Talk:WikiClassics User Group

Logos edit

Proposals edit

This is a knowledge project, therefore, I believe that the logo has to be an Athena, or an owl. I just put in a couple of Athenas, but if you do not like either, we can choose another one. --FocalPoint (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@FocalPoint: I've added two owls of Athena as possible candidates. However, the logo has to be recogniseable, so maybe the capitel or Oedipus with the Sphinx are better. But we have time to discuss. Thank you for your ideas, --Epìdosis 06:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Yes, i have to make a logo so it must be something simple. And if possible not too much Roman or Greek. I will prepare some candidates asap.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Components of a possible future project logos:

We will suggest a contest to vote a possible logo.

I moved the thread here as a future activity.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
I have five possible candidates to upload.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

User:FocalPoint WMF really would like us to pick an original logo as soon as we register as a new UG or we are stuck with the basic model, that's the rumor. So I could only create these logos so far in brief amount of time... do you have any decent additional svg file you would like me to use? Than we can vote and pick one.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I would skip the idea of the theatre because it's very similar to "WikiLovesParliaments" as a concept, that would be confusing. --Alexmar983 (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
The mix between Wikimedia and the Classics in my opinion can be only be one symbol: the Owl. The ancient Greek symbol of wisdom. That's what we are looking for here. Marcus Cyron (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Marcus Cyron do you have a svg to create a logo? I am veeeeery busy right now so if you can find what you want me to use, I can create that version much faster.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Sadly not and I'm so what unable to do such things ;). But as far as I see do we have no preassure here?! Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Aparently we do, we either stuck with the generic logo or register with a clear one. I think it's too rigid and logo should be kept as a choice after the first events, when the group is getting solid but it seems that brand recognition is becoming everything, so... this is not urgent per se but it's a necessary step, a funnel. If we don't do this but we want our logo (which IMHo we should have), we can't submit a final application fr a while.--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
little help requested--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I must note that an owl is the logo of The Wikipedia Library. Yes, different colours, but it shows that it is too generic. I would stick with the ionic capital or the temple icon (which in fact is a classical building and not necessarily a temple). 🏛️ -Geraki TL 11:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Geraki: You are right about The Wikipedia Library. However, maybe the temple icon is too similar to   Unesco logo. I would suggest the vase with the meander. --Epìdosis 15:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
put "classical building" in the caption, but it does not change the fact that it's probably not the best icon. I skipped the "theatre option" because of its similarlity to an existing logo fo WikiParliament, I was going to dismiss also the "temple" one but it was a simple copy and paste in the end so I did it anyway. BTW the logo of the Wikimedia Library UG is quite different from the Miverva's owl, the latter one has round big eye and there is no computer mouse in the mouth, but I do agree that it's not nice to share the same animal. it might be however quite different so it's interesting to see a final rendering. My favourite is in any case not the owl but the vase too, the ionic capital is IMHO a little bit odd.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Maybe there's something possible with an iconig image as this. It's ancient art, it's visualizied ancient literature and it's what we do here - writing about this all. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's not bad. I can ask for that too at the graphic Lab. In any case we will have a portfolio of logos that we can reuse for some presentation I guess... even for the subsections of our main page :D--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
I can definitely visually relate to this in terms of classical poetry. Gts-tg (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dear fellow WikiClassics members, I would like to also propose for consideration to think of the w:en:Pharos of Alexandria as a further, classics knowledge centric, candidate. One of the wonders of the ancient world, tied to both the Greek and Roman w:en:ecumene, and strongly connected with the one place of antiquity where love of knowledge was very highly appreciated and pursued more than anywhere else. Furthermore, on an additional symbolic level I suppose it also works as a beacon of knowledge. As to which material could be used, I can think of an either relative fidelity oriented representation (based on ancient contemporary approximations), or more modern reconstructions (and perhaps slightly more broadly identifiable) in the spirit of the classical tradition through the ages. In this context I'm listing below some materials that could potentially be of use in order to determine a minimally abstracted clipart shape.

As a complementary idea, an alternative reasoning would be that if the Wikipedia logo has the lettered globe, Wikimedia Meta logo has the gridlike globe, then within the same theme WikiClassics could have the respective ''globe'' of the classical world, Anaximander's map, which could easily be converted to a clipart symbol and further processed with the green colouring and with or without letters.

The above are just a set of simple additional ideas which may or may not lend themselves well for logo use or may not be easy to visually manifest into an aesthetically pleasing logo, but so far -and given that time is of essence so that we're not stuck with the basic logo- there is no shortage of good proposals as the ones already put forward by the other members are of high quality (out of which I have to say that I like the attic owl symbol most, due to its simplicity and instant linkage with knowledge -via it's association to Athena/Minerva-). Whatever the final selection will end up being, I am very happy to see the creation of this group and I am looking forward to further participating when my time allows in the near future; congratulations to Epidosis, Alexmar983, and Camelia for starting this, and cordial classical greetings (yep, Χαῖρε and Ave) to the other members that have signed up so far. Gts-tg (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I really love both Gts-tg's ideas! I think that the Pharos will be easily associated by most people with knowledge and antiquities, but I like also the idea of a map showing the classical world--Sp!ros (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
they are nice idea but don't forget to ask maybe also someone in the illustration laboratories/projects of your local wikipedias for a little help. I don't have the time in these days to produce something complex.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Gts-tg's the Anaximander's map was easy to create and upload with the svg. Here it is.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC) P.S. I have created a new commons category, can someone help me to do this on all svg files of the map? I am not sure I can use cat-a-lot correctly to add one and remove three categories at the same time, so I am doing it manually. Thank you!--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Alexmar983 I've added a small variation with an encircling meander (above), it's only a small detail (water related too, so sort of ties in with replacing the sea) but I think it makes it stand out more and makes it more easily identifiable as to what it stands for thematically. Gts-tg (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Also I was about to help with the category change (using cat-a-lot as well), but I think you've already gone through changing the files. Gts-tg (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

As a numismatist, here are a few proposals. More examples on my page (which I can upload here if someone likes some of them):

T8612 (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply


Anaximander is a good idea, i like the first variant more than the second with a maeander. Also the idea with Alexandria is reasonable - but the lihthouse would not be my first choice. If we would chose an ancient building, it should be then a library. And the most famous is, I think, the one in Ephesos. Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC) PS depending the coins: the griffin has the same problem as the temple (Unesco) and the laurel (a lot uses) - it's already used in a prominent way, here for the German Archaeological Institute. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

More in general, I am still waiting for a reply from the illustration workshop for a much simpler task... so it's hard to get such complex shapes at the moment.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Marcus Cyron, FocalPoint... you asked for the Minerva's owl, could you please leave a comment on on commons? I am not really into such symbol, so maybe what you asked is what they prepared and it's fine for you. Thank you.--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

The pharos one was done thanks to a svg flag of Alexandria.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! It looks great!--Sp!ros (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

The logo of the IAG can be converted to a svg but you should have some idea about is copyright and how to change it for a logo...--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Vote edit

As soon as we have enough candidates, we will decide how to vote.

I am thinking that maybe we "expert" could decide the best two or three options based on above discussion (pro and cons seem quite clear) and than we vote, but maybe we put the link to the final choice on the meta main page this time? This way we can select the best recognizable logo for a general audience and show the project a little bit more around. But it's just an idea, It's just brainstorming.

About the vote, another option is a ranking system, where all users order their options from best to last. I can later compute the ranking and average them similarly to what we do for Wiki Loves Monuments on the Montage tool. This way we can select the most voted options for a run-off. That final vote we can show around and open to everyone.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

My Top 3 under the actual: 3, 4, 6. Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Complete gallery of proposals

We thank User:Habitator terrae who created the last owl logo and User:Epìdosis for the gallery.

We can now vote, we have enough options (8 ideas, 10 variants) for a balanced output. I suggest we all give a ranking of the images, maybe top 3 or just rank 10 points to 1 point all of them, than we make a sum. Once that step is concluded and we have a ranking, we could make a final choice between the two most voted ones. I suggest to open the very final second round vote to all wikimedians, linking it from the main page on meta. This way we are sure to select an image more people can relate to, and show around our new group as a welcoming and open platform.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

please vote when you have time for the selection of the logo.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Eunostos, T8612, and Renato de carvalho ferreira: please if you can, vote your best 3 options for the logo.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

My ranking is: 7, 8, 3. --Sp!ros (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
My ranking is: 7, 8, 2. --Epìdosis 08:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
8, 3, 2 - Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
8, 2, 4 - Sir Henry (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
8, 6A, 7 - Gts-tg (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
2, 6A, 3 --Alexmar983 (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
8 --FocalPoint (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
3, 8, 2 —DerHexer (Talk) 23:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
1A, 4, 5 --Romulanus (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
2, 3, 5.. --SurdusVII 09:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
2, 8, 3 --Ilbuonme (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
5, 8, 3. --Eunostos (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
5, 3, 2.--Geraki TL 15:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
2, 7, 8 --Saintfevrier (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
(out of time) 4, 1A, 3, I was sure to have voted time ago. 6A and 7 are very nice but are hardly identifiable at first sight. I exclude 8 (too similar to Wiki Library) and 5 (remembers the UNESCO logo). --Camelia (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Top 2 edit

How do you want to convert the ranking in numbers? first=3 votes, second=2 votes, third=1 vote? --Alexmar983 (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

sounds good to me--Sp!ros (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
OK. --Epìdosis 19:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
1A:0+0+3= 3
1B:0+0= 0
2: 0+1+1+2+3+1+3+3+1+3= 18
3: 1+0+2+1+3+2+1+1+2= 13
4: 0+0+1+2= 3
5: 0+0+1+1+3+3= 8
6: 0+0= 0
6A:0+0+2+2= 4
7: 3+3+1+2= 9
8: 2+2+3+3+3+3+2+2+2+1= 23

--Sp!ros (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I updated the sums to include the last votes. The top three are numbers 8 (owl), 2 (amphora), and 3 (ionic column).--Sp!ros (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. So the ranking seems quite stable, few more votes might not affect it. We can wait to see if the second or third place change for some days, and than we complete the selection.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Final choice edit

I suggest, as I said, to take the firt two most voted options and let everybody vote (we want the logo to be clear for everyone). Everybody can vote just one of the two options and the vote is linked by the meta main page.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

The rules are: we start on 2019-02-17 UTC 00:00 and we end on 2019-03-03 UTC 00:00 (after 14 days). Do you agree?--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

this a draft of the table.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC) we start tomorrow at midnight. I will insert a notice in Template:Main Page/WM News, as I said.--Alexmar983 (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is the proposed announcement.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Feb 17 – Mar 3: final choice for the logo of WikiClassics user group. We value your feedback. voting is running until 3 March 2019, 00:00 (UTC)

Run-off edit

The final vote to decide the logo starts on 2019-02-17 UTC 00:00 and ends on 2019-03-03 UTC 00:00

Each user can cast just one vote
Amphora Owl of Minerva
Supported by:
  1. Alexmar983 (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
  2. Epìdosis 17:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
  3. Novak Watchmen (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
  4. --Romulanus (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
  5. --Rashid Jorvee (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
  6. Camelia (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
  7. SurdusVII 10:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
  8. Taketa (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
  9. Alan (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
  10. Ilbuonme (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
  11. -- Carbidfischer (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
  12. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
  13. --h-stt !? 22:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
  14. ...

Supported by:

  1. T8612 (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
  2. Sp!ros (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
  3. Joalpe (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
  4. Sir Henry (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
  5. FocalPoint (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
  6. DerHexer (Talk) 21:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
  7. -- (and I work in the field of ancient ceramics ;)). Marcus Cyron (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
  8. Gts-tg (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
  9. --Hartmann Linge (talk) 08:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
  10. ...

