Wikimedia Forum

← Discussion pages

Wikimedia Forums

Archives →

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.

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

• About Meta
• Discussion pages
• Request pages
• Policies and guidelines
• Information and statistics
• Categories
• Help pages

Participate:

• How to edit a page
• Meta-Wiki discussion page
• Meta-l mailing list

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

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

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.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 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.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 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?

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)

Request for close - OTRS rename

Hello, I am writing to request that an uninvolved user begin the close out process for the OTRS rename discussion at Talk:OTRS. I started that discussion. I think that it would be best for someone who has not participated to evaluate what it means and what might happen next. I could join in conversation there if that is helpful. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

User reporting system consultation

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken.

The success of this project depends on collecting ideas and feedback from people in a variety of different roles in the Wikimedia movement. To this end, there will be a multi-phased consultation where you can participate in ways that you find most comfortable.

Please visit the User reporting system consultation page to learn more about the process, to ask questions, or to offer feedback. You also can sign up to be be a liaison for you group, to translate pages or messages, or to host a discussion group (on or off wiki.)

Please share this message with other people who you think would be interested in this project.

Cheers, SPoore (WMF) Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Typo

foundationsite:/2019/04/11/a-german-court-forced-us-to-remove-part-of-a-wikipedia-articles-history-heres-what-that-means/

"This sort of re-evaluation of claims in an article is a typical aspect of editing Wikipedia and is reflected in Wikipedia’s rules on sources and biographies of living people.[3"

This seems to be a typo. Pardon me if this isn't the proper venue. Benjamin (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jrogers (WMF) and ADavenport (WMF):  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Medium-Term Plan feedback request

Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation has published a Medium-Term Plan proposal covering the next 3–5 years. We want your feedback! Please leave all comments and questions, in any language, on the talk page, by April 20. Thank you! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete.php

Is the tool Delete no longer stable? I haven't seen any announcement about it. And is there any other tool like this? Esteban16 (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Yep no longer working Esteban16 that's why this bot request is the new replacement see Meta:Requests for bot status/Bot873.--Aldnonymous^Bicara? 16:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for a modification to the Language proposal policy

The Language committee has published a proposal to revise the Language proposal policy. The proposed revision can be found at Language proposal policy/4-2019 proposed revision, and discussion on that page's talk page. For LangCom: StevenJ81 (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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)

Citing Wikimedia

How do I cite pictures on Wikimedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LigerTily (talk)

Hello. I think you may want to see commons:COM:REUSE. Killiondude (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Transparent real-time communication

There are some contributors with whom I would like to communicate in a manner close to real time, as we have striking differences in our views which we could both be willing to address. However, doing so on a personal talk page clogs the recent changes at a small wiki, and email has the disadvantage of hiding this conversation -- that may be relevant to other participants -- from other contributors at the wiki. Is meta-wiki a suitable place for such discussions, or is there another place that is more well suited? They're not willing to use IRC (and it is not sufficiently transparent anyway). --Gryllida 11:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

You could use an Etherpad. Killiondude (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

^^^ this is a good choice, especially as it is an existing service and has its own interwiki etherpad:. That said, it is never a problem to have a WMF-related conversation at Meta, as long as it is not being used to obscure a conversation where one wants to demonstrate a consensus for a community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)