Talk:www.wikimedia.org template

←Project portals

www.wikimedia.org — live

Staging area→

www.wikimedia.org template contains the actual, raw HTML code that is displayed at http://www.wikimedia.org/. It is protected to prevent the insertion of malicious scripts or objects. Changes to the template will be displayed to visitors within one hour, but you can usually see them immediately once you clear your browser's cache. Though www.wikimedia.org template is protected, the staging area is not: anyone can propose changes and updates there (detailed instructions). Administrators: Always make your changes to www.wikimedia.org template/temp before copying them to www.wikimedia.org template, to keep the two pages in sync (see current differences).

edit
Archives
Archive 1

Another suggestion for Wikimedia.org

I would like to make a suggestion to modify the website http://www.wikimedia.org.

Currently, it contains only one page, with a logo representation of all of our projects. My suggestion to replace this page with an independent website. This website would become the public face of the Wikimedia Movement.

The Wikimedia Movement, as I understand it, is a

• collection of values shared by individuals (freedom of speech, knowledge for everyone, community sharing etc...)
• a collection of activities (conferences, workshops, wikiacademies etc...)
• a collection of organizations (Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia Germany, Wikimedia Taiwan etc...), as well as some free electrons (individuals without chapters) and similar-minded organizations

Which content
This site will summarize what is being done by the Foundation and Chapters globally. It would welcome pages such as "Listing speaking engagements", or "press interviews" done by all organizations. It can also, in the simplest terms possible explain readers what are the roles and responsibilities of each organization.
It can be a place where chapter members and WMF members can built together a description of the movement in its entirety, even if it also means a lot of redirection to the individual websites.
It may be a place where we can list lobbying actions, even if some organizations do not engage in lobbying. It can be a place where we show and share the diversity of actions held to reach the same goal (the photo workshop here, the language conference there).

How
In a lazy way, it can simply be a wiki. I would strongly recommend associating a blog to it afterwards. What about developing a common bookmarking system as well ?

Anthere 16:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Please mention if you support or not the creation of this new wiki. Add comments accordingly

• Approve - FooGuy

• Comment Shouldn't we just make better use of current wikis such as foundationwiki and Meta-Wiki? Cbrown1023 talk 16:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Thought I agree with Casey; however, perhaps we should think about having a special selection of pages from metawiki (about the community) and WMFwiki (about the Foundation in specific)? James F. (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• yes, but - yes, create a new wiki for the purpose of news and co-ordination of the movement. BUT: which movement? I propose the movement be identified as the Free Culture Movement. Let's embrace our roots and not leave out our biggest supporters and oldest allies. WAS 4.250 00:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Don't we have wikizine for that? --Yaroslav Blanter 07:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  That's not what wikizine is for. -- sj · translate · +

• Support - I think that a lot of Wikimedia-related content is a bit out of place on Meta as it is currently organized. I think that the site described above can be on the same wiki as Meta content, but www.wikimedia.org may be a better name for it -- with a reorg that moves the truly Meta discussions (essays on the nature of wiki and organization, historical and future discussions) to a Meta: namespace, and organizing a portal and main page focused on the details of the Wikimedia movement. For example:
  • Focus on meetups, event calendars, Wikimedia-wide news.

    Meta: should host meta-essays on the nature of wiki and of organization, and historical and future-looking discussions.

  • Cover summary information about the projects, how they are used, and who to contact for more detail. locally-organized versions of press kits and the like

    The WMFWiki has a hard time keeping such pages up to date, and they don't need to be hidden behind an editing wall.

  -- sj · translate · + 00:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Secure

Someone with better coding skills, add a little notice about secure.wikimedia.org when you can. Thunderhead 00:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Redesign

I propose removing the Incubator and switching to four icons per row. Also, a bit of page text would make the page more friendly. Thoughts on this design: http://pruebita.com/wmhomepage.html ? Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I like it. My question is why some of the logos have subtitles like "The Free Encyclopedia", and some do not. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that seemed kind of strange to me as well. I didn't change any of the current images, though it might be a good idea to find the versions that don't have the subtitles. Another minor thing I noticed was that some of the links use www. and others don't. --MZMcBride 06:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this gives preference to English speakers. The other portal was non-language specific. I like how it looks, but that's a secondary priority. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 14:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but so are the logos and the homepages of Meta and the Foundation wiki. ;-) So all things being equal, a little extra English text doesn't seem like the worst thing in the world, but see my comment below about possible language-detection code. --MZMcBride 21:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice, but possibly we could have something that adjusts the language based on the country your IP is from. (No, I have no idea how to do that but I am pretty sure it is possible) Anonymous101 21:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think User:Mxn wrote some JavaScript that does some language selection of some type... I'll ping him on his talk page. Or perhaps User:Splarka. Let me poke around. --MZMcBride 21:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. It looks like the squid error message (example) uses language detection based on browser settings with English as a fail-safe. That code could easily be adapted to this page. Thoughts? --MZMcBride 21:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This proposal is pretty nice. A couple notes:

• It seems like most people are against using tables for the portals these days. It shouldn't be hard at all to replace the tables with some CSS positioning, similar to what we have on the project portals.
• The images are probably fine, though we could drop the slogan from the Wikipedia and Wikispecies logos. As for Wiktionary, well, we'll probably have to keep the status quo, because that project doesn't have a single logo.
• We can't implement IP-based language detection at Meta; you'd have to ask the developers. But I don't think it's worth it anyhow: IP ranges only sometimes correspond to a language – for instance, you might determine that a certain range belongs to Russia, and thus Russian should be displayed – but even then, Wikimedia chapters like wikimedia.de are more suited for that purpose.
• What we can implement here is a script that chooses a language based on your browser's default language. It's a little controversial, but I haven't seen any big complaints yet, and we're pointing users to the multilingual project portals anyways.