@Ilbuonme, Saintfevrier, and Ijon: @SurdusVII, DerHexer, and Geraki: @Camelia.boban, FocalPoint, and Tursclan: @Christelle Molinié and Mizardellorsa: @Eunostos and Renato de carvalho ferreira: please vote...--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I suggest a smaller size of the amphora. --Camelia (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Didn't I already reduce it weeks ago? BTW no problem per se.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Also, I am having second thoughts... thuis might become a very close race if i change my vote :D--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
I think the owl is already used too much by organisations related to knowledge, like schools and libraries. The amphora is less used and is more specific for classics. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Well the vase gives more an idea also of archeology, the owl looks to me sometimes even more Greek (although there is a meander pattern on the vase), I personally never saw the wol on other organization, but maybe if think carefully I recall some owls here and there. In the end, we could have written also some pros and cons before starting this final vote, my bad. Good news is that people can still change theri votes and debate, we have enough days.--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Due to the very close vote, maybe we could postpone the deadline just to be sure we have a decent majority? Also, can you inform your local projects maybe? Even if some users are not members here, I'd value their advice.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Now the vote has clearly shifted so we don't need to wait more days, there is a clear winner. We started on a midnight of Sunday so it should be closed but if you want we can keep it going few more days. i will make good use of the other logos in any case, there are very good.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Please don't wait for my vote. I don't care very much about logos and other visual items. Ijon (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I would like to have an archive, so we can archive those discussions, that not longer nesseccarry. Takes so much of this site, so other discussions vanish. Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I wamted to archive this one but it is not yet the moment. I have to add another section.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Final adjustement edit

I suppose I have to prepare some version with the final wording of our UG. Maybe "WikiClassics" in black and user group smaller in light gray. I will look at the other logos, please let me know if you have any direct advice.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

We have a small issue, in c:Category:SVG_Wikimedia_user_groups_logos there at least two different styles of writing based on the distance of the letters and the shape of the "A", I am not sure which one is better to use. Also, letters are encoded as shapes on my adobe so I cannot simply type a text: I have to recreate the text manually. This is not a big deal but I used one style of letters and than looking for a "C" I could only find logos with the other style, with slightly broader fonts. I write to the office, maybe they can fix it, i'll let you know.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Ilbuonme, Saintfevrier, and Ijon: @SurdusVII, DerHexer, and Geraki: @Camelia.boban, FocalPoint, and Tursclan: @Romulanus, Christelle Molinié, and Mizardellorsa: @Marcus Cyron, Epìdosis, and Prof.Lippold: @DarwIn, DerMaxdorfer, and 4nn1l2: @Taketa, T8616, and Eunostos: @Sp!ros and Gts-tg: (missing anyone?) a quick update. I am still not 100% sure about the right style of the writing in the final composite logo, I have not an answer from the office yet (but it's the week end), maybe the legal team will say the vase icon is fine but maybe they still have to validate the final combination. I told you few days ago that I was not sure about the font and I had to collect the letters from previous logos. However this page says that the standard font is Montserrat, so maybe I can just use that one for a robust proposal.

The problem is that I use an old Adobe on a MAC, so I am not sure how to import a google font (which is something I have heard once it could be done on a Windows) so does any of you have a good graphics tool with the Monserrat font to do it? We just need to put the logo, write "WikiClassics"/"user group" below and than save in svg. I am trying to find a solution but if anyone can help directly, (s)he is welcome.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Good news, due to a HUGE luck a friend of mine with a good Adobe was free right now. These two are possible versions. if you open them you can't read as font, they are svg files, but if your adobe or other program has the Moserrat font you can try new versions yourselves too.--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I prefer the black version because the other line is already grey. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Same opinion as DerHexer, I prefer the black one as well.--- Darwin Ahoy! 01:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

it looks like I prepared the classical "dummy" second choice nobody really likes :D. If you are interested please take a look to this related conversation. Revising the naming policy I have discovered the WikiXxxx format is not standardized in the examples (despite the fact it exists). I hope this is no specific issue but so far nobody told so in any emal with WMF, I guess is just a not fully updated list of common occurances.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
As DerHexer, the black version looks better in my opinion. --DerMaxdorfer (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hi, sorry for not checking this page very often and for not being very active in the discussion. I'm activating the updates via email, so I should be more active from now on. I am probably missing something: wasn't the original name "WikiClassics" (with a final 's')? I read "WikiClassic" (no final 's') in the logo. Again, sorry for probably missing something obvious already mentioned in the discussion. As for the color, the black one is fine for me too. --Ilbuonme (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I prefer the grey color.. --SurdusVII 11:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
you are right is with an "s". I will correct it, sorry but it was already I miracle I had the right cobination of software. I hope people who did this sort of logo already or manage them daily can fix this easily, for them it take one minute... i am trying to do my best.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I prefer the black one. --Epìdosis 12:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I prefer the grey one (and yes, good thing someone pointed out the final "s":-) Good job, Alexmar983! --Saintfevrier (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
my friend with adobe had a family emergency, as long as it is resolved, I can upload a new version.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I prefer the black version. --Romulanus (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have updated the minor corrections. I think we will propose as a final first choice the uniform black version, it looks to me slightly preferred.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

FYI, I have sent the final mail for a legal evaluation yesterday evening. I used the version with the uniform black writing. Crossed finger.--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the legal team replied that our logo is fine, since we did not modify the Wikimedia house mark. At this point, we miss only the final recognition from AffCom. Good job everyone--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Translation of the week edit

Hi y'all. One of the proposal I'd like to introduce is a brief selections of articles worth to be translated in more languages. Simple missing and multifaceted but not too long articles, perfect to be suggested for Translation of the week/Translation candidates. We could make a list and add one per month to the suggestions page. What do you think?--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I agree, lots of very good articles would need to be translated in other languages. --Epìdosis 08:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Good articles could be proposed for a trans wiki activity such as writing weeks. "Translation of the week" aims at compact articles, with enough sources and possible future red links. So the very very good ones are not 100% fitting.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I draft a table like this

What we could do is to also fix the wikidata item. The week increases the number of language editions but not the quality of the wikidata items.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

More than german and english is nothing what I speak good enough. And with the german Wikipedia we would start making trouble. It's usually not the way we work there and - I only talk abouth the german Wikipedia (!) - I think we have a standard that's often not bad and our authors are by faar not enough, but enough not to need to do it in that way. Also the most of us have their own special focus.
But I like the idea of international translation. And I would do this more on Wikidata. Every week 100 data sets we try to fill as goos as we can in all our possible languages. Would be in one yeas 5000 good data objects. And from those data sets, the way to an article maybe is also easier to go. Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Look, it does not really matter if a language edition is left behind on this aspect, as long as there are other ways to involve them. We come from very different backgrounds, if we select only activities that fit every platforms, we are not left with many options. For example there are "global moth" with sitenotice that work on some platforms but not on itwikipedia and i would support them in any case. The writing week option is more efficient on nlwikipedia but again not on other ones. the #1Lib1ref initiative is weak on itwiki, and the gender-gaps events when we will do them will overperform in frwiki and itwiki probably. in the end, there are all acceptable means, IMHO. Your idea is fine, we can develop that too. Please notice that we probably need existing infrastructure and communication channels as a first step, building something relatively new is demanding. We have to look closer what medicine UG and militaria UG also do. --Alexmar983 (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
I would do the Spanish translations from English. I've done it before (for instance Justianiano (general) Germano (primo de Justiniano)). I have also done translations from Italian (Agripina la Mayor) and French (Hatti). On the other hand, I don't understand German very well (Lucio Antistio Rústico). The only downside is that I usually take a long time to do the translations because I'm always on short notice. I'd prefer the translation of the month :D. For example, I'm going to start this week with the proposal (d:Q12292389) to see how long it takes. On the other hand, I agree to rationalize and complete the Wikidata items, creating thematic blocks (States, cities, people, objects...) and establishing which properties must have, which properties must not have and which are optional. --Romulanus (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Who we are, what we do edit

I think, this group is a very good idea, I thought for already a longer time to start something like this. My suggestion would be not only to enter our names, but also to give a little more about who we are, what we do, what we can do, what work areas we have, what projects. So you can do a lot of targeted work. For example, I've been working on a large ceramic project on ancient ceramics, potters, vase painters, workshops and producers for quite some time (for example, the almost complete Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum Germany is a scholarship from Wikimedia Deutschland). But otherwise much would be possible. For example, we have an excellent list of Roman consuls in the WP, which has been kept up to date by several authors for years and thus reaches far beyond all printed works. Our project on the Roman Limes is also first class. Less well are our articles on ancient literature, with a few exceptions. So our article situation is quite good at ancient philosophy. On the German-speaking Wikisource, we have an outstanding project for the development of Pauly-Wissowa, inclouding a list of authors that you will find nowhere else.

There is a lot to do. For example, to sort the almost complete picture stock on Wikimedia Commons, not least with regard to the reorganization through the introduction of Structured Commons. Also the linking with Wikidata is actually not good enough. Here, the idea of ​​a meaningful structure would even be necessary. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Marcus Cyron fine with me, I reorganize the page to insert more details. Not today because I am following another wikibusiness, but asap.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Marcus Cyron: Hi! I have just reorganized the section in a table with a cell for interests, it's a really good idea. I agree: there is really a lot to do ... this is why @Alexmar983: and I decided to found this group. Each project has its excellences (and in my opinion is one of the best-quality projects for classical antiquity) and one of the purposes of this group is to share our different experiences in different languages, in order to raise the quality of all our projects, expecially Commons (Structured Commons is welcome!) and Wikidata (I've worked a lot on interlinks on Wikidata in many topics, among them classical antiquity in different projects), which we all share; here we can coordinate our efforces. In the next days (I hope!) we will send a message to all the WikiProjects listed in the table, in order to reach all the users interested in classical antiquity. Then we can start a really interesting brainstorming! Bye, --Epìdosis 21:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
If you both need help with organizing thing - please asked me. I'm willing to help here as good as I can. Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

OTRS and copyright edit

Hi, maybe it si strange to think about that now, but it is no harm to start the conversation and let it evolve for few months.

I start from this add to the goals list. One of the bottleneck in the wiki ecosystems is in some language groups the OTRS system for copyright permission, which might have not enough volunteers or be quite slow. Copyright issues are very important and related literacy is crucial, sometimes it takes some passages to understand the overall expertise of the operator processing the request.

