This template is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
It seems an eminiently sensible change and would fit in with the category naming convention we already have so I have gone ahead and changed it. Ajbpearce (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Waldir has proposed a merger, but without adding any rationale. I have to say the two templates proposed to be merged are quite big and while their subjects overlap, they are sufficiently distinct to be separated. Ian (87.205.134.235 (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC))
How are they distinct? I would say that "Intellectual property activism" is a subset of the "Openness", so it makes sense to reduce the duplication. I suggest we keep both, formatting them so that this template could stand alone and but also be used inside {{Openness}}, like {{Exoplanet search projects}} and {{Exoplanet}}. --Waldirtalk 12:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Some users have suggested (e.g. in this merger TfD) that this template be cleaned up, but no one as yet has stated the specifics. So let's have a discussion. What should be kept here, what should be removed. 178.37.150.228 (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
As a first step, the principal thing necessary is to add the subject headings from "Openness" that are not already present here:
How to arrange them is secondary. whether we should divide this is secondary --we might have a separate one corresponding to the category Category:Open methodologies And whether some of these article duplicate each other is another question. I note my approach may be a little different than that of some of the people working in categories--I think that some degree of overlapping categories are inevitable, and the main purpose in categorization is to be useful to the reader.
The other thing we need is to at least list the related categories on the bottom. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I fully agree with DGG's proposal. --Waldirtalk 19:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there a way to separate organizations section? It seems that Copyright Alliance is nothing to do with anti-copyright; instead Copyright Alliance is pro-copyright. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 02:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
