete them; however, this is to be discussed and done on each project page, and motivated on the ground of the specific page. Just placing a redirect and summarizing as you see fit places one criteria of notability and importance
1368:
but we have to be careful not to fall into the 'wonderful, harmonious, world class, competitive EU future' lingo that is typical in the 'sales pitch' of much of this research. EU funded research has, in my oppinion, an important secondary goal of identity building (i.e. it's also EU PR), and as a
1356:
I guess it's probably quite hard to find any 'objective' criteria for notability in research projects, but a comprehensive list of all projects would seem rather 'unencyclopedic', that's the stuff people should go to for instance the FP or other EU research instruments' websites for. One could in
1015:
Third-party sources must be used carefully. Those that I've seen so far in this connection look like press releases from the same sources that created the nonqualifying articles. I think the plan is to create a furore about each project, then justify each component of the furore by citing other
856:
Apart from being quite sceptical of Muldur et al.'s claims of returns on investment (I doubt the reliabilitiy of a prediction of returns on a current, i.e. 2006, research investment 25-30 years in the future, especially as it pertains to overall impact on GDP growth), I believe this article still
1620:
Rather than suggest that another user go to the effort of analysing and merging the content from an article that you've just been looking over, perhaps you could have actually merged the content yourself? I don't know how that action was otherwise supposed to help the general reader of
Knowledge
1038:
I must say that I deeply disagree with the reasons expressed for deleting project articles in general, and for some specific reasons stated; in my opinion they show a misunderstanding of the rules and purpose of wikipedia, and they will prevent to document the way things work for EU projects (or
907:
Sounds like government-speak justifying the political correctness of the grants favoring collaboration across countries that speak diferent languages and have different cultures. This is probably worth mentioning, because indeed diversity had both advantages and challenges. But needs to in plain
1089:
In summary, I do not see fit that pages are redirected or voted here skipping a discussion for each one on their talk page. It is too easy to flag one hundred pages for deletion, wait a week and start almost from scratch. IMHO this conduct should be avoided as it fails at matching the spirit of
834:
I started removing the over-promotional language, removing PR jargon to make a more effective discussion. This in an encyclopedia, not a promotional web site. There's still some more to go. I added subheads, but references are needed for the criticism section, and a few key terms need internal
1313:
define a criteria of notability, and associate it to the space given in this page, or to the fact that the project page will still exist in wikipedia. Of course each editor works in bona fide, but there's no line we can draw between (contributing text to the page vs summarizing it) and (edit
940:(note inconsistent category naming). I then thought about a table, but if there are hundreds of projects that could get unwieldy. Perhaps one idea would be a general discussion of the thrusts of each program, if we can cut through the government-speak. For example, I noticed many projects on "
1400:
which might be a place to have some guidelines for computer projects at least. Just a simple litany that duplicates the CORDIS database is probably not adding value (and would quickly get dated). One idea is to group the projects that are closely related. I put some for example into the
1145:
1) I did not accuse anyone personally. What I stated is that the whole operation is built on a wrong assumption IMHO, and as far as I understand several editors are involved, so I had no clue it could be understood as personal. If it seemed so, despite my good will, I apologize
876:"Diversity introduces additional costs, but it facilitates addressing competitors in an even more diverse world." (How exactly does diversity facilitate addressing competitors? And again what exactly is the point of this passage? And what does it actually mean?)
153:
1170:
The comment about hundreds of projects refers to the fact that that is the number of projects (if not thousands) that exist/have existed. For only a handful of those have articles been created. Even fewer of those have actually any independent sources and meet
1511:
You're right and I've just deleted these blatantly POV assertions (they've been added since I last visited this article). But since it was a simple "delete job", I wonder why you didn't just do it yourself? Also, why not put your complaint in a "new section"?
44:
1582:
Horizon 2020 is simply the 8th instalment of the
Framework programmes and should briefly be covered there. No need for independent articles for each 7 year version of this programme, just cover the changes in a single paragraph in the overall article.