So, I'd like to know if we have a OTRS expert among us 8current or previous volunteer). I am asking because that is something that will be very useful on the long term. I often help people to interface with OTRS but I am not a volunteer myself.--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm not an expert, but I'm a Support team volunteer. @DerHexer: too. Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Not an expert either but some more than 1,000 tickets closed. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Good!--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
DerHexer and Marcus Cyron can you add it to the table? Thank you.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I am also an OTRS agent. -Geraki TL 15:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Me too. Ijon (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

WikiSummit and Wikimania edit

In August this year the annual Wikimania will be held in Stockholm/Sweden. I think, it wold be a good idea, to plan a WikiClassics meetup there. Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Of course. I am sorry that the area where my sister's family lives was not chosen as host town or I would have been for sure to there, but I was going to write about international meetings. Thanks to WikiDonne, since I am basically replacing User:Camelia.boban, I will be at Iberocoop:Iberoconf 2019 in Santiago and Wikimedia Summit 2019 in Berlin, so there will some preliminary informal meetings. Enough to take some pictures, I guess. Because of this activites I will skip WikiMania probably, but it's fine, of course the UG should gather. I want this UG to be active on that side as soon as possible.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Agree, we will organize something @ Wikimania. --Camelia (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Not sure yet if I can attend Wikimania, but a good chance. If there is a meeting please let me know. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

This year, Wikimedia Deutschland provides 6 "tandem scholarships" for a german and a foreign participant to Wikimania. Both should work in the same field and should also present this on the Wikimania. So there are the possibility to team up with a german author in the Classics and go for a tendem scholarship. For details @DerHexer: as MC knows all the answers. Candidates from the german sites could be for example @DerMaxdorfer:, @Einsamer Schütze:, @Mediatus:, @Hartmann Linge: Marcus Cyron (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's 3 tandem scholarships for 6 folks, though. ;-) —DerHexer (Talk) 12:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
DerHexer thank you for the info, I would really like to have a meeting already in Berlin. By that date, we will have the logo so i would like to start some social media tweet or post related to this event, too. I am happy if the German chapter can be inolved also for the future somehow. Some countries are too poor or weak/small, other chapters seem less interested in joining the activities at the moment, I would consider the possibility to have a full event also in the German world (besides in Italy) highly probbale in the not-so-distant future (maybe with some contacts from WMCh too). Like, we could ask for a grant or something. This is also another thing we should discuss on the long term. I have not spent all the money from a previous grant and even if I was very busy, I want to try to recycle them. So it'ìs time to get real on that front.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
We will find a time, it's a bit sad, that exactly at this time the local Community Space in Berlin is closed, because we moving. It would have been a perfect place to meet. But we will find an other place. Marcus Cyron (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@DerHexer: @DerMaxdorfer:, @Einsamer Schütze:, @Mediatus:, @Hartmann Linge: @Marcus Cyron: it's time to schedule a meeting in Wikimedia_Summit_2019/Thematic,_regional,_language-specific_meetups. I can let you do it if you "know the place" better. let me know. I have to schedule another one, so maybe Marcus can be the contact person. if I am free and another person schedules the other one, I can do this one. But I think the first scenario is more fair and functional, so it's probably more useful if a German chairs it there.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hm, are we really invited to meet at the conference venue? Maybe Marcus will participate as WMDE board member but I am not sure about myself: volunteers can attend the party and staff can go to the dinner parties. I think that I can be around at some time, I will also pick up people for the sightseeing tour I provide. Whatsoever, we will find a time and place to meet, I am very sure. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 20:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I have NO IDEA but I can ask, but it's easier for you to arrange it. We should however write it down even with a TBD, IMHO. I don't think the list is intended just for events at the venue...--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
No, I'm not one of the german participants. Marcus Cyron (talk) 08:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Marcus Cyron I am here in Berlin and this evening we are at events at WMDE office.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Alexmar983: I will also be here but have a Wikimania meetup at 9 pm which Marcus was thinking about joining as well. Maybe some time around that? Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 10:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I will come a bit earlier than 9 pm. Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Let's find the time for a group photo or something, plus I have to give you the password for twitter. It won't take too much time.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Social media edit

We have a logo now, so twitter and facebook group will come soon. Any volunteers? I am here ready!--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Here. Marcus Cyron (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Good Marcus Cyron in the next days I create facebook and twitter. Facebook I need you as a personal contact for granting the sysop right, is it correct? For Twitter I have to tell you the password, if you want it to do it in a safe way 8not sending it by mail) maybe I can tell you in Berlin directly if you are there. I don't want to wait the end of March, I want to have enough follower by Wikimania. Is it ok? please tell me if you have better idea.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I have time. Berlin is not that much time away. Marcus Cyron (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
this one was taken, so on twitter we are @ClassicsWiki. It's going to be under the radar up to Berlin, if I follow too many new users at the beginning it will be locked, but fell free to ask around someone to follow it.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Found it, and the amphora looks great!--Sp!ros (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Alexmar983, Marcus Cyron, a good alternative would be -Geraki TL 15:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I have already created it. I have never heard of ".com" used in twitter username. Is it common?--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Quick update: our twitter account is going pretty well, I am starting to interact with the community on line about projects on-wiki and they seem to be reactive, for example discussions about wikidata properties. I will give the password to the pt-N users soon, if you do not oppose and that would be a third language. Whatever is the project you have in mind, we can create a section to ask for tweet when necessary, you can access a global audience.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Update about UG name edit

@Ilbuonme, Saintfevrier, and Ijon: @SurdusVII, DerHexer, and Geraki: @Camelia.boban, FocalPoint, and Tursclan: @Christelle Molinié, Mizardellorsa, and Taketa: @Eunostos, Renato de carvalho ferreira, and OrbiliusMagister: @Marcus Cyron, Romulanus, and Gts-tg:@Sp!ros, Sir Henry, and Rena: @T8616, DarwIn, and Prof.Lippold: @4nn1l2, Hartmann Linge, and Richard Nevell:... (did I forget someone?) here is un upodate.

Me and User:Epìdosis received the documents of the agreement last Friday and we revised them over the week end.

So if you remember the whole story, WMF asked us to move the page for the UG submission direcly as "WikiClassics User Group", the name we proposed based on other affiliates' name but now a different name was proposed. The name is Wikimedia Community User Group WikiClassics and we have to resubmit the application as a new one with this new name.

The reason is this guideline, and FYI please notice that before this request on our case I had already pointed out in March here how these guidelines do not include the quite common pattern WikiXxxxx User Group.

I don't think in general the repetition of wiki twice sound great (The placeholder WikiLand is replaced with a region name, in other UGs), but that's a minor inconvenience. The reason of this change is this guideline, we are stuck with these limits and, as I said, this is probably not a big deal. The core point is another one: we asked if once we signed with such name we must create another logo again or not. we are waiting for an answer. We are universally known as WikiClassics and this sort of long name is not common for thematic UG, so we want to be sure about the short form and its use.

In the meantime, while we are wating for a clear feedback, we share this information with you all. This is a open group and your comment is valuable, so let us know what do you think. It's Easter so maybe WMF won't reply soon in any case.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

OK. Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
In practice, UGs routinely use shorter names than the officially recognized ones. This seems a tolerated practice. Ijon (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Yes I agree with Ijon. Our official name does not need to be the name we go by. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
I just hope they send us an official mail that says "yes you can use the logo with the shorter form". The point here is that routinely the form WikiXxxxx User group is also used as official name, yet it does not apply in our case, so we obviously can't rely on what is routinely done or tolerated, it is variable.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Update: WMF contacted the legal team contact about the logo, so everything is a little bit frozen, but they will let us know. As soon as they confirm the "short" logo is fine we can submit, you all accepted the long name. If not, we have to make a logo with a new writing and at that point we can submit the final proposal. Of course, making a new logo with a diffent name is no big deal, I am only sorry it would look a little bit crowded.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank to you for keeping it rolling! Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
AffCom apporved the short name, after reconsideration, that's unexpected. We will revise the documents tommorrow and let you know asap.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

FYI (I will wait the official mail next week)--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

The mail was sent and the UG is now official. Congratulation to everyone!--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

First international meetup at Wikimania edit

Hi, would be fine, if we could have a first international meetup at the Wikimania this year in Stockholm. Would be fine, if those who will attend put themself in this list, so we can block a room or something like this. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

you mean an official one? That was the idea since the beginning, and as I told, I won't be there.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
With or without you, we need to plan it :). -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Marcus Cyron and Ijon: So, when and where do we want to meet? --Epìdosis 07:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I will attend - sure/very sure edit

I probably/maybe attend edit

Report of Wikimania 2019 edit

@Ijon, Epìdosis, and Marcus Cyron: @Camelia.boban and Xenophôn: please use WikiClassics User Group/Activities/Wikimania2019 for comments and other ideas (so we have something for our yearly report)--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

New Wikidata IDs edit

Hello. I have requested in Wikidata the creation of a new identifier for people from Ancient Rome. This is the link. Un saludo. --Romulanus (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

See also d:Wikidata:Property proposal/PHI Latin Texts author ID and d:Wikidata:Property proposal/digilibLT author ID (and d:Wikidata:Property proposal/IntraText author ID has some Latin authors too). --Epìdosis 19:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

A possible more compact table edit

Hello, below is a suggestion for a more compact version of the table by only including the links but not the names for the wikiprojects across different languages, since they're summarised by the row heading. I think it makes the table easier to read, since now columns and rows are all the same size and it's easier to see which are filled or empty. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

  ar ca da de el en es fa fi fr hu it ja ka ko lt mk no pl pt ro ru sv tr zh wikidata
  Main Projects
Antiquity or Ancient history W W W W W W
Ancient Greece W W W W W W W
Ancient Rome W W W W W W
Roman Republic W
Roman Empire W
Greek mythology W W W W W W
Roman mythology W W
Latin Language W W W
  Related Projects
Archeology W W W W W W W W W W W W W
Byzantine Empire W W W W W
Greece W W W W W W W W W W
Cyprus W W W W W
I actually quite like this! I think that this is more suitable for display on the main page. At the same time, I see no reason to get rid of the old table--I would just move it to a subpage and place a link in the new table. It could be very useful to see the actual names of these projects at times. I'm also wondering why some things are in alphabetical order and others are not. Prometheus720 (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
One other tradeoff worth mentioning: Merged cells prevent using visualeditor and also sortable columns. An alternative could be to put 'Related Projects' as a separate table of the same width below the main table. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Evolution and evolvability: Thanks for your work! Maybe the best option would be this: in the main page using your table splitted into two, in order to make them sortable; in a subpage, the old table. Bye, --Epìdosis 10:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Evolution and evolvability and Epìdosis: it's good.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I am definetly for more compactness. Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wonderful, thank you T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo). --Camelia (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Cuties edit

Hi, if you are going to wikimania (some of you) you will learn about the Wikimedia Cuteness Association. So the idea is to have a animal as a mascot for the affiliate. We have to make it ouselves because of trademark and copyright. Or we ask permission to the person who does it.

Now I can find a contact to do one. The owl is still owned by the UG of libraries, we can go for a lion, or for an hydra representing for example our crossplatform nature. What do you think?

Again I am not sure we will get there but if you want, give some advice. What about the color pattern for example? Let me know. One day I'll think about it.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I will be there, but sorry, for me this Cuteness Association is nothing more than nonsense. So I will only boycot this. And now have a nice table, and a logo, and a name, and the approval by the WMF. All fine. But maybe we should now start to work together? This group only make sense, if we really work together. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Marcus Cyron I am constantly looking for projects. But we are organizing WLM2019 in Toscany so I cannot be the one pushing with a new idea right now. This cuties thing is just a thing i was told in Portugal, I just shared with you. I don't like the idea per se, but I am at your disposition. Like the rest. We are doing some work about properties on wikidata specifically for mapping archeological and classical sites, we discussed it briefly at WikiDataDays in Portugal too, but I'd say the next event we planned is the on line edit a thon. I am also trying to find a place wth WMCH for conference since it'ìs perfectly half a way between Italy and Germany, but this will take time. It's mostly up to you, if you bring a specific project, as main organizer, I am sure you will see poeple join. I am here to catalyze the work more than to propose it. Than there is the rest of the on-wiki organization of work and I am sure Epìdosis is much better than I am on that, especially with the preparation of WLM2019.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
I can't see any downsides. I'd be tempted to go with a wolf due to the link with Rome, but I have to know what a cute hydra looks like. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
To be honest, when it was suggested to me by the boyfirned of the girl who did the cutie for WMPT, I though it was an interesting idea. Yes, wolf is also possible.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Attack on the category system edit

I'm on Wiki projects long enough to know, that this is just the beginn of an attack on the system. They don't understand this, so they wanna destroy it. We should prevent people without knowledge from interfer our working area. And to be honest, I'm not really understand the problem. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Marcus Cyron: In situations like this it's important to assume good faith. I would need to see compelling evidence before describing a deletion proposal as an 'attack' which implies malicious intent to knowingly damage the category structure. Instead, what is important is to communicate the role of the category and what purpose it serves. Our role should be to work collaboratively and educate our peers. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
OK, thanks. The first serious thing - and no help, just empty words. Maybe this is not the right place for me. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Marcus Cyron: I intend to take part in the discussion, but I want to make sure we are not making it harder for ourselves by poisoning the well for collaboration. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I missed these converstaion, I am very active on WLM now and also to improve Twitter as a communication channel. I ma here because I was pinged. I'll take a look asap.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Include other classics within UG's scope edit

