Talk:Wikimedia United States Coalition

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Title fix[edit]

Is this page's title intentional, or is "Unites" supposed to be "United"? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 02:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I didnt' even notice. It should be united. (moves the page) Cbrown1023 talk 19:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Seattle meetups[edit]

I corrected this entry, because there have been four Seattle meetups: 2 in 2005, & 2 in 2006. (I have only been able to attend 2.) I guess it's time to convene another. -- Llywrch 22:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a monthly meetup in u-district. See en:WP:meetup/seattlewp. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion to rapidly broaden Wikimedia chapters[edit]

My particular interest is peer organizations and how they can grow successfully yet remain with the basic characteristics of small, informal peer associations. I think it is possible, by putting together certain elements that are known to work individually, but which have never been tried in combination. For a fuller -- but still limited -- exploration of this, see beyondpolitics.org; however, only one point is important at this time in this context.

The Free Association part of the Free Association / Delegable Proxy concept introduced on beyondpolitics.org is taken from the foundation Traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous. The specific tradition most on point here is, in part, in its long form, "Any two or three alcoholics gathered together for sobriety may call themselves an A.A. group, provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation." In fact, in practice, if a single alcoholic decides to start a group, it is possible to gain a group listing, specifying a meeting place and time. There is no assumption that any group "owns" a town or area, and the saying in AA, from long experience, is "all it takes to start a meeting in AA is a resentment and a coffee pot."

From this, AA grew explosively. Local meetings, instead of becoming intractably large, rapidly fissioned, creating more meeting times and places where the personal sharing of experience that is so important to AA remained possible; yet these meetings remained connected through massive cross-membership and intergroup functions. Some alcoholics might attend only a favorite meeting, perhaps once a week; others might go to a meeting every day, and to many different locations, different "meetings." They are all Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, but there is no central control. And, by the way, there is never any central subsidy or startup funding, the money flows exclusively in the other direction, that is, any contributions collected in excess of what a local meeting needs may be passed on to Intergroup or to the AA central office, but never does the central organization, such as it is, sponsor or subsidize local meetings to start. *However*, it will list such meetings and lone members desiring contact. Local meetings have no "assessments," they need forward nothing to more central activities, they could instead throw a party, and many do! (But usually they *also* make some contributions to intergroup expenses, etc.)

From this, the suggestion here: Set up a list for "proposed" meeting locations. Anyone may add a Wikimedia user link to that list, in the appropriate location, and likewise anyone may add a location to the list or improve its organization. In this way, those who might like to meet with other local editors and other users may announce their willingness to help get it together. And it only takes two to actually have a "chapter." Maybe these two get together for coffee at some scheduled time and public location, thus creating opportunities for others to join in.

And, of course, those that think this a waste of time don't have to lift a finger for it.

What about the "provided that, as a group, they have no other affiliation."? Would that apply?

Yes, I would suggest. If a group advertised that it was forming with some particular POV, it could create controversy that would affect Wikimedia projects. Every AA group is open to every alcoholic, without prejudice. This does not prevent meetings from protecting themselves, exceptions can be made by any meeting for those who are considered dangerous or abusive in the meeting context. There is controversy in AA over "special qualification" meetings, such as meetings which announce that they are for men, or women, or gay; no national decision, however, has been imposed on such meetings, to my knowledge; it is understood that they are support groups, not advocating some POV -- not even "gay is okay." But, of course, one might hear that at a gay AA meeting! Content is utterly unregulated centrally.

Further, there is nothing to prevent those who meet in local meetings from forming independent interest groups with some POV or special purpose. Again, the AA traditions cover this; treatment centers and political action groups do form as a result of the independent action of AA members, but they are never called "AA" projects. Rather, they might be, for example, something like the "Town Alcoholism Council" project, which is controlled by those who set it up. Who just might happen to all be members of AA, but they don't generally advertise that, though individually they might acknowledge being alcoholics if they want.

So any meeting may determine its own rules as to how it operates internally. Meetings *can* exclude individuals, but it is extraordinarily rare, in my understanding. (Let me add that I'm not an alcoholic, so my experience with AA is limited to extensive study of the written material, plus substantial attendance at open meetings.)