1196:
of the projects are often good (albeit primary) sources for building WP articles. Given the huge number of (non-notable) projects, I think that the effort of listing them all in some article is unencyclopedic and goes against the letter and spirit of
737:
1179:) or by national programs of comparable size (or even much larger, such as NSF and NIH in the United States). Part of the explanation is probably that researchers are pushed by EU funding agencies to publicize their projects. The existence of
147:
1003:
I agree with this way of handling them, except of course, for any projects which are actually notable, though I'm not sure what the criteria should be. At the least any projects with substantial discussions about the
1309:
define a criteria of independent sources that can work with EU or other large, international research projects. See there why each own intuitive definition may not work, people and large organizations are not the
1064:(which it was noted it is quite difficult to state what it should be) above that of the contributors of many other pages. Not all of them will be wrong, especially if pages have been around and updated for years.
1175:. One really wonders why people want to create all these articles for EU-funded research projects. As far as I know, the same does not happen for projects funded by other international programs (such as the
1369:
previous contributor noted, there is often co-funding by states and third parties as well, so the 'funded by the
Commission' label could be construed as misleading, if it means omitting other contributors.
980:
756:
721:
274:
221:
24:
979:. Many are currently flagged for deletion, and the discussions I have seen, especially on the two pages mentioned, are converging towards deletion or, where the possibility is mentioned, merging with
744:
for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.
1551:
iClass is yet another FP-project. It belonged to FP6, but has long since been completed as it ran 2004-2008. Its website is no longer active, but a description can (so far) still be found here:
759:
article into a redirect page that leads here as the article contained on this pagecorresponds to all
Knowledge (XXG) standards whereas the other one is simply redundant and "unencyclopaedic".
1791:
1672:
1741:
1192:
that research projects in and of themselves are only seldom notable. Of course, the researchers and institutions participating in these projects can be highly notable and the
168:
135:
1703:, "FROG" stands for "Fun Robotic Outdoor Guide"). Would some discussion of that project be a useful addition to this article, or should the redirect be deleted? (Pinging
693:
415:
1237:
manufacturing processes. Society in general will benefit from having more efficient and effective manufacturing enterprises, which will reduce time and resource waste.'
1598:
It's actually already covered here, so I have gone ahead and redirected it. Any other content that might be worth merging here can be found in the article history of
1863:
1823:
1016:
components as independent sources. Perhaps "substantial discussions ... by 3rd party RSs" excludes such bootstrapping; I don't know what an RS is in this context.
683:
405:
129:
937:
604:
79:
1828:
1119:
659:
381:
125:
1848:
594:
1245:
itself; otherwise we ought to flood
Knowledge (XXG) with similar entries on common Nordic, international, and Latin American research projects etc. etc.
175:
1858:
1838:
1818:
483:
258:
205:
85:
1853:
1668:
741:
650:
627:
570:
372:
333:
1405:
perhaps more could go there. For example, often the same project will get a different name and acronym every few rounds of funding. For a while
1397:
1464:
would indent his two replies appropriately. I'm tempted to do it (based on the time&date), but talk page rules don't seem to allow me. -
141:
1782:
1764:
1723:
1654:
1833:
1496:
787:
30:
1076:. I.e. Grid was a buzzword and wikipedia shall document it some way, as new buzzword are around now, and more will be in the coming years.
1060:
you don't rule out useful contribution cause it doesn't fit your standard, you discuss the standard and convince contributors to adopt it.
277:. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
224:. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
1843:
1804:
1753:
1716:
1684:
1644:
1630:
1611:
1592:
1565:
1545:
1523:
1504:
1473:
1448:
1422:
1384:
1334:
1275:
1210:
1163:
1139:
1099:
1048:
1025:
996:
961:
917:
899:
846:
823:
795:
763:
474:
438:
561:
522:
99:
104:
20:
1188:
864:"There are also the intangible result of providing incentive to face the intrinsic complexity of international collaborations."
74:
949:
308:
1626:
895:
65:
1541:
553:
1402:
254:
201:
1183:
telling people to create an article about what their projects hope to achieve (instead of what they have achieved: WP
1176:
1109:
Your
English is execllent, and input appreciated. However, if you will excuse an idiom, I think you are presenting a
1749:
1712:
1198:
109:
1622:
1225:
945:
1264:
and arts/humanities projects (that are not related to such marketable features as improved user interfaces etc.)
1699:
redirects here, but no project by that name is mentioned in this article or in any other article (according to
1537:
1224:
I may have just stumbled on one 'bad apple' but if one consults the 'Impact' section of the REMPLANET Project (
791:
1621:(XXG), when it essentially replaced an article's worth of reliably sourced content with eight lines of trash.