As much as this user group's name suggest, I see no reason why it should only include Greek/Roman classics. Classics in other languages may be facing similar problems, as much as I understand the focus of the group maybe Greek/Roman due to the overwhelming amount of editors from Europe/America, it is wise not to exclude other classics in the group's scope. Viztor (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Viztor I am very open, we just wanted to start to something not too much broad. it's not about the distribution of editors. people in the USA can have a very different approach on these topics than many European Countries, it's mostly about those civilizations close to the area of the Mediterranean basin. The group is still very much important for a lot of Northern African and Asian users, potentially. it's about Rome and Greece but also Etruscans, Phoenicia, Ptolemaic Egypt, Hellenistic Persia... and the role of classical culture in the next ages (including in the Islamic culture). That's already a lot. My advice would be to end the first year as UG and be confirmed, and than maybe enlarge the group, but you are welcome to propose an enlargement sooner if it's appropriate and nobody finds a clear reason to oppose it. As long as you bring some work in that. It takes some time to find an identity, we all come from very different backgrounds and have different visions. --Alexmar983 (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

On german language Wikipedia our scope are Europe, the mediteranean area and the near eastern cultures from bronze age until the middle ages and the Islam. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I feel like different local language edition could focus on the classics their community is most interested in, and by expanding the scope we're involving more language edition projects and I think that would be particularly helpful for the group. I am generally interested in all classics, Greek, Roman, Chinese and I find some of the ideas quite similar, and an improved understanding of all of them would be helpful to better comprehend the work of our ancestors. Some of the more interesting questions I find myself fascinated about is how these ideas bump into each other though trade route, and how the whole dynamic of ancient culture works. I hope someone is just as interested about these as I am, haha. Viztor (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
And here we are at the funny point: I would not see chinese cultures in our definition as a "classic" coulture. On the other site it would be possible to define the whole "old world" until a certain point (this point would differ in a lot of regions) as the classic region. At the end, we should start here with the graeco-roman world and their direct cultures at the edges as italicans, etruscans, cypriots, minoan, mycenean and cycladic people. There is much enough to do. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Let's talk about biographies edit

@Epìdosis, Alexmar983, Camelia.boban, OrbiliusMagister, FocalPoint, Ilbuonme, Christelle Molinié, Mizardellorsa, Tursclan, Saintfevrier, SurdusVII, Marcus Cyron, Romulanus, Gts-tg, Geraki, Sp!ros, DerHexer, Ijon, Sir Henry, Eunostos, T8612, Renato de carvalho ferreira, Taketa, 4nn1l2, DerMaxdorfer, DarwIn, Prof.Lippold, Hartmann Linge, and Xenophôn:

Hi everyone! Wikipedias' gender gaps are well-known, but fortunately there are groups who actively work to address the imbalance. The page for WikiClassics says that the group's scope includes biographies of researchers, so my question is what can we do as a User Group to support these initiatives? Richard Nevell (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Shall we make a list of 10 women researchers and target ... say 50% minimum of articles about them at all wikis we are active? and/or another 50 women researchers to really fill up all wikidata for them? --FocalPoint (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

The en:Wikipedia:Women's Classical Committee is very active, I have recently interacted with them on twitter [1] and [2] but they did not join us and in no way I wanted to look "aggressive". We had an idea with User:Camelia.boban to do something sepcifically on the topic. We can join WikiDonne in some international campaing and if they do so I think it will just sounds better. We can make some wikidata list of missing articles. It's feasable. Plus, I have expertise on the wikicite aspect which is weak in the area of some social science, so a lot of wikidata items to be updated.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
I think that the WCC is a little anglocentric in its activities, I think we can agree on an international campaign with them. But I suppose that Cemlia is a much better ambassador to the idea, she organized many similar events in the past. Me and Epìdosis we can arrange a small meeting in Pisa about that, but it can be mostly on line.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hi, to be honest, I have my problems with such projects. We made a project on de:WP to create articles of all professors on german speaking Universities in the three mayor classics subjects (philology, archaeology, history) and we now have all those articles since modern time classics, starting with Heyne. We never cared about the gender of the persons. We just do it completely. We can not close gaps onwiki that came from outsite our projects. There are orfourse a lot of researchers without articles. But of both genders. Btw - a list of 10 female classicists seems to be impossible. Morata, Dacier, Harrison, Sellers Strong, Boyed-Hawes, Bieber, Norsa, Goldman, Richter, Jastrow, Delcourt, Toynbee, Speier. 13 and I had to ignore some important just born before 1900. Other people would see others as more and some of mine less important. And there are missing all younger ones, as the last year deceased Erika Simon for example. Just for fun we have an (ofcourse incopmplete) gallery of scholars of ancient european, mediteranean and near eastern civilizations: de:Wikipedia:Redaktion Altertum/Altertumswissenschaftler/Ahnengalerie. Because I wanna see the results, I marked women with a ♀. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Marcus Cyron: I'm unclear on what problem you have wihh such projects. Could you elaborate? Richard Nevell (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
I don't see any cause for this, definetly not in the german language Wikipedia. Even it's a thousand times said, we did not have a gender problem here. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Marcus Cyron: The fact that less than 10% of the biographies on classicist on de.wp are about women suggests there is a problem. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
It probbaly means that if we do so, we don't do it on dewiki but on other wikis, which is similar to what occurs in other gender-gap activities. Please notice that we are all from different backgrounds and communities, so we are building step by step how a cross/meta-project works. It's easy for the Med project for example, all deaseases are relevant, and there is a standardized way to discuss such scientific topics but it will never be the same for us. We need some tactical flexibility on some issues.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Is not a problem if some have issues with this kind of projects, we are all here to write about our interests, so I will write these biographies (mostly) in Italian. Let's complete this list first. --Camelia (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Ofcourse! Please! Write about whatever you want! I could make you a list of 250 female researchers of interest without any problem. My problem begins where we don't do this, becaus we wanna do it, but because of politics featured with false statements. I for myself wrote a lot of biographies about early female archaeologists, because I was interested in this theme. Not because of gaps. They were interesting and they are of a special importance. But the most of them are not of this mayor importance, that an encyclopedia could not exist without them. Emilie Boer, Marie Delcourt, Helene Homeyer, Gred Ibscher, Gerda Krüger, Claire Préaux, Jelena Michailowna Schtajerman, Éva B. Bónis, Olwen Brogan, Gerda Bruns, Ersilia Caetani-Lovatelli, Edith Eccles, Elvira Fölzer, Hildegund Gropengiesser, Margarethe Gütschow, Helga von Heintze, Elisabeth Jastrow, Annalis Leibundgut, Gertrud Platz, Isabelle Raubitschek, Helga Reusch, Gisela M. A. Richter, Elisabeth Rohde, Margot Schmidt, Hermine Speier, Margaret Thompson. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
I think it would be lovely. Marcus only has appetite for a "completist" project, but I think it's perfectly okay to make a dent in a large void, and that if all you can manage for the short term is a dent, it is perfectly okay to prefer that dent to also eat into the gender gap.
I also like the idea of combining Wikidata work -- as a foundational fact-gathering activity that could serve and help article writers in all languages -- with article writing and translating. I suggest we start a subpage, such as /Classicists, to organize the work. Let's get cracking! Ijon (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

The fact that less than 10% of the biographies on classicist on de.wp are about women suggests there is a problem. Dear @Richard Nevell: - what do you know about the history of the classiscs? In history of the classics, there are much less than 10% women of encyclopedic interest, that's a fact. It is completely unscientific to see just what you wanna have and not, and how it is or was. We can't change history! Beginning with Petrarca over centuries nearly all researchers in the field of classics were male. You can say, this was bad, you can say, this was terribe, you ca say, this was wrong and also very stupid, because so much talent was unused. But it's a fact. It was not before the middle of the 20th century, that the situation changed in some countries, in some more, in others less. In some areas more and faster (Archaeology), in other slowlier and not that fast (History). Did you know, how much women are with a biography in the 6th supplement of the New Pauly? 12. 12 of ca. 750! And it's not because of the bad men, who did not wanna see women there. It's because of the history of this field of research. Archäologenbildnisse features 164 (in) german publishing (classical) archaeologists - just 2 of them are female. You can do such a project, everybody can, no problem. But please stop telling untrue things! 10% women of all classical scientists are more than correct. The percentage will grow, because now females are much often in important positions. More and more women can do their scientific work and can become important in a encyclopedic way. But there will probaby never a 50/50 situation. We can not change history backwards! And this is my problem! If you wanna say, de:WP has a bias, then it's because of the wide majority of german speaking researchers. The attempt to change (scientific) history, the attempt to work with numbers that are not to understand in the way you do it here and as last to use this for a political fight! If you do this not because you are interested in the biographies, but because of to try to fix not existing "gender gaps", we will have a problem! So I like much more the idea of @Ijon:. Wikidata as a place to collect as much as possible data for those persons. It's often enough, that it's hard to find informations for other language scientists. I do this since a loger time for german classicists. I would like to see more data collections about scientists from other areas, escpecially of those I don't understand the language or can not even read it because of other alphabets. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't see a low percentage as a problem per se untill I have other data in the framework. I just like to help people do what they want to do as long as it improves wikipedia. Also, I like to work with WikiDonne in general, they are a very tolerant group. If it helps, I can assure that in Italian we pay attention to all biographies even in the gener-gap activities, if we find information about husbands, mentors and so on we always enrich those as well, so in my language focusing on gender gap is not a strong statement in general, it can work as starting point more than as a goal and it works in any case. It can be a goal for some of the volunteers, for many others it's a nice way to spend time working with nice and helpful wikimedians. On Wikidata, I work already a lot in the directions of items of reserachers and it's going well, so i can focus on that part a little bit more.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
I would like to see such an project and I also would support this active. And once more - I don't have a problem with a list of 10 of the most important female classicists, that should be on all projects. But because they were important and interesting, not because of politics. I would more than this like to see a group of 25, 50 or 100 biographies on all projects, and I would like not to care about their gender. Just because a person was important. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Marcus Cyron: It seems that the crux of your concern is that this is some attempt at ‘revisionist’ history, to suggest that there have always been equal number of women working in classics as men. I want to reassure you that’s not the case. The point of projects addressing the gender gap is to document the work of notable women working in the field which is important as research has found that there’s a glass ceiling which means that women have to be ‘more notable’ to be included on Wikipedia. It is unlikely that Wikipedia will reach 50:50 representation in its biographies because of historical sexism. There is no doubting that research by women in the past has been marginalised, and their work ignored. To ignore that would be a disservice to those who worked hard to achieve equality, but at the same time we need to be careful not to replicate and further crystallise structures of power which have marginalised women and their research.
Archäologenbildnisse was written in the 1970s and 1980s, so is a good snapshot of the perception of the subject at the time. Only 11 of the authors contributing the Archäologenbildnisse were women, and while second wave feminism was having an effect clearly the work of female scholars wasn’t as valued as that of men at the time. It is inconceivable that a similar project now, even written about archaeologists working before the 1980s, would have included just two women. It’s not a problem unique to Archäologenbildnisse, though it is an extreme example. The Database of Classical Scholars has just over 800 biographies of classicists, but only 9% of them are about women. That might make 10% sound good, but a significant contributing factor to the imbalance is because you only get an entry in there after you have died, and since classics was a predominantly male field until the mid-20th century the 9% figure is not necessarily surprising. The Oxford Biographical Dictionary has a similar problem because (1) historically individual women are less well documented than men because of gender inequality (2) living people aren’t included in its entries. If we are holding up collections such as Archäologenbildnisse as the benchmark we need to be aware of the inherent biases in the source material and not use it as an excuse not to aim higher. They set their own framework, as do we. Our key restriction is ‘notability’ and while that puts us at the mercy of the source material there is certainly more ground to be covered.
It is marvellous that all the professors at German-speaking universities within the fields of archaeology, history, and philology have articles – that must have been a very time-consuming and rewarding project. But Wikipedia will never be finished, with as more people becoming notable over time and more people documenting previous scholars. The idea that classics ends at the boundary of the university is flawed; there are librarians, members of research centres and learned societies, and independent scholars who don’t hold university posts. If the focus is solely on professors, we will end up overlooking notable people who contribute to our understanding of classics. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
OK. We will not come together. You see this all from an ideologic site, I see it from a scientific site. You bringt not one argument except "the bad men before the 1970s, 1980s did not accepted women". And even this woud be true, it would not change the realities. But I'm out here. Makes no sense to discuss this. It is impossible to come up with facts against feelings. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Marcus Cyron: That's not quite what I was trying to say. If there is one takeaway from this it would be that if you are using a particular benchmark to justify an approach you need to question how good that benchmark is. Saying that you don't care about gender is just as much an ideological stance as saying that we should care about it. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wiki Loves Classics edit

So... since I am very active on WLM and I also gear an international photo competition (WSC) I though about requesting a grant for "Wiki Loves Classics" that is giving a prize among the best WLM (semi)finalists related to the topics of this UG. Just a small idea to get recognized and make chapters understand we are here to help them and support their activities (for some reason some chapters and UG do not get along). I had a very preliminary interaction with WMPT who supported the idea, let me know. I have to make a local grant for WLM now, so this will come in the next weeks.