I will do the setup myself, but wanted to outline the idea here first to solicit comment. Plus I don't have time today, beyond this.... --Abd 16:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding metropolitan St. Louis Missouri[edit]

As a resident of the area above, which hasn't yet had any sort of official meetup, so far as I can tell, does anyone have any particular pointers for how I would try to go about setting one up? Unfortunately, it would probably be best to leave the message on my wikipedia talk page, as I unfortuntely spend altogether too much time in that entity. Thank you. John Carter 14:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Come on Atlanta[edit]

Consider this a plea that we organize within the Atlanta area, and a willingness to assist and/or participate. 71.226.13.118 05:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds great, we'd love to have the Atlanta area join the team! What's your username, btw, and do you know any other local people we should reach out to?-Pharos 17:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Forming an actual chapter[edit]

What do people think would be needed to turn this (currently informal and ad hoc) system into an actual chapter? Some kind of bylaws and basic organizational framework, obviously. What else would we have to do? It seems like most areas other than New York haven't developed the critical mass to form sub-national chapters, but some have smaller critical masses of people wanting to do stuff, or actually doing stuff already. Connecting those together, we might have enough of a critical mass to actually form a US chapter at this point. Any thoughts? --Michael Snow 00:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, in terms of critical mass, I think we have more than enough in DC; our application is sitting somewhere with the Chapters Committee at the moment, actually.
More generally, though, I'm not sure that a single US chapter is viable without critical mass at the local level. There's little point in simply having another 501(c)(3) organization in the US, since the Foundation itself already fills that role; and a loosely-spread central organization won't be able to offer focused local outreach, which is one of the main benefits of sub-national chapters. Kirill 01:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that for a country with a large population of Wikipedians and a vast geographic extent, sub-national chapters will be much more effective. I could see one chapter in each state or if a metropolitan area covers more than one state, a cluster of adjacent states. Once multiple chapters form and are recognized, a United States chapter council could coordinate items of mutual benefit or interest. Racepacket 13:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Having more sub-national chapters in the US would be great. I wouldn't want a national chapter to be an obstacle, but in time it could be able to actually help things along. I'm not sure why a central organization couldn't support focused local outreach, though, where there isn't a sub-national chapter present to lead it. It seems like the public policy initiative at the foundation level is sort of an example of that. Part of the concept could be to give a little backing to people who want to pursue outreach initiatives as they work up toward eventually having the critical mass to do them on their own (as a sub-national chapter). --Michael Snow 02:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Under present practice, it appears that a nation either has a single national chapter or multiple subnational chapters as two mutually exclusive models for organizing activities. When two or more subnational chapters are established in the United States, they are free to set up an umbrella coordinating group by mutual consent. It is a question of "top-down" or "bottom-up" organizing. Racepacket 11:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I think it's definitely a mistake to think that sub-national chapters and a national chapter are mutually exclusive. Just because only two systems have developed so far doesn't mean that there can't be more, or they can't evolve into something different (part of what the movement roles project is intended to work on), especially since things are still very much in formative stages overall. Clearly a US national chapter would need to coexist with the sub-national chapter in New York, the one forming in DC, and any others that may emerge. But it doesn't seem to me like the process of forming a national chapter should be monopolized by the sub-national chapters when they don't provide anything close to complete regional coverage (I'm not suggesting the sub-national chapters are wanting to monopolize it, mind you). If I'm in the Seattle area, and want to work with people in Chicago and Florida and Texas to create a national chapter, that should be perfectly legitimate. I don't see how the notion of top-down or bottom-up has any bearing on it. --Michael Snow 16:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I think these are really complementary efforts. More of a national organization should evolve from sub-national chapters, and I think the best bet to build a real organic critical mass for this is developing a strong base of three or four sub-national groups with broader coverage of major population centers, both east and west.--Pharos 18:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I see planning for a national chapter as complementary to any regional plans (in general: in our movement applicable mainly to the US and China). Some groups that later decided to become Chapters started by identifying their audience and target clusters of projects, finding events and groups they wanted to influence and work with, and started implementing great free knowledge projects. The organizational details, and the technical formation of a chapter and crisply defined membership, came later. By that point, they might already have had active participants speaking at major education or digitization or copyright events; supported localization into and digitization of materials in local minority languages; worked with government groups to release significant collections under a free license; participated in national cultural festivals; organized a few messaging campaigns or public announcements related to important projects. [see recently: Kazakhstan, Mexico]