1500:
314:
1680:
777:
773:
The fiware page redirects here and there is NO information on fiware here!!! Please make a fiware page. see
1492:
883:
783:
733:
55:
1292:
Is there any established criteria for selecting projects? I did not see here any discussion. Please see
933:
930:
658:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
569:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
482:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
380:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
364:
1786:
1745:
1744:
until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –
1708:
70:
1180:
984:
1607:
1588:
1021:
992:
819:
1737:
1696:
1690:
1635:
Or, possibly better, update the summary here and just link with {{summary|...}} to Horizon 2020Â ? -
1360:
A) the biggest projects (in terms of funding) as examples of priority research areas for the FPs, or
1184:
867:("Sounds like it's good, why? Because we say so." And btw, what exactly is the point of this claim?)
296:
270:
217:
1760:
1418:
1293:
1135:
957:
913:
161:
1676:
1561:
1519:
1444:
1380:
1271:
891:
1248:
POV: Some of this research is, in my oppinion, pretty obscure, and some is rather thinly veiled
1800:
1330:
1249:
1159:
1095:
1044:
466:
51:
1257:
1206:
1172:
1115:
811:
1704:
1640:
1603:
1584:
1469:
1410:
1201:. The EU Cordis database does all this and there is no need for WP to duplicate Cordis. --
1017:
988:
815:
803:
1459:
1414:
1406:
1131:
953:
941:
909:
655:
377:
929:
articles but do not seem notable, and even more projects that never had articles. See
450:
432:
1812:
1557:
1552:
1515:
1440:
1376:
1267:
1261:
887:
842:
760:
1796:
1599:
1575:
1326:
1155:
1091:
1040:
725:
1489:
have no place in a Knowledge (XXG) article, and hence should be removed at once.
952:
list which should probably go, since the term quickly got untrendy. Any thoughts?
537:
516:
1202:
1636:
1465:
543:
479:
460:
456:
354:
1373:
peer reviewed publications (bibliometrics) which is a dubious proxy at best.
1110:
642:
621:
566:
348:
327:
714:
547:
1792:
Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 2 § CyberEmotions
1294:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/XtreemOS#XtreemOS
1008:
by 3rd party RSs will meet the GNG. I doubt this applies to most of them.
837:
778:
https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/50615/paper0728.pdf
1771:
1729:
1660:
1742:
Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 26#FROG (project)
1435:'utrageous predictions that turn out in hindsight be way off the mark'
1253:
972:
1536:
IClass redirects here, but is not mentioned anywhere in the article.--
1118:
in the present and future tenses and never updated. For example, the
1789:. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
976:
968:
981:
Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development
757:
EU Framework Program for Research and Technological Development
722:
Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development
275:
Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development
222:
Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development
25:
Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development
709:
290:
237:
184:
15:
1667:
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect
1363:
B) a representative sample showing the diversity of projects;
1728:
1659:
1396:
My hope is we can reach a compromise. There is a a minimal
1298:
I reported there several considerations, and IMO we should
780:
I want to know if FI in fiware stands for Federated IoT.
376:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
1777:
1700:
1123:
729:
282:
278:
249:
229:
225:
196:
1256:
for industry. Note, for instance, the strong focus on
160:
1736:
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
983:. Most or all of the articles seem to reflect these
774:
1785:
to determine whether its use and function meets the
1653:"Keeping Emulation Environments Portable" listed at
1126:shows almost no improvement to the body from 2006.
654:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
565:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
478:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
924:
The projects - articles for deletion, merge or keep
174:
1553:http://cordis.europa.eu/ist/telearn/fp6_iclass.htm
810:of the subject,an article on Fiware does not meet
1228:) I think one may get the gist of the criticism:
944:" which was trendy at the time. There was even a
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
938:Category:Seventh Framework Programme projects
8:
1120:Fifth European Community Framework Programme
1090:wikipedia as much as self-promotion does. --
948:list article with a table already. And the
814:and we cannot have an article about it. --
781:
668:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Science Policy
616:
511:
427:
390:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject European Union
322:
1398:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Computing
1701:the article previously at that location
1669:Keeping Emulation Environments Portable
1430:Sounds like you're on to something. :-)
618:
513:
429:
324:
294:
1864:Low-importance Science Policy articles
1824:Mid-importance European Union articles
1409:is trendy and they all use that, then
908:English and not obfuscated promotion.
492:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Technology
579:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Economics
7:
648:This article is within the scope of
559:This article is within the scope of
472:This article is within the scope of
370:This article is within the scope of
1829:WikiProject European Union articles
671:Template:WikiProject Science Policy
393:Template:WikiProject European Union
313:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
14:
1849:Low-importance Economics articles
50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
1770:
713:
641:
620:
546:
536:
515:
459:
449:
431:
357:
347:
326:
295:
241:
188:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
1859:C-Class Science Policy articles
1839:WikiProject Technology articles
1819:C-Class European Union articles
1795:until a consensus is reached.
1740:. The discussion will occur at
1177:Human Frontiers Science Program
950:List of grid computing projects
688:This article has been rated as
599:This article has been rated as
495:Template:WikiProject Technology
410:This article has been rated as
1854:WikiProject Economics articles
1524:17:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
1483:I find that comments such as:
582:Template:WikiProject Economics
1:
1631:22:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
1612:13:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
1593:13:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
1456:It would help readability if
1187:) probably also explains the
824:23:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
796:20:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
662:and see a list of open tasks.
573:and see a list of open tasks.
554:Business and economics portal
486:and see a list of open tasks.
384:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
1645:14:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
1566:18:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
1474:14:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
1449:13:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
1403:European Grid Infrastructure
1834:C-Class Technology articles
1722:"FROG (project)" listed at
1707:who redirected it here.) –
1505:14:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
1423:20:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
1385:18:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
1335:00:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
1276:12:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
1211:11:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
1164:00:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
1140:20:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
1100:04:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
1049:04:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
967:Many articles analogous to
946:FP6 Grid Computing Projects
847:23:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
764:16:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
1880:
1844:C-Class Economics articles
1717:15:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
1546:16:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
1433:And regarding some of the
1026:01:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
997:03:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
962:18:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
918:18:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
900:23:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
694:project's importance scale
651:WikiProject Science Policy
605:project's importance scale
416:project's importance scale
373:WikiProject European Union
1805:15:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1685:12:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
1258:applied (natural) science
1226:Resilient Supply Networks
1173:the notability guidelines
852:Still a bit congratulary?
687:
636:
598:
531:
444:
409:
342:
321:
281:; for its talk page, see
228:; for its talk page, see
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
1783:redirects for discussion
1765:Redirects for discussion
1754:23:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
1724:Redirects for discussion
1671:. Please participate in
1655:Redirects for discussion
1357:stead list for instance
830:copyedit for conciseness
1675:if you wish to do so.
1673:the redirect discussion
1116:single-purpose accounts
730:16:34, 26 December 2016
674:Science Policy articles
396:European Union articles
1733:
1664:
1479:POV comments - Removed
1260:, and the scarcity of
1252:, not to say indirect
812:our inclusion criteria
475:WikiProject Technology
303:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
1732:
1663:
1189:generally low quality
1185:is not a crystal ball
934:Category:FP6 Projects
931:Category:FP5 Projects
755:I have converted the
562:WikiProject Economics
365:European Union portal
307:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
100:Neutral point of view
1623:MasterOfHisOwnDomain
1574:Proposed merge with
736:. The former page's
269:. Its contents were
265:with a consensus to
216:. Its contents were
212:with a consensus to
105:No original research
1787:redirect guidelines
1781:has been listed at
1578:- Done - Questioned
1538:Fabrictramp(public)
742:provide attribution
498:Technology articles
1734:
1665:
1130:recorded history.
860:Passages such as:
775:https://fiware.org
585:Economics articles
309:content assessment
253:was nominated for
200:was nominated for
86:dispute resolution
47:
1746:Arms & Hearts
1709:Arms & Hearts
1495:comment added by
1250:industrial policy
971:exist, including
903:
886:comment added by
802:Unless there are
798:
786:comment added by
748:
747:
708:
707:
704:
703:
700:
699:
615:
614:
611:
610:
510:
509:
506:
505:
467:Technology portal
426:
425:
422:
421:
289:
288:
236:
235:
183:
182:
66:Assume good faith
43:
1871:
1780:
1774:
1507:
1463:
1199:WP:NOTADIRECTORY
1181:canvassing sites
902:
880:
857:needs revision.