Ideally, the funding should be for 1-2 prizes and maybe shipping a certificate printed on high quality paper (I have good local sponsor here in Tuscany). Material will be sent to the local chapter or UG organizing WLM in the country of the winner. The big effort is to create a summary page with WLM sites that are related to the topic, and a landing page on commons, but we have the expertise. This cen be done mostly scrolling other countries lists. Having a jury will be a nice way to engage some of the members of the UG The social media strategy should not be a big problem, our twitter account is robustly growing.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Before talking about prizes, we should talk about, what do we wanna do in such an event. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
If there's a way to pool classics related images from across the competitions that would be fantastic. The UK competition is based on information stored in wikidata, but I don't think items are mapped to particular periods so I'm not sure where we stand on automation. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
A lot of them are Wikidata based, I think we should however get them one by one to get an idea. the simplest way to do so is simply to monitor, a small group of motivated users, all incoming images from WLM and add a specific category for those related to classics. We can also add later a specific code on wikidata for WLM-classics and to do so we can make queries for some types to narrow the research, such as item with WLM IDs with "instance of: vase/temple/ruins" and so on. It's not impossible, it's just a very tight schedule, I am sorry I had the idea so late. But without the prize, if that is not sure, there is no big point in doing it. But the core promotional idea is quite simple, we highlight the best image(s) of these topics. the most informative image of an artifact for example, the best scenery and so on. We can actually select categories that are meaningful to us. Plus, we also end up monitoring all the files on the topic, they require better descriptions in many languages on commons and better categorization in any case. This is just a way to force us to do it immediately. And once it's completed we can all make an edit-a-thon about those specific winner(s).
If it is logistically far fetched for this year, we can do it next year, or we can do it better next year but stil try to do something this year. For example we don't make any specific advertisement until we are sure about the prize and we don't create a landing page immediately, but we clean up all the uploaded files, we get an idea, and we end up with a series of images where we can select some winners. Next year, with the infrastructure we have built, we can start with a bigger goal on September the 1st.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Draft edit

Hi these are the rules, I would like to propose something for early August. I am discussing here with Epìdosis and giving some advice. These grants are usually geographically based so we are going to be "outside of the box". I am collecting information for the proposal draft but first we want to be sure there is a margin (I hope there is). I won't be particularly greedy, so I hope they will trust us for a small amount.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have improved the gallery (I will continue later) and I am going to ask for the grant program. --Epìdosis 13:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Asked. --Epìdosis 13:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Draft in my sandbox. --Epìdosis 14:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@DarwIn and Richard Nevell: since you were more involved in this discussion on wiki and off wiki, I think that we have to be sure national chapters and geographical UGs find it useful. We want to promote our goal to quality and outreach, so I hope this is understood. I will also discuss as soon as I have more time with User:Camelia.boban and see if her experience in AffCom and/or CEE can help us to promote more balanced jury and activities. Overall, I think it has a good potential. If we can promote this strategy, this will maybe pave the way to other "transnational" effort for areas where the community is reactive.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Ilbuonme, Saintfevrier, and Ijon: @SurdusVII, DerHexer, and Geraki: @Camelia.boban, FocalPoint, and Tursclan: @Romulanus, Christelle Molinié, and Mizardellorsa: @Marcus Cyron, Xenophôn, and Prof.Lippold: @DarwIn, DerMaxdorfer, and 4nn1l2: @Taketa, T8616, and Eunostos: @Sp!ros, Gts-tg, and Hartmann Linge: are you all there? Thank you for coming here. Let me explain.

So,there are many things we will do and we can do but this month is the only one when we can submit a grant for WLM. So we need your feedback now on our idea.

Now, to be clear... the grant we have in mind is potentially critical... it's a unicum and the WLM funding is supposed to be geographically based, but it's a very interesting opportunity. So with User:Epìdosis we prepared a draft (see his sandbox) and the basic idea is to revise the uploaded images for WLM2019, and select those related to Classics.

If they give us some funding we will also give maybe 1-3 prizes. Otherwise, we will perform (at least me and him) all this procedure as a useful exercise. We will select the best possible images and create content based on them. It's also a possibility to explore types of files that are maybe boring for a generic audience (such as inscriptions) and have no chance to win, but are useful for us. Also, it's a way to reach out to countries that are not present in our "pool" yet. Plus, it's something that can pave way to future similar transnational iniatives.

Do you like the idea? Even in the case our request will be rejected, would you like to join us at least as jurors in the final steps? And help us polish the finalists (better descriptions, related article enlargement)?

Also, do you have personal contact with your related chapters and UGs to whom you can show this is a good idea? In few days we will create the final draft with the minigrant scaffolding, than crossed finger but please give us you feedback. and maybe your support. This could be the first international initiative we do as a group.--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I support everything, that works on the projects content. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
I have no objection, but am not personally motivated to spend my volunteer time on this. I'm a text-only kind of guy. :) Ijon (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Ijon we do all that we can do but please if possible start to inform your chapter, i think that as long as they understand we are there to increase the chance of winning of their uploaders, it should be fine, but there is some political undertone. WMF cares a lot about cooperation, so many problems in the last years.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

The proposal of a grant to support prizes for photographs on subjects related to WikiClassics is great! I fully support and endorse it, and though I cannot speak for the board, I'm pretty sure Wikimedia Portugal, as a chapter, will be happy to promote that in our national contest.--- Darwin Ahoy! 18:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

User:Epìdosis since the first comments in this phase are all positive, I think you should start to insert the scaffolding for the grant proposal in your sandbox so we can move it in the next days. Thank you!--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
User:Camelia.boban do you think you can start to reach out to countries such as Algeria or Albania? For example at Wikimania (not sure if Epìdosis can be there). We have nobody from those areas, we should inform them as soon as possible so the proposal is not a total surprise.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I can help with CEE countries and North Africa. --Camelia (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Nice idea. I like your suggestion of a prize dedciated to artworks or buildings with inscriptions or writings, since I specifically support the activities of this group related to languages. -Mizardellorsa (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
...also plaques. There are a lot of plaques (almost in Latin, but coul be searched in other languages too) on the building. --Camelia (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Nice idea, happy to help. —DerHexer (Talk) 19:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
DerHexer we will do the selection manually so you could help to spot the images in your country. We plan to add a hidden category. Than of course you can be part of the selection jury.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, User:Epìdosis updated the sandbox, I am preparing c:Commons:Wiki Loves Classics and categories and subpages. we are ready to move the proposal, do you have any last comments?--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Alexmar983: This would be useful for the UK competition, and WLM-UK could encourage people to take photos of Roman monuments. I don't think we have time for this year, but perhaps for the future we could use Pleiades as the basis of the competition? Richard Nevell (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Richard Nevell I do not know Pleaides very well but User:epìdosis probably do (I recall some proposal of some wikidata IDs). So, yes next year can be much better, with more infrastructure. Manual selection is old fashioned but in the current timeline we have no time to set up anything more "efficient". We will however analyze carefully the situation for 2020. So, please if you can inform UK about this draft that would be great, so I can point this out in the final proposal (I sent this afternoon a mail to Epìdosis to move the draft, it's a matter of few days).
Also, can I add you to our jury in c:Commons:Wiki Loves Classics 2019 (please it's the same for you all)?--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

For WLM Greece the monuments list is already Wikidata based and photos can be easily tagged by their WLM id. We will filter this by another property: [3] Next days we will add more items. Feel free to add P1435:Q29048715 to any ancient monument in Greece missing this property, and we will assign a WLM id to it. --Geraki TL 15:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Greece UG WLM2019 grant edit

Hi all, dont' forget to support the Greek proposal Grants:Project/Rapid/UG_GR/Wiki_Loves_Monuments_in_Greece_2019 in the meantime. User:Magioladitis, User:MARKELLOS I have no idea if User:Geraki informed you of our proposal but I ping you also here.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately the budget for all WLM rapid grants proposals was cut to 50% per decision by the WMF... :-( -Geraki TL 15:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Romanian WLM2019 grant edit

Another grant we should support is Grants:Project/Rapid/WMROMD/Wiki Loves Monuments 2019 in Romania. User:Strainu hi, I ping also you since you are the writer of this current draft. We are the WikiClassics UG and we are going to submit a proposal for the cultural heritage images related to Classics. Our goal is to improve the content related to our topics and we also hope to get funding for some additional prizes. This way photographers of temple or artifacts or tombs or plaques related to these topics (also in your countries) have higher chance of winning another prize. --Alexmar983 (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

CC CEllen, Andrei Stroe. Thanks for letting us know, we'll see how we can best collaborate. Strainu (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Strainu basically, we will add a manual hidden category to the uploaded files if related to Wiki Loves Classics so if you want, we can give you the instruction and you can also add it yourselves while checking the files. We will revise them a second tme of course, but that's the way we will populate the category for the evaluation.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply


@Epìdosis, Alexmar983, Camelia.boban, OrbiliusMagister, FocalPoint, Ilbuonme, Christelle Molinié, Mizardellorsa, Tursclan, Saintfevrier, SurdusVII, Marcus Cyron, Romulanus, Gts-tg, Geraki, Sp!ros, DerHexer, Ijon, Sir Henry, Eunostos, T8612, Renato de carvalho ferreira, Taketa, 4nn1l2, DerMaxdorfer, DarwIn, Prof.Lippold, Hartmann Linge, and Xenophôn:

Dear all,

we need an individual logo for Commons:Wiki Loves Classics. It will help in publcity and prevent ackward situations such as links from social media display irrelevant images (such as the Albanian flag). Let's choose one ASAP, since the contest is already running.

