Add topic
Active discussions

The trademark symbolEdit

The ® symbol should appear at least once on any page that uses the mark, and it should be immediately after the mark as above. Wikipedia's homepage is

I've just noticed that Wikipedia's home page does not itself contain any instance of the ® symbol... Surprising, no?



Just moved names to terms after coming across it on wiki. Seems like a better title and I registered just to move. Anyone can revert if they think names is better, since I really have involvement here. Miltopia 23:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Collateral naming issueEdit

There exist a set of typing aids and I just navigated to here in an attempt to understand a point made about the one template:Mw (edittalklinkshistory) and the associated (redirect or equivilent) version {{MW}} which is used as a pipelinkable work around for text ported between the various sister projects, and in particular, in common documentation notes for templates shared between the various English language wiki's. This discussion will be found on commons:Template talk:Mw when I answer. The problem is {{Mw}} reaches a page here in those usages, as the templates 'M', 'Meta' and the like were already used on one sister or another. The self-documentation array of sister projects is one big user.

Now apparently the foundation is establishing Wikimedia, with the similar prefix: Mw:, opening up a confusion factor that didn't exist when established. I'm open to suggestions.

My suggestion here is this
It would be a good idea to document such prefixes that are in existance in such discussion pages as this one. There is one page on wikipedia that does that, but as this clarification of a sister project is 'news', such corrallary information might be considered as useful here as well. Discussion on {{Mw}} should be acknowledged on the commons, but may be moved to wikipedia. // FrankB 20:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

French/English glossaryEdit

For a French/English glossary, have a look at User:Teofilo/glossary. Teofilo 20:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggested source materialEdit

If you are serious about trying to get this going, you might want to look in a couple of other places where similar glossaries have already been put together.

Here is a good one to look at adding in here (although centered on Wikibooks users):


I'm sure I can come up with some other words, but this is a good place to start. --Roberth 07:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Many projects have one. The largest is probably en:Wikipedia:Glossary. Are there some terms from there, that should not be included here? --LA2 (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

mediawiki glossaryEdit

seems like there's a lot of overlap with the mw:Manual:Glossary ? -- phoebe | talk 21:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I checked mw:Manual:Glossary a few days ago (precisely to avoid duplication), as well as w:Wikipedia:Glossary. The former seems really targeted to MediaWiki users (including third-party users), and the latter to Wikipedians. There's bound to be some overlap between all of those pages, but I think they complement each other. I wouldn't expect to find "Wikimedia chapter" in the MediaWiki or Wikipedia glossaries, nor "GPL" in the Wikimedia or Wikipedia glossaries, nor "MOS" in the Wikimedia or MediaWiki glossaries. (To be honest, the MediaWiki glossary also seems to have been unnecessarily Wikipedified). guillom 14:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I checked out the MW glossary a bit more and it seems like quite a bit was copied from the Wikipedia glossary, hence the wikipedia-fication. On the other hand lots of technical terms seem to be getting added here, so at some point sorting these out and making a more tech-focused glossary for MediaWiki and a Wikimedia-focused glossary here seems like a good project. -- phoebe | talk 22:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Translating the glossary into esperantoEdit

I have translated (mainly by verifying Apertium propositions) what the translation tool has proposed to me, which is, as you can see here, just the intro, the beginning of the glossary (section "0-9"), and then the ending "See also" link section. But I can't figure how to be given to translate the a-z sections… Can you help me ? Thanks --Eric.LEWIN (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  By the way, same remark for the french version (and probably other languages, which I haven't "visited") : the "internal" part (sections -A- to -Z-) seems not achievable by the translation tool. --Eric.LEWIN (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, they are not enclosed in <translate> markup. --Psychoslave (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I prepared the rest of the page for translation, but an translation admin should mark it for translation. --Psychoslave (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Could any steward among Ajraddatz, Avraham, Barras, Bennylin, Bsadowski1, DerHexer, Einsbor, Hooman, Jyothis, Linedwell, MBisanz, MF-Warburg, MarcoAurelio, Mardetanha, Masti, Matanya, Melos, Mentifisto, NahidSultan, Pmlineditor, QuiteUnusual, RadiX, Ruslik0, Savh, Shanmugamp7, Stryn, Tegel, Teles, Trijnstel, Vituzzu please review that ? --Psychoslave (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Please, no mass-pinging. —MarcoAurelio 15:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
If there is a recommended way to request for a translation change review and marking, please let me know and I will follow this process. --Psychoslave (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
See Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat. --Stryn (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Stewards are not translation admins. It's a different group of users (though some of them may be stewards as well). --Stryn (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
In principle that's right, but according to Special:GlobalGroupPermissions on this wiki only Stewards are allowed to mark a page for translation. --Psychoslave (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not true, see Special:ListGroupRights instead for local rights used on this wiki. --Stryn (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup and styleEdit

Added a template style for the glossary, somewhat similar to other glossaries in use at Wikimeida sites. Started on a cleanup, the original file is a mixture of several formats. — Jeblad 00:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Active projectEdit

The current definition is "Active project : any Wikimedia project with at least 100 articles", which appears to be based on Which projects are active?. That page was written in 2006 by a user who stopped editing in 2009, and it is hopelessly outdated.

However, the term is kind of useful. Any objections to massively rewriting it? Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Return to "Glossary" page.