804:reliable sources
717:
710:
676:
675:
672:
669:
666:
645:
638:
637:
632:
624:
617:
587:
586:
583:
580:
577:
556:
551:
550:
540:
533:
532:
527:
519:
512:
500:
499:
496:
493:
490:
469:
464:
463:
453:
446:
445:
435:
428:
398:
397:
394:
391:
388:
367:
362:
361:
360:
351:
344:
343:
338:
330:
323:
306:
300:
299:
291:
245:
244:
238:
192:
191:
185:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
1879:
1878:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1809:
1808:
1776:
1768:
1727:
1694:
1658:
1580:
1534:
1490:
1481:
1457:
1411:cloud computing
926:
881:
854:
832:
771:
753:
673:
670:
667:
664:
663:
630:
584:
581:
578:
575:
574:
552:
545:
525:
497:
494:
491:
488:
487:
465:
458:
395:
392:
389:
386:
385:
363:
358:
356:
336:
304:
242:
189:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1877:
1875:
1867:
1866:
1861:
1856:
1851:
1846:
1841:
1836:
1831:
1826:
1821:
1811:
1810:
1767:
1757:
1738:FROG (project)
1726:
1720:
1697:FROG (project)
1693:
1691:FROG (project)
1688:
1657:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1633:
1615:
1614:
1579:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1533:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1497:79.168.208.151
1480:
1477:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1438:
1431:
1407:grid computing
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1361:
1346:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1316:
1315:
1311:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1296:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1265:
1262:basic research
1246:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1234:
1216:
1214:
1213:
1167:
1166:
1151:
1147:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1082:
1081:
1077:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1010:
1009:
1000:
999:
942:Grid computing
925:
922:
921:
920:
871:
870:
869:
868:
853:
850:
831:
828:
827:
826:
788:198.103.184.76
770:
767:
752:
749:
746:
745:
740:now serves to
720:Material from
718:
706:
705:
702:
701:
698:
697:
690:Low-importance
686:
680:
679:
677:
665:Science Policy
660:the discussion
656:Science policy
646:
634:
633:
631:Low‑importance
628:Science Policy
625:
613:
612:
609:
608:
601:Low-importance
597:
591:
590:
588:
571:the discussion
558:
557:
541:
529:
528:
526:Low‑importance
520:
508:
507:
504:
503:
501:
484:the discussion
471:
470:
454:
442:
441:
436:
424:
423:
420:
419:
412:Mid-importance
408:
402:
401:
399:
387:European Union
382:the discussion
378:European Union
369:
368:
352:
340:
339:
337:Mid‑importance
334:European Union
331:
319:
318:
312:
301:
287:
286:
263:04 August 2011
261:was closed on
259:The discussion
246:
234:
233:
210:09 August 2011
208:was closed on
206:The discussion
193:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1876:
1865:
1862:
1860:
1857:
1855:
1852:
1850:
1847:
1845:
1842:
1840:
1837:
1835:
1832:
1830:
1827:
1825:
1822:
1820:
1817:
1816:
1814:
1807:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1793:
1788:
1784:
1779:
1778:CyberEmotions
1775:The redirect
1773:
1766:
1762:
1761:CyberEmotions
1758:
1756:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1739:
1731:
1725:
1721:
1719:
1718:
1714:
1710:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1692:
1689:
1687:
1686:
1682:
1678:
1677:Shhhnotsoloud
1674:
1670:
1662:
1656:
1652:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1632:
1628:
1624:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1613:
1609:
1605:
1601:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1577:
1573:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1531:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1514:
1513:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1487:
1484:
1478:
1476:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1461:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1439:
1436:
1432:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1399:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1362:
1359:
1358:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1312:
1308:
1307:
1297:
1295:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1266:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1235:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1227:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1195:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1169:
1168:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1127:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1112:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1078:
1075:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1057:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1007:
1002:
1001:
998:
994:
990:
986:
982:
978:
974:
970:
966:
965:
964:
963:
959:
955:
951:
947:
943:
939:
935:
932:
923:
919:
915:
911:
906:
905:
904:
901:
897:
893:
889:
885:
877:
874:
866:
865:
863:
862:
861:
858:
851:
849:
848:
844:
840:
839:
829:
825:
821:
817:
813:
809:
805:
801:
800:
799:
797:
793:
789:
785:
779:
776:
768:
766:
765:
762:
758:
751:Merge request
750:
743:
739:
735:
731:
727:
724:was split to
723:
719:
716:
712:
711:
695:
691:
685:
682:
681:
678:
661:
657:
653:
652:
647:
644:
640:
639:
635:
629:
626:
623:
619:
606:
602:
596:
593:
592:
589:
572:
568:
564:
563:
555:
549:
544:
542:
539:
535:
534:
530:
524:
521:
518:
514:
502:
485:
481:
477:
476:
468:
462:
457:
455:
452:
448:
447:
443:
440:
437:
434:
430:
417:
413:
407:
404:
403:
400:
383:
379:
375:
374:
366:
355:
353:
350:
346:
345:
341:
335:
332:
329:
325:
320:
316:
310:
302:
298:
293:
292:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
251:
247:
240:
239:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
198:
194:
187:
186:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1790:
1769:
1763:" listed at
1735:
1695:
1666:
1600:Horizon 2020
1581:
1576:Horizon 2020
1535:
1491:— Preceding
1488:
1485:
1482:
1455:
1434:
1395:
1345:
1215:
1193:
1128:
1108:
1080:what extent.