I created two versions. My concept is that since Wiki Loves Classics is tied to Wiki Loves Monuments the logo can be a derivative of that contest: I used the third Wikimedia color (blue) that is not used in WLM or WLE, and changed the "medieval" castle to a classic pillar. Here they are:

We can wait for a couple of days in case there are more proposals and then choose whatever we have on the table. We can always change it to something else later. --Geraki TL 09:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Excellent idea! Both the logos are really good, I would vote for 1. --Epìdosis 09:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I think I prefer 1. But wouldn't it make sense to use the vase from our group's logo? —DerHexer (Talk) 09:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Between 1 and 2, I prefer 1, because it's simpler and has less colours. I would prefer something more stylized, though.--- Darwin Ahoy! 09:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I agree with a more stylized image. And also to be closer to our vase logo. --Camelia (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
As I told Geraki, before my MAC's battery crashed, I was making a logo and I was in fact using the vase icon. But I see no problem in the theme he has choosen. For me it's 1, the 2 is too simple as style. On the flyer I was reparing, I expected to use all the logos (WCS UG, WLM, WCS) so they can be different. Also my graph software cannot be used but maybe yours could! Add a third one but just hurry up.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I vote for 1.. --SurdusVII 12:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I vote for 1 too (colors seem to go together better), though both are well done. --Ilbuonme (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I would vote for 1. --Tursclan (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Definetly #2. #1 is too stylized and looked so too modern, definetly not "classic". -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I prefer the first one, I find it more graphically speaking, but the second one is quite good too, maybe without the red color. Thank you! --Christelle Molinié (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I definitely exclude #1, as too near to the pillars logo (e.g. or ) my taste favours #3 over #2 for its archaeological and philologicals appeal; who prefers a more "abstract" idea of classics will favour the temple design, suggesting both archaeology, art and philosophy. What about adding a Greek (and/or a Latin) capital letter? εΔω 22:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Geraki we upload the first complete flyer in three languages this Tueday. It will be in English/italian/German and than I will send you a copy in English/French/XXX where you can add modern Greek. that should be enough for this year. So by that date, please finalize a logo based on the feedback in this page. Whatever you chose, no problem with me.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I removed the red outline from #2 and created a 3rd with the amphora. To my understanding the de facto rule is that project logos should not contain chapter and user groups logos, and I think that the amphora is not a good icon for the concept of the WLE: it is a moveable object but the contest focuses on buildings (that is the thought behind the concept I described initially: exchange of the medieval castle with a classic pillar. -Geraki TL 14:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

it's both on buildings and objects, actually. I make a test with one of the logo and upload it soon.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Deal?--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Nice Flyer. And now when there are three logo possibilities I would go for #3 - it's nearer to our other logo and definetly more classical than the capital logos. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Well I think he is right when he says To my understanding the de facto rule is that project logos should not contain chapter and user groups logos, and I think that the amphora is not a good icon... plus this way we can play wth both logo (WLC and UG) so why not? I will stick to #2 more than #1. i had refined few typos (there is an unecessary T in the contact section), I can upload a new version soon... but any final agreement on an improved version of the logo?--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
These rules will be not for long anymore, as far as I the movements development understand. The restriction the actual WMF does, will not longer work. Projects in the future will can decide for themself. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I will make a post with the flyer in the next days. Please agree on a final version of the logo if you have any suggestion. My old MAC is still under reparation, so I cannot improve any logo at the moment.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Now there is a second version. I will be off line tomorrow, on Saturday evening we can finalize the logo desing before posting on social media. In 2020 we will get a "rainbow" coverage such as in the Tuscan WLM set with more languages, but for this preliminary edition, we did enough.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I will create the png soon and than create the facebook post and the tweet.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
tweet!--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wiki Loves Classics jury edit

@Epìdosis, Geraki, Camelia.boban, OrbiliusMagister, FocalPoint, Ilbuonme, Christelle Molinié, Mizardellorsa, Tursclan, Saintfevrier, SurdusVII, Marcus Cyron, Romulanus, Gts-tg, Geraki, Sp!ros, DerHexer, Ijon, Sir Henry, Eunostos, T8612, Renato de carvalho ferreira, Taketa, 4nn1l2, DerMaxdorfer, DarwIn, Prof.Lippold, Hartmann Linge, Xenophôn, Csisc, Pradigue, and Pompilos: Hi all. The jury is evolving. As I have already told you some of you in private, please provide names to complete it as let's keep a balance of wikimedians and external personalities if possible. We have enough Italians for sure, that is not a bad thing considering the global upload but there are countries with some strong performances which might need a juror as well. Whatever you would like to suggest, we are here.

No suggestion? --Alexmar983 (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wiki Loves Classics Sorting edit

here more details about the sorting. There is hurry, if there is not any volunteer we can take a little bit longer. As long as it is well done before the end of the year, it should be fine. I am also busy with WLm in Tuscany so the plan is to take it slowly, while at the same time starting to improve some categorization here and there.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Awards edit

Sailko premiazione WLM 2019

We had a small ceremony with one of the sponsor in Florence today, where one of the winner of WLC2019 lives. It's better than nothing. The original plan was an exhibition in March but we'll see if we can reuse the idea for 2020.

You can also see the design of the certificate, with the WLC logo, so this is ready for next year.

I prepare a tweet and a Facebook post.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

tweet and post--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

CFP: Classics and Civic Activism edit

If we would have someone in the area of Washington DC, it could be interesting for us as Wikimedia projects to be presented there as an example for Civic Activism in the field of Classics. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

We lack some Americans so far. But if you find somebody, fine with me, it's a useful activity in our list.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Introduction: "Wikipedia and Archaeology" edit

Following an invitation from Professor Suzanne Frey-Kupper, I will be giving an introduction to Wikipedia and Archeology at University of Warwick (in Coventry, England, UK) on October 29 this year. For clues, what I should not forget, I would be grateful, since no one can think of everything. Likewise I am grateful for references to already existing such introductions, to statistics, suitable picture material etc. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

And a day later, now I have an appointment at the Beazley Archive at Oxford. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Marcus Cyron: If you like I'd be happy to share the slide deck I use when giving introductory talks archaeology students, but it does depend what key points you want to touch on. It might be worth tailoring it by giving examples of what archaeology stuff is happening in the UK, such as Archaeology Scotland and the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland and image donations from the York Museums Trust. And Wikimedia UK are talking to the people at King's College London who are behind the Gazetteer of Libyan Heritage to share images of endangered sites. I'd also suggest saying that Wikipedia is an important tool for the communication of archaeology and that everybody uses it, even if it's not obvious. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Richard Nevell: - I would like to see your slides. This will be not my first introduction (so 2012 at the Humboldt-Univerity in Berlin; 2013 at the University of Mainz or talks at the Ceramics Workshop of the DAI Athens in 2015 and the annual meetup of the German Association for prehistoric archaeology in 2016 and 1018) and I'm not looking for something I can use in complete. But I'm interested in new ideas, new impulses and things I forgot until today. So everything would be phantastic. And your hints here are very helpfull. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Once WLM month is over, remind me to contact you so we can prepare some materials for the social media. If you need help on that side, you can do it yourself of course.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Mailing list? edit

Hello. What is the 'mailing list (TBC)' announced on the home page, Contacts section? Thank you. --Romulanus (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Romulanus yes the idea is in the long-term future to have maybe a mailing list like other groups. it's far fetched at the moment, I suppose.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Bibliography on students editing WMF articles/books? edit

Hello, sorry to bother you all about this. I am writing an article for a miscellaneous book on digital tools for teaching Classics. I often assigned students to edit WMF pages (Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource) and wanted to mention this as a good practice and argue about it. Do you know of any bibliography that I can consult on this? Thank you,I'll --Ilbuonme (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ilbuonme we had a similar discussion on line with a professor few months ago, I don't think there is anything specific about teachning classics. There is a lot about education in general, but on this topic probably it's fragmented. We shoul probably highlight your final chapter (I will do it with pleasure)--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Alexmar983, thank you very much for your reply. I agree that the most interesting aspects are not domain-specific. Can you or the others point me to some online bibliography on the general (not classics-centered) topic of giving students an assignment consisting in editing WMF pages? I have trained teachers to do so in the realm of classics, but only because both me and the trainees happened to be classics teachers. Thank you for offering to go over the WMF-related section. I probably should have mentioned that it's in Italian, but I see from your user page that you too are an Italian native speaker :-) --Ilbuonme (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Ilbuonme [4], [5], [6], [7] [8]... these ones are from different fields at University. [9] and [10] are at high schools. Mostly are anglophone but there is something in other countries. For example in Italy, User:Mirko Tavosanis [11].--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
THank you Alexmar983! I am also searching on Google Scholar. Once I'm done, I might contribute the bibliography I found somewhere in WMF. I'll let you all know when the first complete draft of the article is ready. --Ilbuonme (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Ilbuonme! Yes, as Alexmar983 said, I have published a couple of papers (in Italian) about this topic, describing my experience in academic settings:
* (this one is also on Academia:
A set of experiences in Italy is described also in LUIGI CATALANI (ed.), Fare didattica con i progetti Wikimedia, «BRICKS» 7, 4 (numero monografico); CORRADO PETRUCCO, Wikipedia come attività di empowerment personale e sociale di studenti e insegnanti nel progetto «Veneto in Wikipedia», in «TD Tecnologie didattiche» 24, 2: 102-110. --Mirko Tavosanis (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
If you have too many results, I suggest to use , or to narrow them down (and to filter by open access status). Nemo 05:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thank you Mirko Tavosanis and Nemo. Also, I didn't know of those open access alternatives to Google Scholar and I like them. -- 16:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I added some select bibliography to my article in Italian on digital teaching for classics. I am sending it via email to Mirko Tavosanis for suggestions. User talk:Alexmar983, you had mentioned that you too would have been available to highlight my final paragraph (on students editing the WMF projects): if you are still up for it, or if anyone else is, please drop me a line (my contacts are [here]( so I have your email. Best, --Ilbuonme (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ilbuonme I did not receive a ping, but in any case... I completely forgot it. the problem is that I am busy with so many projects that before December, 15th I have no free time, I am so sorry. I can discuss in few days with another person however, I'll let you know.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Alexmar983: I understand, no problem at all --Ilbuonme (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Movement communications group edit

We need somebody in Movement_communications_group. Should I put my name here? Who else will be part of it because of other affiliation?--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I almost forgot that I wrote here weeks ago. I put my name. Why not.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Affiliations Committee (AffCom) – the committee responsible for guiding volunteers in establishing Wikimedia chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups – is looking for new members!

The main role of the Affiliations Committee is to guide groups of volunteers that are interested in forming Wikimedia affiliates. We review applications from new groups, answer questions and provide advice about the different Wikimedia affiliation models and processes, review affiliate bylaws for compliance with requirements and best practices, and update the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees as well as advise them on issues connected to chapters, thematic organizations and Wikimedia user groups.

The committee consists of fourteen members, selected every twelve months for staggered two-year terms. Those joining the committee during the current process will serve a two-year term ending in December 2021.

AffCom continues to closely monitor the Wikimedia 2030 Strategy process that was initiated in 2016. While the affiliation models continue to be discussed as part of the broader strategy discussion, as no decisions have been made to change the current affiliation models yet, AffCom will continue to work in the same manner with regard to affiliate recognitions and intervention support for affiliates with issues of non-compliance in 2020. Specifically, AffCom will continue to process applications for user group and chapter/thematic organization creation, while we await the strategy next steps and begin to prepare for a smooth transition of the committee and affiliates ecosystem to any changing movement structures and systems in 2021.

Being a part of the Affiliations Committee requires communication with volunteers all over the world, negotiating skills, cultural sensitivity, and the ability to understand legal texts. We look for a healthy mix of different skill sets in our members.

