Open main menu
← Discussion pages Wikimedia Forums Archives →
QA icon clr.svg

The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions and discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. (For discussion about the Meta wiki, see Meta:Babel.)
This is not the place to make technical queries regarding the MediaWiki software; please ask such questions at the MediaWiki support desk; technical questions about Wikimedia wikis, however, can be placed on Tech page.

You can reply to a topic by clicking the "[edit]" link beside that section, or you can start a new discussion.
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.


Contents

WMF's proposed brand shift from "Wikimedia" to "Wikipedia"Edit

The Wikimedia Foundation recently published the blog post "Leading with Wikipedia: A brand proposal for 2030":

But while “Wikimedia” may not be widely recognized outside our movement, there is a clear way to use our existing brands to better bring in the billions of people who have yet to join us in our vision. We can center our brand system around Wikipedia, one of the world’s best-known brands. […]

The proposed system change suggests elevating Wikipedia into a high-visibility entry point that can be used to better introduce the world to our range of projects and their shared mission. The proposal also recommends retaining project names as they are, while shortening “Wikimedia Commons” to its nickname “Wikicommons” to fit the “wiki + project” name convention. […]

By definition, Wikimedia brands are shared among the communities who give them meaning. So in considering this change, the Wikimedia Foundation is collecting feedback from across our communities. Our goal is to speak with more than 80% of affiliates and as many individual contributors as possible before May 2019, when we will offer the Board of Trustees a summary of the community’s response.

If there has already been community discussion of this proposal elsewhere, please direct me to it. I'm very curious to see what people's reactions are. Regards, PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen any on-wiki discussion yet. I'm a fan myself, except for the Wikicommons part which sounds weird. But I expect that the community, particularly the Meta community, might take issue with it. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Even I take issue with this.--AldNonymousBicara? 01:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
If I may ask... why? Switching to a more recognizable brand could help gain attention and increase use. My personal concern is that a) we don't need much more attention in the developed world, and b) that rebranding won't help increase use in the developing world, where Wikipedia is largely unknown and those that do know of Wikipedia often consider it foreign. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict.) I'm not a regular contributor to meta discussions, but I have concerns that the general public would have greater issues finding out about other WMF projects if the WMF renames itself to "Wikipedia". Things that might help would be things like white-hat search engine optimizations for all the projects, not just the English Wikipedia. This would include non-English projects directed at people who aren't searching in English. I dream of horses (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict.) I have different opinion about this User:Aldnonymous#Commentaries_on_Emerging_Countries_and_Global_South. And it's like, the contribution of user who work in the background being merged into Wikipedia, despite I know some of us never ever edited Wikipedia in their entire life and focused on the background.--AldNonymousBicara? 01:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with what you say on your userpage about the WMF and the Global South. The WMF makes token efforts to promote growth in those areas of the world at best. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I just found Communications/Wikimedia brands/2030 research and planning/community review and its talk page, where some discussion has already taken place. Neither of these pages were linked in the blog post. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Don't we have better places where to spend donor money instead of this needless change? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Is central banner needed to announce WMF's branding strategy proposal?Edit

I've been thinking. If central banner announcing WMF's branding strategy proposal is posted throughout most (if not all) wiki sites, many more feedback comments will be created. Banners to protest EU's copyright reform were posted in numerous non-English Wikipedia sites. Why can't the branding strategy have the central banner? I originally posted the idea, but then I've not received responses. Here I am re-posting the idea here. George Ho (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Usually it's easier to have a banner or notification with a clear request for participation. If the WMF is not going to put its final proposal up for confirmation in a referendum, we could organise a multilingual RfC in Meta and try to get a few thousands participants in it. Nemo 07:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
But the feedback cycle will end somewhere in May, so could the RfC be concluded in that amount of time? George Ho (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
If it starts in early April I don't see why not. Nemo 13:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Please feel free to create the RFC then. I've not yet seen a central banner as of date, but I don't feel confident that the proposal would receive enough support in that amount of time. George Ho (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

PiRSquared17 and Nemo, as a remedy for this I would and have suggested to name things "a sister of Wikipedia" which in my opinion can be better than "a Wikipedia project": retaining a sister relationship and making it more clear that these projects' policies vary. Perhaps this can be included in any banners or requests for comment that take place. (Not sure whether they have occurred somewhere, or not.) --Gryllida 11:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Gryllida: I agree that "a sister project of Wikipedia" or something along those lines would be an improvement over "a Wikipedia project". @George Ho and Nemo bis: As for whether any CentralNotice banners or MassMessages have been sent out, I haven't seen any. I really think that there should have been some form of community notification about this branding change. It might be too late by now, however. PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I recall the English Wikiversity receiving a notification about this brand change some time ago. Discussions are linked here and here. Certainly a bizarre move from the Wikimedia Foundation. There are many editors who'd prefer to stay far from certain projects, an example being Wikipedia (I'm echoing David's comments on WV Link #2). I personally feel like there could be more important changes that time invested [in those changes] would be more beneficial, nevertheless, it's a change with a good intention. I don't have a clear stance on this yet. Will have to do more digging and reading. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 22:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Atcovi, Nemo bis, and George Ho: Should we propose adding a banner on CentralNotice/Request? PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I would support that. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
But how do one of us create a mock banner? Just text or insert images? George Ho (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
@George Ho: I'm not sure. Back when I used to handle a lot of CN banner requests, people usually just specified some text and an image and we would stick them into a default banner template. The new workflow for requesting CentralNotice banners, despite supposedly being more mainstreamed, seems more complicated and I don't know how to proceed. Maybe look at what recent successful requests have done and imitate them? PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Set up a suitable destination under RfC or whatever and the process for a banner will be the least of your problems. Once you make your request, it can always be fixed (I can help with that too). Nemo 17:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  Created CentralNotice/Request/Community feedback on WMF's branding proposal. George Ho (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