But the development of critical mass often comes from actually working on and realizing projects; which can significantly predate chapter process. For example, a group interested in a US chapter might engage in making the Wikimania conference this summer great - a solid focus for energy, partner networks, and messaging. SJ talk | translate   20:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to rename this page to WALRUS[edit]

WALRUS logo, based on Wikimedia logo
Wikimedia logo

Right now many people use the word WALRUS, Wikipedians Active in Local Regions of the United States, as the popular name for this group. I propose that this page and this group be renamed to WALRUS. This is a single word which is fun to say and easy to remember. No one would ever forget the name or neglect to recognize that it is a proper noun as they would with the name "Wikimedia United States Chapter Council". Also with an organization called "chapter council" it would not be possible to design a memorable logo which connected to that bland name. With a name like WALRUS we can use an interesting, meaningful logo. This naming would in the tradition of connecting computer-related projects with an animal, as in the case of GNU and Tux. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll[edit]

This poll is not a vote, but rather a tool to encourage comments and check interest.

Support
  • Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Walruses are awesome, and evidencing a sense of humour is almost never a bad thing. Makes us seem approachable, and makes us more interesting. -— Isarra 19:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Varnent (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I did not originally mean this as a permanent official name, but more of a community clarion call to encourage more local organizing in new and creative ways. But if that clarion call is useful enough for people to keep it ringing, then I'm all for ringing!--Pharos (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose (and feel free to make counter-proposals)
  • While the logo is cute, I consistently forget what WALRUS stands for, as do others Wikimedians I know. Besides, to be taken seriously as a non-profit organization I think it'd be nice to have a professional organizational title and allow people to call themselves a WALRUS if they wish. SarahStierch (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sarah, and "w:Walrus" doesnt exactly scream "U.S." John Vandenberg (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
What is the first animal which comes to your mind? Feel free to scream it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Touché! File:Anglosphere 2007 overweight rate.png is also depressing. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sarah. The walrus might make a great mascot, but does not serve as an ideal title. --Another Believer (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Spanish stuff[edit]

Hi! I added some more content in Spanish, particularly at Consejo_de_las_secciones_estadounidenses_de_Wikimedia#Comit.C3.A9_WALRUS - Does the committee want to adopt an official Spanish name, or do you just want to be called WALRUS in Spanish? If you want an official Spanish name, I could consult a native speaker on the Spanish Wikipedia and see what he/she can come up with.

I also just realized that a WP-NYC member collaborates on Iberocoop, so I will ask her to take a look at these things

WhisperToMe (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I would love to hear a proposal for any name which has appeal to Spanish-speaking residents of the United States. Spanish-speakers are historically excluded only because it is difficult to do targeted outreach at this time, but I think that including more Spanish speakers is part of the future of this project. The word "walrus" in Spanish is "morsa" so that does not immediately lend a way to connect the name with the mission. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Name[edit]

Concerns about 'WALRUS' not giving the right idea and being pretty bloody silly to boot are certainly valid, but I would argue that just calling it a 'federation' doesn't exactly give the most accurate impression, either. Could we have a more general discussion of possible names and try to find an official one that is more descriptive, like 'Wikimedia United States Chapters Pile', except also one that folks can all agree on? -— Isarra 20:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