Required and Recommended Skills for Affiliations Committee Members edit

Across all committee members there are additional relevant skills as well as requirements which help to support the committee and its sustainability which include both required and relevant general skills

Required Skills edit

  • Fluency in English
  • Availability of up to 5 hours per week, and the time to participate in a monthly one and two-hour voice/video meetings.
  • Willingness to use one's real name in committee activities (including contacts with current and potential affiliates) when appropriate.
  • Strong track record of effective collaboration
  • International orientation

Relevant Skills edit

  • Skills in other languages are a major plus.
  • Public Communications (English writing and speaking skills)
  • Strong understanding of the structure and work of affiliates and the Wikimedia Foundation.
  • Documentation practices
  • Interviewing experience
  • Knowledge of different legal systems and experience in community building and organizing are a plus
  • Experience with, or in, an active affiliate is a major plus.
  • Teamwork
    • Focusing on shared goals instead of disagreements
    • Focusing on the conflict at hand and not past ones
    • Ensuring each member of the team has a clearly defined role, which can help reduce disagreements over areas of responsibility
    • Project and people management to coordinate different parties on a shared plan and seeing it through to completion.
  • Problem-Solving
    • Ability to evaluate various solutions
    • Ability to consider multiple interests and points of view
    • Willingness to revisit unresolved issues
    • The capacity to recognize and respond to important matters
    • The ability to seek compromise and avoid punishing
  • Ability to work and communicate with other languages and cultures.

Given the expectations for maintaining course in 2020 and preparing for potential 2021 transitions, it is important that we are also clear about two different skill sets critical to committee support at this time. The first skillset is oriented to understanding affiliate dynamics and organizational development patterns to successfully process affiliate applications for recognition; the other is oriented to conflict prevention and intervention support for affiliates in conflict.

Affiliate Recognitions Relevant Skills edit

  • Administration
    • Willingness to process applications through a set, perhaps bureaucratic process.
    • Attention to detail
  • Monitoring & Strategic Development
    • Readiness to participate in political discussions on the role and future of affiliates, models of affiliation, and similar topics.
  • Organizational Awareness
    • Understanding of and community building and organizational development
    • Understanding of group dynamics
    • Awareness of the affiliates ecosystem and models

Conflict Prevention & Intervention Relevant Skills edit

  • Communication
    • Active listening
    • Reading nonverbal cues
    • Knowing when to interrupt and when to stay quiet
    • Being culturally sensitive at the same time remaining clear and concise when explaining a concept or opinion
  • Stress Management
    • Patience
    • Positivity
    • Ability to inject a dose of humor to dilute anger and frustration when needed
    • Taking well-timed breaks that can bring calm in the midst of flared tempers
    • Ability to manage stress while remaining alert and calm
  • Emotional Intelligence
    • Being emotionally aware,
    • Ability to control emotions and behaviors,
    • Ability to practice empathy,
    • Impartiality,
    • Don’t take anything personally,
    • Being aware of and respectful of differences.
  • Facilitation skills
    • Meeting facilitation experience
    • Peer or community mediation training
    • Peer or community mediation experience

Do you have any of these skill sets and an interest to support movement affiliates?

We are looking for people who are excited by the challenge of empowering volunteers to get organized and form communities that further our mission around the world. In exchange, committee members selected will gain the experience of supporting their world-wide colleagues to develop their communities as well as personal development in guiding organizational development, facilitating affiliate partnerships, and professional communications.

Selection process edit

As a reflection of our commitment to openness, transparency, and bilateral engagement with the Wikimedia community, the 2019 member selection process will include a public review and comment period. We invite you to share with us you applications, specifying your focus area you’re interested in. All applications received by the committee will be posted on Meta, and the community will be invited to provide comments and feedback about each candidate.

At the end of the public comment period, the applications will be voted on by the members of the committee who are not seeking re-election, taking into account comments put forward by the committee's members, advisors, Wikimedia Foundation staff and board liaisons, and the community. A final decision will be made by mid-January 2020, with new members expected to join later that month.

How to apply edit

If you are interested in joining the committee, please post your application on the nomination page and send an email announcing your application to AffCom by 10 January 2020. Your application must include the following information:

  • Your full name and Wikimedia username
  • A statement describing your relevant experience, skills, and motivation for joining the committee.
  • Answers to the following questions:
  1. How do you think affiliates work best together to partner on effective projects and initiatives?
  2. What do you see as the role of affiliates in the Wikimedia movement in the next three years?
  3. What do you feel you will bring to the committee that makes you uniquely qualified?
  4. Which subcommittee are you most interested in serving on: Recognitions OR Conflict Prevention & Intervention?

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me and/or the committee as a whole. We are happy to chat or have a phone call with anyone about our work if this helps them decide to apply. Please distribute this call among your networks, and do apply if you are interested!

On behalf of the committee,

Camelia Boban, AffCom member

Winners of Wiki Loves Classics edit

The results are publshed in this page. Feedbacks were positive, somebody wants to wirte a post on some wikimedia website (I have asked for details). I am working now to find a sponsorship to print them. I will let you know.

In any case, we are ready for 2020!--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

iDAI edit

Hi, there are actually two requests for new properties depending iDAI-identifiers on Wikidata: d:Wikidata:Property proposal/iDAI.chronontology ID and d:Wikidata:Property proposal/iDAI.gazetteer ID. When the Corona crisis will be over one time, I wanna meet the decisive people of the DAI in Berlin to talk with them about linking their data bases on Wikidata. So if there's more you wanna have,, you wanna know or what ever, please collect it here. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

WMF Report 2019 edit

Hi, I am starting to draft the yearly reportin WikiClassics User Group/Reports/2019. Please take a look. Sorry I couldn't do before, the last three weeks have been crazy at work.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I will add for sure the part of social media channels and Wiki Loves Classic by the end of tomorrow.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Ilbuonme: I remember the article you were writing; could you tell us some information, so that we can cite it? --Epìdosis 17:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Epìdosis, Geraki, Camelia.boban, OrbiliusMagister, FocalPoint, Ilbuonme, Christelle Molinié, Mizardellorsa, Tursclan, Saintfevrier, SurdusVII, Marcus Cyron, Romulanus, Gts-tg, Geraki, Sp!ros, DerHexer, Ijon, Sir Henry, Eunostos, T8612, Renato de carvalho ferreira, Taketa, 4nn1l2, DerMaxdorfer, DarwIn, Prof.Lippold, Hartmann Linge, Xenophôn, Csisc, Pradigue, and Pompilos: Hi all, the draft is going on. Please you can add something there. we should than send the report at least on the mailing list so whatever you think it's worth visibility just insert it. For example we made some tweets about the presence of some of you at some academic events, you can add those probably.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I was also told that it's lready enough, so it's a good thing. I will put it tonight in the Reports table on meta. Thank you for all feedbacks on-wiki and off-wiki so far.--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Invitation to participate in Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos edit

Dear Wikimedia Affiliate Community,

We are inviting you to participate in Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos (WPWP), a new global contest scheduled to run from July through August 2020:

Participants will choose among Wikipedia pages without photo images, then add a suitable file from among the many thousands of photos in the Wikimedia Commons, especially those uploaded from thematic contests (Wiki Loves Africa, Wiki Loves Earth, Wiki Loves Folklore, etc.) over the years.

WPWP offers a focused task for guiding new editors through the steps of adding content to existing pages. It can be used to organize editing workshops and edit-a-thons.

The organizing team is looking for a contact person at the Chapter, Thematic group & Wikimedia User Group level (geographically or thematically), or for a language WP, to coordinate the project locally. We’d be glad for you to sign up directly at WPWP Participating Communities

Thank you,

Deborah Schwartz Jacobs

On behalf of Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos Organizing Team - 21:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Call for candidates - June 2020 edit

Hi everyone,

The Affiliations Committee (AffCom) – the committee responsible for guiding volunteers in establishing and sustaining Wikimedia chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups – is seeking new members!

The main role of the AffCom is to guide groups of volunteers that are interested in forming Wikimedia affiliates. We review applications from new groups, answer questions and provide advice about the different Wikimedia affiliation models and processes, review affiliate bylaws for compliance with requirements and best practices, and update the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees as well as advise them on issues connected to chapters, thematic organizations and Wikimedia user groups.

The committee consists of five to fifteen members, selected at least once every year, to serve two-year terms. As the committee must hold mid-year elections to replenish its members at this time, those joining the committee during the current process will serve a slightly extended term from July 2020 through December 2022.

AffCom continues to closely monitor the Wikimedia 2030 Strategy process initiated in 2016. While the affiliation models continue to be discussed as part of the broader strategy discussion, as no decisions have been made to change the current affiliation models yet, AffCom continues to work in the same manner with regard to affiliate recognitions and intervention support for affiliates with issues of non-compliance in 2020. AffCom continues to process applications for user group and chapter/thematic organization creation, while we await the strategy next steps and begin to prepare for a smooth transition of the committee and affiliates ecosystem to any changing movement structures and systems in 2021.

Being a part of the AffCom requires communication with volunteers all over the world, negotiating skills, cultural sensitivity, and the ability to understand legal texts. We look for a mix of different skill sets in our members.

Click here for further details.

James Heilman on behalf of AffCom

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Survey about 2030 Movement Brand Project edit

@Epìdosis, Geraki, Camelia.boban, OrbiliusMagister, FocalPoint, Ilbuonme, Christelle Molinié, Mizardellorsa, Tursclan, Saintfevrier, SurdusVII, Marcus Cyron, Romulanus, Gts-tg, Geraki, Sp!ros, DerHexer, Ijon, Sir Henry, Eunostos, T8612, Renato de carvalho ferreira, Taketa, 4nn1l2, DerMaxdorfer, DarwIn, Prof.Lippold, Hartmann Linge, Xenophôn, Csisc, Pradigue, and Pompilos: I have just received a mail about the 2030 Movement Brand Project.

I followed it in general but I have no time during these weeks so I did not follow the recent developments properly. Here is also a youtube video, and some of you are probably also aware through international the mailing list or similar discussions within other affiliates, like I am. I was aware of the issue, but I had no free time since the COVID-19 outbreak to follow it in detail.

The survey will be available until 30 June, You are welcome to share any considerations, I will share mine as well if I can. I will summarize the UG position with pleasure.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I also cannot see the questions in advance, I have to fill the UG name and profile on the first page, which I am not sure if it is something I can do more than once. I'll look into it but again, I have no time.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Alexmar983: hi to all wiki friends.. I cannot follow because I am deaf, that is, I have difficulty following with spoken voices.. however, I don't participate.. good evening!! --SurdusVII 18:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
I have seen the YouTube video live and I am still paralyzed. When I will be recovered, I will maybe participate in the survey. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 19:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
here the survey. You will also vote personally, but I am supposed to cast a vote of the whole UG. Please share your comments and I will try to summarize them.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think that a statement that the old poll and the new ones should be respected seems legit to me. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 19:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
I perfectly agree with @DerHexer:. --Epìdosis 19:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Who want to be affiliate liaison on the matter? i would have no problem in following the issue normally, but this is a very busy season for me so please whoever feel they are better for the role, tell us here and than sign up.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I will attend this event--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Some core information from the meeting (you can also read here)
  • Essie Zar in charge of the survey was there for the first "technical" part. The second part was more free and only amongst the affiliate.
  • We are waiting for a statement from the BoT, tomorrow. The statement that a rebranding will occur because the BoT had a final decision was surprising to most people.
  • We revised the option of the survey, 5 of the g choice are based on "Wikipedia". It looks like an unusually narrow choice, in the end.
  • Naming of affiliates of global name changes is a big issue, there might a chance only visual identity will change, but not the term.
  • We revised what occurred for small rebranding "workshops" in Norway (Oslo) and India (Bangalore), the meetings were not strcitly related to rebranding and only one option from that events seems to be related in what is in the survey, "interconnected".
  • Almost everything is delayed in the movement but not this survey, which is odd.
  • At the moment we want to draft a concise open letter. I put the preliminary signature, timing is critical, please let me know if you disagree. We can NOT share the link to social media or open "forums" but it can be shared privately or with the Boards.
  • There is general drift to avoid boycotting the survey and use the "4th option". It's better to wait the statement from the BoT tomorrow.
  • I can sort the option in some order, if you see some "lesser evil" in the other Wiki options, please let me know
  • the branding is different from the 2030 strategy, there is a proposal to be merged with that this September.
  • Rationalization of name of Affiliates will probably occur as well.
I hope this is all.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