1073:
1005:
985:instructions
927:
882:— Preceding
878:
875:
872:
859:
855:
836:
833:
807:
782:— Preceding
772:
754:
734:this version
726:Horizon 2020
689:
649:
600:
560:
473:
411:
371:
315:WikiProjects
266:
262:
248:
213:
209:
195:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
808:independent
279:its history
226:its history
148:free images
31:not a forum
1813:Categories
1705:Randykitty
1604:Randykitty
1585:Randykitty
1325:Thanks, --
1018:Ornithikos
989:Ornithikos
816:Randykitty
489:Technology
480:technology
439:Technology
1460:W Nowicki
1415:W Nowicki
1254:subsidies
1132:W Nowicki
1111:straw man
1074:recentism
954:W Nowicki
910:W Nowicki
806:that are
576:Economics
567:Economics
523:Economics
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1558:Mojowiha
1516:Mojowiha
1493:unsigned
1441:Mojowiha
1377:Mojowiha
1268:Mojowiha
1122:article
896:contribs
888:Mojowiha
884:unsigned
784:unsigned
761:RedZebra
255:deletion
202:deletion
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1797:Belbury
1327:Max-CCC
1233:'Impact
1194:results
1156:Max-CCC
1124:history
1092:Max-CCC
1041:Max-CCC
1006:project
973:Webinos
835:links.
738:history
692:on the
603:on the
414:on the
305:C-class
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
1532:IClass
1203:Crusio
769:FIware
311:scale.
271:merged
218:merged
126:Google
1637:Rod57
1466:Rod57
1314:war).
1310:same.
1146:here.
977:SUPER
969:ISTAG
732:from
273:into
267:merge
250:ISTAG
220:into
214:merge
197:SUPER
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1801:talk
1750:talk
1713:talk
1681:talk
1641:talk
1627:talk
1608:talk
1602:. --
1589:talk
1562:talk
1542:talk
1520:talk
1501:talk
1470:talk
1445:talk
1419:talk
1381:talk
1331:talk
1272:talk
1207:talk
1160:talk
1136:talk
1096:talk
1045:talk
1022:talk
993:talk
975:and
958:talk
936:and
914:talk
892:talk
843:talk
820:talk
792:talk
283:here
230:here
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
838:DGG
728:on
684:Low
595:Low
406:Mid
257:.
204:.
176:TWL
1815::
1803:)
1752:)
1715:)
1683:)
1643:)
1629:)
1610:)
1591:)
1564:)
1544:)
1522:)
1503:)
1472:)
1447:)
1421:)
1383:)
1333:)
1274:)
1209:)
1162:)
1138:)
1098:)
1047:)
1024:)
995:)
960:)
916:)
898:)
894:•
845:)
822:)
794:)
156:)
54:;
1799:(
1759:"
1748:(
1711:(
1679:(
1639:(
1625:(
1606:(
1587:(
1560:(
1540:(
1518:(
1499:(
1468:(
1462::
1458:@
1443:(
1417:(
1379:(
1329:(
1270:(
1205:(
1158:(
1134:(
1094:(
1043:(
1020:(
991:(
956:(
912:(
890:(
841:(
818:(
790:(
696:.
607:.
418:.
317::
285:.
232:.
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.