  • But but but...if we're not a "federation" Starfleet will NEVER let us play with them! Fluffernutter (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking rather more of the American Federation of Teachers and the AFL-CIO. I think 'federation' actually has a pretty good history as being used in the names of American organizations, almost as good as 'congress'!--Pharos (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
How about Wikimedia United States? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
That would certainly make the title more consistent with other chapters. --Another Believer (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but WM US won`t be a chapter, but an association of chapters, so that may in fact creates confusion. What about WM US Association ? Or even Wikimeda North American Association if we are looking more globally ? In that case, simply Wikimedia North America may even be better. However, I`m only throwing that for discussions since I personally prefer Wikimedia United States over "federation", "association", or other terms we may add to the name. Amqui (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Just "Wikimedia US" implies too much of a unitary national chapter. I think 'federation' or something like that allows for more decentralization, while also playing off the traditional American federating tendency.--Pharos (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Calling it just a federation does that too, though... even if it's just changed to a 'chapters federation' or 'chapters association' or 'chapters council', that should make it more clear. Like... add a mention of chapters, or just some word that more explicitly implies that the thing is a coalition of things more than a thing itself. -— Isarra 19:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
The point is it won't be only a coalition of chapters, there is already the mention of including the unofficial "Groups of Wikipedians" and I don't think excluding all potential interested people that are in areas without chapters would be a good idea either. I guess to better find an appropriate name, we need to define what will be the organization exactly and what will be its roles. Amqui (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I am going to go out on a limb and say that the majority of voting members of the federation would not be formal chapters if it was established. --Guerillero 22:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I was just thinking that 'Wikimedia United States Coalition' might be a better title for this page, since "coalition" a term used for many volunteer-y grassroots efforts, and this would neatly get us out of too close an association with the federal government and/or science fiction navies.--Pharos (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Coalition sounds good. Reminds me of alien pirates. Those are cool. -— Isarra 01:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I like the name "coalition". Other choices could be "Wikimedia United States... Circle, Society, Conference, Alliance, League, Party, Congress, or Partnership" Of those, I like "coalition", "circle", and "society" best. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
    • "Coalition" would be the most accurate description of what we are actually doing in the US at the moment. Our overall group of US Wikimedians is currently working at the multi-level governance stage of development, in which groups of various sizes, at different levels, with different fields of activity, and in come cases overlapping geographical jurisdictions, are coming together. We can expect that more standard formal structures of governance will initially emerge in specific sectors and geographic areas, i.e., a specific Chapter, a specific GLAM organization, etc. A "coalition" is an accurate term for describing a group of disparate people and groups coming together for a common purpose.
In contrast, if we don't go with an informal structure such as a "coalition," "circle," etc., we need to acknowledge that a formal governance structure (such as a Federation) responsible for tax exempt status and logo/brand considerations, and for managing complex group relationships throughout multiple time zones in a broad geographical jurisdiction, will require at least one paid staff person with a certain amount of professional expertise; i.e., a commitment to funding.
(A thought on the side: Many people spend their entire academic and professional careers as experts in non-profits and non-profit governance. Not sure why, given the scope and range of connections of this encyclopedia and its readers, to say nothing of the funds raised over the past year, we seem to be intent on somehow "reinventing the wheel" on how to set up a centralized, nationwide non-profit organization as amateurs/volunteers in our spare time.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Djembayz (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2013‎
OK, I have now moved the page, per discussion here and also no objection at the most recent WALRUS meeting.--Pharos (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Spanish name[edit]

Once the English name is settled, then would it be best to have the Spanish name be a straight translation of the English name? Also, I would recommend having logos in English and Spanish drawn up for the federation. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Spanish page name and discussion pages[edit]

Do you think Federación Estadounidense de Wikimedia should be moved to Wikimedia United States Federation/es? Do you think there should be one talk page for the entire project, or should each language get its own talk page? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the pages should be interconnected somehow but I see no reason not to keep the title translated to Spanish. I would not want to discourage any Spanish speakers from starting a Spanish discussion, but also since there is not currently Spanish discussion I think there should be a notice on the Spanish page to inform people that the English discussion board is more active. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Alright. Do you want to add the template at Talk:Wikimedia Costa Rica to this page, but swap it so English is first? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia United States Federation category[edit]

I went ahead and included more US-related pages and subcategories in Category:Wikimedia United States Federation. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about these changes. Might it also be helpful if I constructed a navbox with links to official and proposed chapters and well as other important links like WALRUS minutes, etc.? --Another Believer (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Yes check.svg Done!