The new statement from the BoT is here.--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Survey's deadline was formally extended from 30 June to 7 July--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

main letter. I will sign it on behalf of the UG. @Epìdosis, Geraki, Camelia.boban, OrbiliusMagister, FocalPoint, Ilbuonme, Christelle Molinié, Mizardellorsa, Tursclan, Saintfevrier, SurdusVII, Marcus Cyron, Romulanus, Gts-tg, Geraki, Sp!ros, DerHexer, Ijon, Sir Henry, Eunostos, T8612, Renato de carvalho ferreira, Taketa, 4nn1l2, DerMaxdorfer, DarwIn, Prof.Lippold, Hartmann Linge, Xenophôn, Csisc, Pradigue, and Pompilos: I ping you all again since few days have passed. i will ad the UG signature in few hours, and I can remove it if some concern or opposition is clearly raised (it would be useful however if you indicate a clear support)--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

And I kept it private since Sunday to few hours ago (see above) but now we have to start to decide to sign or not. Plus, I said they are not supposed to edit and give me feedbacks. I am sorry but there are people here like Paulo who did not notice this, the communication was not very clear on this matter. Another person commenting here is from the Board of a chapter (he can access it) and he also did not notice it. I was told to kept it private in the first phase and I did so, but now it's almost ready and we don't have a structured board so they can't ask a small group to be fully private, it's not functional. And I cannot give less time to decide just by myself. if you want me to give some last feedback, I need to ask you. i am not going to do everything by myself.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
  Support I signed the letter on behalf of WikiDonne UG, so I agree to do it as WikiClassics too. --Camelia (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Alexmar983: "there are people here like Paulo who did not notice this" - You got it wrong, I never edited the letter from here, I always had the direct link to it from the branding videoconf. And I was indeed supposed to edit and collaborate on it, which I did.--- Darwin Ahoy! 14:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

User talk:DarwIn I got it right. I said you could access, which is true, and that you did not notice it was linked here before the deadline by mistake, which based on your reply it's probably also true because you did not leave a comment on that despite being here now a second time. --Alexmar983 (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Epìdosis, Geraki, Camelia.boban, OrbiliusMagister, FocalPoint, Ilbuonme, Christelle Molinié, Mizardellorsa, Tursclan, Saintfevrier, SurdusVII, Marcus Cyron, Romulanus, Gts-tg, Geraki, Sp!ros, DerHexer, Ijon, Sir Henry, Eunostos, T8612, Renato de carvalho ferreira, Taketa, 4nn1l2, DerMaxdorfer, DarwIn, Prof.Lippold, Hartmann Linge, Xenophôn, Csisc, Pradigue, Pompilos, Kaizenify, and Millars: I will prepare the reply to the survey on behalf of the UG. I was very direct personally, so considering the two abstain votes in the previous request, I will try to be as neutral as possible, but of course the UG's statement is generally a negative one. If there is anything you want to share, please let me know. --Alexmar983 (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have sent the survey yesterday in the late evening, you can all have a copy via mail of the receipt, just contect me.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Affiliations Committee elections announcement June 2020 edit

Hi everyone,

This is a friendly reminder that the Affiliations Committee (AffCom) – the committee responsible for guiding volunteers in establishing and sustaining Wikimedia chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups – is seeking new members! The deadline to post your application on the nomination page is 30 June 2020.

  • Application process: Considering the anticipated changes following the Strategy recommendations, we had a limited scope to introduce changes in the process. We have made a small but impactful addition to the application process by introducing the Self Assessment survey form which will help the committee know more about your engagement as endorsements are not consistently shared, may not be representative, and often do not speak to the specific skills needed.
  • Selection process: No change; see: Membership.

If you have any questions, please contact me and/or the committee as a whole. We are happy to answer questions about our work if this helps people decide to apply. Please distribute this announcement among your networks. Good luck to all the candidates!

On behalf of the committee,

--Rosiestep (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

June 21 All-Affiliates Brand Meeting edit

All Wikimedia affiliates are invited to join an urgent All-Affiliates Brand Meeting in two sessions on Sunday June 21, regarding the most recent developments.-- Pharos (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

UG members are informed above, so I suggest to keep the previous unified discussion, if it's fine with you.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Feedback on movement names edit

There are a lot of conversations happening about the future of our movement names. We hope that you are part of these discussions and that your community is represented.

Since 16 June, the Foundation Brand Team has been running a survey in 7 languages about 3 naming options. There are also community members sharing concerns about renaming in a Community Open Letter.

You should have received a separate affiliate survey via email. If you have not, feel free to email brandproject

Our goal in this call for feedback is to hear from across the community, so we encourage you to participate in the survey, the open letter, or both. The survey will go through 7 July in all timezones. Input from the survey and discussions will be analyzed and published on Meta-Wiki.

Thanks for thinking about the future of the movement --The Brand Project team, 13:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: The survey is conducted via a third-party service, which may subject it to additional terms. For more information on privacy and data-handling, see the survey privacy statement.

Project about Latin texts edit

Hi all! Recently I've started with @Alexmar983: a project about Latin literature and inscriptions centered on Wikidata and Commons with the support of Wikimedia Italia (and Wikimedia Switzerland); the idea was promoted by @Mizardellorsa:, member on the Board of Directors of Wikimedia Italia.

The main page of the project is d:Wikidata:Testi latini. If you have specific proposals about other possible tasks, please let us know in the talk page of the project; we can always rearrange few priorities if the chapters agree. This is intended to be a long-term effort with more steps to come; we had a very strict deadline and it was very important to start something quickly, we will investigate different possibilities of development. In the future, if the project is expanded, we will have more time to discuss with you as well. --Epìdosis 20:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Announcing a new wiki project! Welcome, Abstract Wikipedia edit

Hello everyone. I am posting the announcement below, which you may have missed elsewhere, and in the hope that you can share it with your local communities. Please note that it may be available in your language at m:Special:MyLanguage/Abstract Wikipedia/July 2020 announcement. Thanks for your attention! m:User:Elitre (WMF)

Commons:Wiki Loves Classics edit

hello there! sorry for bothering here as well, but I am not sure how closely the page on Commons is being monitored, and receiving any kind of answer is appreciated, so we know if we should allocate some time to promotional activities of WLC, or concentrate on other things related to the WLM contest. thanks! --アンタナナ 19:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Invitation to affiliate members to complete a survey about WMF Universal Code of Conduct edit

Hello; My name is Mervat, and I am helping the Trust and Safety team to reach out to affiliates in order to discuss the Universal Code of Conduct.  

There has been talks about the need for a global set of conduct rules in different communities over time, and finally, Wikimedia Foundation Board announced a Community Culture Statement, enacting new standards to address harassment and promote inclusivity across projects.Since the universal code of conduct that will be a binding minimum set of standards across all Wikimedia projects, will apply to all of us, staff and volunteers alike, all around the globe, and will impact our work as groups, individuals and projects, it’s of great importance that we all participate in expressing our opinions and thoughts about UCoC, its nature, what we think it should cover or include and what it shouldn’t include; how it may develop, drawback or help our groups.   This is the time to talk about it. As you are a valuable contributor to the Wikimedia movement, your voice counts. Before starting to draft the code of conduct, we would like to hear from you; We invite you to devote some minutes to take this survey; your answers will help us create a safer environment for all on Wikimedia:


It's possible that you are a member of more than one affiliate; hence you may receive this survey more than once, and you may have participated previously in the discussions or filled out a previous survey during the first round of consultations about UCoC which targeted wikipedia/wikimedia communities. We apologize for this; it is really difficult to identify if a wikimedian belongs to multiple groups that work to spread free knowledge.

Looking forward to your thoughts and opinions and hoping that you can respond within the next 2 weeks.  If you have any questions about the surveys or difficulties accessing the link, please contact me by email ( will be considered during the drafting process for the UCoC.

Thank you for your participation

Mervat Salman Trust & Safety (Policy) Facilitator Wikimedia Foundation --Mervat (WMF) (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Epìdosis, Geraki, Camelia.boban, OrbiliusMagister, FocalPoint, Ilbuonme, Christelle Molinié, Mizardellorsa, Tursclan, Saintfevrier, SurdusVII, Marcus Cyron, Romulanus, Gts-tg, Geraki, Sp!ros, DerHexer, Ijon, Sir Henry, Eunostos, T8612, Renato de carvalho ferreira, Taketa, 4nn1l2, DerMaxdorfer, DarwIn, Prof.Lippold, Hartmann Linge, Xenophôn, Csisc, Pradigue, Pompilos, Kaizenify, Millars, and Llywrch: I ping you all so you can see the message. Thnak you.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Mervat - ask your colleagues, why I'm not interested to work with your department. No trust, no safety. Nobody ever can live with trust and in safetyness with this T&S team. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Marcus Cyron:, No dear, I will not ask about people's personal experience with the team. Hope things are changing for the best of all. Be safe. --Mervat (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sunday August 23: Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network meeting edit

Strategic flock of Wikimedians heading in a new direction.

The Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network (SWAN) is a proposed forum for all Wikimedia movement affiliates to share ideas on the Wikimedia 2030 strategy process. It expands on the model of the All-Affiliates Brand Meeting to help lay some of the groundwork for a future Global Council.

The idea is to follow up on the All-Affiliates Brand Meeting and other strategic and outreach topics of mutual concern to all affiliates, and you are all invited to RSVP here.--Pharos (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sunday September 20 Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network meeting edit

Birds of a feather flock together.

The Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network (SWAN) is a developing forum for all Wikimedia movement affiliates to share ideas on the Wikimedia 2030 strategy process. It expands on the model of the All-Affiliates Brand Meeting to help lay some of the groundwork for a future Global Council.

Following up on the August SWAN meeting and June's All-Affiliates Brand Meeting, as well as strategic and outreach topics of mutual concern to all affiliates, this month we are meeting on Sunday September 20, and you are all invited to RSVP here.--Pharos (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Movement Strategy - What Are Your Choices For Implementation edit

Hello WikiClassics User Group,

The time has come to put Strategy into work and everyone's invited to participate.

The Movement Strategy Design Group and Support Team are inviting you to organize virtual meetings with your community and colleagues before the end of October. The aim is for you to decide what ideas from the Movement Strategy recommendations respond to your needs and will have an impact in the movement. The recommendations are available in different formats and in many languages. There are 10 awesome recommendations and close to 50 recommended changes and actions or initiatives. Not everything will be implemented. The aim of prioritization is to create an 18-month implementation plan to take some of the initiatives forward starting in 2021.

Prioritization is at the level of your group, affiliate, and community. Think local and relevant! Regional and thematic platforms are great ways to prepare and share ideas. Afterwards, we will come together in November to co-create the implementation plan. More information about November’s global events will be shared soon. For now and until the end of October, organize locally and share your priorities with us.

You can find guidance for the events, the simple reporting template, and other supporting materials here on Meta. You can share your results directly on Meta, by email, or by filling out this survey. Please don’t hesitate to get in touch with us if you have any questions or comments, strategy2030

We will be hosting office hours to answer any questions you might have, Thursday October 1 at 14.00 UTC (Google Meet).

MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sunday October 25 Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network meeting edit

Friendship is a movement value.

The Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network (SWAN) is a developing forum for all Wikimedia movement affiliates to share ideas on the Wikimedia 2030 strategy process. It expands on the model of the All-Affiliates Brand Meeting to help lay some of the groundwork for a future Global Council.

Following up on the September and August SWAN meetings, and June's All-Affiliates Brand Meeting, as well as strategic and outreach topics of mutual concern to all affiliates including the recent proposed changes to the Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws, this month we are meeting on Sunday October 25, and you are all invited to RSVP here.--Pharos (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)