SNI block from China has been applied to all Wikipedias (and even the https://www.wikipedia.org/)Edit

zh:Wikipedia:互助客栈/消息#全部语言维基百科疑似被封 --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Therefore WMF staffs must continue discussing with PRC Governments' staffs within China-US economical discussions, to find a way to win-win each other. --117.14.243.223 03:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
And now, to all WMF wikis. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't get the IP's comment -- discussion to make PRC censorship authority happy? LOL nope. — regards, Revi 17:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

You are invitedEdit

to participate over Requests for comment/Do something about azwiki. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Do something about azwiki#ProposalEdit

Hello. I have proposed removing all administrators, bureaucrats, and interface admins from the Azerbaijani Wikipedia due to concerns about copyright violations, abuse of the block tool, and use of admin tools to push POV editing. Evaluation of the situation on this Wikipedia by outside Wikimedia editors would be appreciated. Rschen7754 01:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Mailing list is broken for me?Edit

Page not found

/mailman/listinfo

We could not find the above page on our servers.

Did you mean: /wiki/mailman/listinfo

Alternatively, you can visit the Main Page or read more information about this type of error. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

It is working fine for me. Perhaps a temporary issue? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you went to [1] instead of [2] ? Is it possible you have something set to change Host headers? --Krenair (talkcontribs) 17:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation: Phase 2Edit

The Wikimedia Foundation is currently conducting a global consultation about communication. The goal is to bring Wikimedians and wiki-minded people together to improve tools for communication.

Phase 1 of the consultation is over – thank you to everyone who participated! – and we've published the Phase 1 report. The report summarizes what people have said and what we've learned, proposes a direction for the project, and asks specific questions to explore in Phase 2.

Very briefly, the proposed direction is that wikitext talk pages should be improved, and not replaced. We propose building a new design on top of talk pages that changes the page's default appearance, and offers key tools like replying, indenting and signing posts. To keep consistency with existing tools, the new design will be a default experience that existing users can opt out of. We also propose building features that experienced contributors want, including the ability to watchlist a single discussion, and the ability to move, archive and search for threads. Building these features may require some loss of flexibility, or small-to-medium changes in wikitext conventions. The goal is to only make changes that directly enable functionality that users really want.

You can see more information and discussion about the proposed direction in the Phase 1 report, including the results of new user tests and some of the quotations from Phase 1 discussions that led to this proposal.

Now it's time to start Phase 2!

We have six questions to discuss in Phase 2, asking for reactions to the proposed direction, and pros and cons for specific changes that we could make.

You can help by hosting a discussion at your wiki. Here's what to do:

  1. First, sign up your group here.
  2. Next, create a page (or a section on a Village pump, or an e-mail thread – whatever is natural for your group) to collect information from other people in your group.
  3. Then start the conversation with the six questions listed in the Questions for Phase 2 section of the report.
  4. When the conversation is concluded, the host should write a summary of the discussion on the Phase 2 community discussion summaries page, and report what you learned from your group. Please include links if the discussion is available to the public.

You can read more about the overall process on MediaWiki.org. If you have questions or ideas, you can leave feedback about the consultation process in the language you prefer.

Thank you! We're looking forward to talking with you. DannyH (WMF) (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

As long as I can opt out of things via GlobalPreferences, I'm fine with any changes (so that I can continue to use the old behaviors without worrying about disabling it on +700 wikis) — regards, Revi 17:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
-revi at the beginning of the process all options were on the table, including Flow. At the end of phase 1 the Foundation reached a finding: we propose that wikitext talk pages should be improved, and not replaced. So we'll likely still have editable wikipages. However it's not yet clear whether a full opt-out will remain possible. For example it appears some of the Foundation's ideas would require a software-generated-code in order to create a new section. You might want to read and respond to this phase 2 process. Alsee (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't care that much to comment on that. I also have enough things to do, which doesn't give me time to invest my time in side-project for now. It still has a possibility to be a good change unlike WMF past failures like Flow, MediaViewer, etc. I can just accept the unfortunate result if it turns out to be such. — regards, Revi 09:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)