Is someone able to move the Category:Wikimedia United States Federation to Category:Wikimedia United States Coalition? Or, perhaps the category just needs to be deleted and a new one created? I am happy to add the category to individual pages. --Another Believer (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we can't rename categories, either on Wikipedia or on Meta. It would be best to just make a new one, and I can delete the old category.--Pharos (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Good to know. Will do. --Another Believer (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The Federation and meeting subcategory can both be deleted. Thanks for your assistance! --Another Believer (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, sir! Also, I just discovered that we can move category talk pages, so the historical record is now preserved at Category talk:Wikimedia United States Coalition :)--Pharos (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Fantastic -- thanks! --Another Believer (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Some questions[edit]

  • What is the history of the Wikimedia United States Federation? --Another Believer (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • What are the advantages and disadvantages of having an official U.S. chapter vs. regional chapters? --Another Believer (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Are steps still being taken to create a single national chapter? --Another Believer (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Wikimedia United States Coalition[edit]

I created Template:Wikimedia United States Coalition hoping it would serve as a helpful navigational box at the bottom of Coalition-related pages here at Meta. However, the back end of the template must be different than the one at English Wikipedia, as it looks very different. If anyone better information than I when it comes to constructing navboxes here at Meta and could improve the template, any assistance would be appreciated. At least all of the Coalition-pages are connected via the category and draft template. Thanks. --Another Believer (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hope this helps:
--Varnent (talk)(COI) 05:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Fantastic, thank you so much. I have made some additional improvements to the navbox to make it more similar to those we see at Wikipedia (text alignment, bullets, etc.) -- I will start adding the template to pages soon. Thanks again for your help! --Another Believer (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Wow, this is great. Thanks for accomplishing this awesome feat of documentation!--Pharos (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem! Happy to make changes if the name ever changes from "Wikimedia United States Federation". --Another Believer (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Updated "Federation" to "Coalition" within this section and moved the template accordingly. Just need assistance with moving the category and I think all needed changes will have been made. Thanks. --Another Believer (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Varnent, or anyone else, do you see how this template organizes the Singles section? I think it would be great if we could organize the WALRUS meetings section of above template the same way, but by year. That way we could just have a section for "2012" and reduce the number of year appearances in the list. The same for 2013, etc. I am not sure if the template here at Meta is built the same way as navboxes are at English Wikipedia. Any assistance would be appreciated. --Another Believer (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This request seems resolved. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Yes check.svg Done -- thank you. --Another Believer (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

3/17/13 move of "Discussion" section from content page to talk page[edit]

Following is discussion from the content page, which I have moved here:

On behalf of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pittsburgh, I hope WALRUS grows strong. Sadly, I am not sure if our project is active enough to warrant a real membership (see discussion). --Piotrus 20:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Currently as a part time visitor but longtime and very involved booster of everything Pittsburgh and region, I would like to throw my hat into any meetups I can attend through the year! Hholt01 23:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I am responding to a personal appeal via email to come here. I am glad to represent w:WP:CHICAGO. I am less active than in the past (although you might not be able to tell while I am caught up in March Madness). I have had minimal involvment in coordinating a meetup and if it came down to my efforts it is not likely anything grand would happen in Chicago. I can lend a hand, but I would not be able to bring together such a meeting. Chicago is a very looseknit group, but I am willing to be a spokesperson for the group.--TonyTheTiger 07:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I see that Chicago was added above. Why? Is my name suppose to be in that table.--TonyTheTiger 12:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Other places to add: Indiana (Indianapolis), Boston, and St. Louis (User:Chaser and User:BirgitteSB). Aude 12:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: Wikimedia Great Lakes, then it could include all of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, etc... (Possibly Canadian users such as Windsor, OT?) Kylu 12:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd join a Great Lakes chapter. I'm based in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. I don't know how feasible including Ohio would be though – it's an 8+ hour drive from here or Wisconsin, thanks to a minor obstacle. :) Ed [talk] [en] 19:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for taking so long to respond to the invitation (reflective of my current level of business, I suppose)! I'm in Evansville; I'll echo Ed. Ohio's quite a drive from Evansville; perhaps chapters should be significantly smaller...I'd say no more than a one-hour driving radius. Bob the Wikipedian 03:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
For more local areas we would probably want to have autonomous subchapters, with the legal nonprofit incorporated on a broader 'Great Lakes'-level.--Pharos 17:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
What sort of meetups are we talking about, though? What will we do at the meetups? As I look around, the nearest Wikipedian I know in flesh and blood lives 3.5 hours away and in the next time zone, so finding chapter members might not be the easiest thing in the world to do, even for a midsize metropolitan area like Evansville. Bob the Wikipedian 18:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks like the Wiknic I've scheduled in town has yielded several attendees, so adding Evansville. I'm using the rationale that Evansville is the only metropolitan area in southern Indiana and the nearby portions of Illinois/Kentucky; the metropolitan area includes several cities in Indiana and Kentucky, and the St. Louis, Louisville, Indianapolis, and Cincinnati metropolitan areas are all significantly inconvenient distances away; it wouldn't be reasonable to say "Indiana meetup" and expect to serve more than a third of the state at any given time due to its geographical size. A proper breakdown of Indiana in terms of convenience/feasibility would include a minimum of four meetups to cover southern (Evansville), central (Indianapolis + Bloomington), northeastern (Fort Wayne + South Bend), and northwestern (Chicago, IL). Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added St. Louis to the list with myself as a representative. We have a growing program here with skilled and enthusiastic editors. I look forward to meeting y'all at the congress. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

WALRUS?[edit]

Is there a reason we are using the WALRUS name/acronym? I am not sure why this is necessary. And with all due respect, though I did not find the walrus mascot too bothersome in the beginning, I now question its relevance. Can't we just call ourselves the United States Coalition, regardless of whether or not the chapter is formalized? --Another Believer (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Change Spanish name or keep it the same?[edit]

The current Spanish name "Federación Estadounidense de Wikimedia" corresponds to the old "Wikimedia United States Federation". Should the Spanish name be changed to "Coalición Estadounidense de Wikimedia"? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. --Another Believer (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The page itself should be updated as well, if possible. --Another Believer (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
What updates need to be made, aside from addition of content? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Sí. For the updating of the page, why not using the Translation Extension? Amqui (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved to the new name. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you much, WhisperToMe. --Another Believer (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
You are welcome :) - There is now a Spanish version of the logo for the US Coalition. It may be especially useful for efforts in Puerto Rico and Miami, and perhaps in Spanish-speaking areas in other parts of the US. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Spanish versions of bylaws?[edit]

I'm checking if anyone is interested in making Spanish versions of the bylaws of the daughter chapters. Does anyone know someone who would be interested?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 12:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Texas Usergroup[edit]

I wonder if anyone is interested in leading the Wikimedia Texas usergroup? Pharos suggested it, so I am going to look for people who may be interested in doing so WhisperToMe (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it is perhaps premature to talk about "leadership" at this stage, but I think it would be valuable to create a page on meta at Texas Wikimedians, and collect a sign-up of state Wikimedians who are interested in a potential usergroup.--Pharos (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I have roots in Texas. I would support the group's efforts, but could not be an active participant given my relocation to the Pacific Northwest. --Another Believer (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Started the page :) WhisperToMe (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Tagging pages for translation[edit]

On the Babylon talk page I proposed tagging the Wikimedia US Coalition pages for translation. Everyone cool with it? Meta_talk:Babylon#Tagging_Texas_Wikimedians_and_Wikimedia_Egypt_for_translation It would join together the related English and Spanish pages WhisperToMe (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania 2014 London?[edit]

Are there plans for a meetup at Wikimania? -Another Believer (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I for one would be very glad to have the Cascadia Meetup expanded to cover all USA / Canada / North America regional groups, with Cascadia recognized as the "host" of the meeting. Let's fly a Doug flag on this thing.--Pharos (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I am not sure how many Cascadians will even be in attendance, but needless to say, anyone else would be more than welcome! (Especially US Wikimedians.) --Another Believer (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking that since the Cascadian turnout will be relatively small, and likewise the turnout of those North Americans actually interested in regional outreach, it might make sense to call it all "US / North America Regions Meetup - Hosted by Cascadia" or something.--Pharos (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

2015 WikiConference[edit]

Inviting all to contribution to discussion about the 2015 WikiConference USA at Talk:WikiConference USA. --Another Believer (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)