Before changing this page, we need to spread the word about this proposal and allow people some time to offer suggestions etc.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 02:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

All right. So where does this announcement need to be made and how long must we wait? :-) Actually, here's my thought. We implement a version that uses English with the JS detection feature built in. If / when future translations become available, we add those. Thoughts? --MZMcBride 02:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The page would look better if the description text ("Wikimedia is owned and operated...") was set in a dark grey, between #333 and #666, and the line-height increased to 150%ish. Pretzels 03:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Why has Incubator been removed? Imho, it's more relevant than Wikimania or MediaWiki. SPQRobin ^(inc!) 20:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

 switched Cbrown1023 talk 21:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Order of the projects

You changed it? Somewhere (maybe the login screen) is the "official" order. It's supposed to go from oldest project to youngest. No idea if it did previously or does now with your changes. I will note, however, that there's also a Secure.wikimedia.org template that should be nearly identical (at least in terms of presentation) to this one. --MZMcBride 20:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I moved commons to the bottom row (from middle) and wikiversity up to the middle row (to hole left by commons); I also re-ordered the bottom row. It seems to me that the four I grouped into the bottom (MediaWiki, Meta, Commons, Incubator) are all somehow different than the 8 other project in the first two rows; "metaish". The order of the 8 should probably be in a number-of-views or number-of-articles order. Project age is meaningless to the outer world, although that may have been a compromise to settle some discussion. I'll quick-move them back if this is an issue. I saw the secure page you just edited and will look into what's connected to that. Oh, the quotes are only required on multi-word font-names. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible change

Does anyone think we should maybe change the page to be something more like this? --Yair rand 23:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. I'm not a huge fan of the blue background and I'm worried about browser compatibility / the overall size. --MZMcBride 01:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really like the blue background either, and we might want to remove the Wikimania logo, but I still think having the logos in a circle is better than just having rows. --Yair rand 17:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, the current version doesn't fit on all screens. On my screen I have scroll down a bit to see the bottom halves of the lower logos. I think we should change it to that picture minus the blue background and Wikimania logo, Wiktionary logo changed to the text one (it will need to be changed once the logo vote is finished), autofitted to the screen size, imagemapped links to the main sites, and at the top center the words:

Welcome to Wikimedia

Wikimedia is owned and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit foundation dedicated to bringing free content to the world.

The standard Wikimedia format and fonts are probably best; I don't see why we need a separate font and style. --Yair rand 07:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I love the current version actually. Cbrown1023 talk 20:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia is owned and operated... ?

Current introduction phrase begins with "Wikimedia is owned and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation...". This leads to a misunderstanding of the term "Wikimedia" in its broader context as worldwide movement (including community). Cannot be the owner of the movement or the community. The Wikimedia Foundation does not own of the "Wikimedia movement" or the "Wikimedia community", it only "owned and operated" of web-based platform of Wikimedia projects (and also is the keeper of the Wikimedia vision and the lead in implementing the Wikimedia mission).

A fresh example of such a misunderstanding - a discussion about translation of CentralNotice/May 2011 Update message (as example, Talk:CentralNotice/May_2011_Update#ru_translation).

I propose:

1. update this text as "Wikimedia is free knowledge initiative around family of web projects owned and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation ..." (or something like that in such a way)
2. If it possible, also should be active hyperlinks
   • from "Wikimedia" — to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia
   • from "Wikimedia Foundation" — to http://wikimediafoundation.org

If this update will be approved, should be updated value of the <meta name="description"> tag in a similar way. --Kaganer 08:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you have a valid point, but your proposed language, as written, isn't going to work. It doesn't parse correctly in English and it still contains the idea that the web properties are owned and and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, which may or may not be strictly correctly. I'm also not sure links are really necessary, if only for aesthetic reasons. --MZMcBride 00:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's idea only. I had hoped that the users with a native English offers a more correct phrase. Active links is minor proposal. Can you suggest a "Wikimedia essentially" formula for this place? --Kaganer 07:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Another idea might be to replace the text with something more abstract, such as wmf:Vision. It'd be less descriptive, but it's a very recognizable slogan and it would escape the issue of trying to describe the Wikimedia community/movement/ownership succinctly. Thoughts? --MZMcBride 15:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Strongly support ;) As example:

Welcome to Wikimedia

<... Vision text... >

<... Mission text... >

Our projects:

<project logos>

<... Wikimedia movement explanation... >

See Www.wikimedia.org template/temp2 as illustration of my point.

If it is possible here, it would be good to try to make userlanguage autodetect and use multi-language translations of these texts (and launch a campaign to translate into all possible languages). --Kaganer 16:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I really like including the vision text; not so sure about the mission text. In some ways, the paragraphs of text seem to overwhelm the page and the viewer. Some other perspectives might be nice here. Maybe post to foundation-l/Wikimedia Forum? --MZMcBride 22:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Vision text - answer to the question "why?"

Mission text - "how to realized our vision?"

List of projects - "where, by what means?"

Footer text is explanation of Wikimedia broader context.

About post: My English is not good enough for those places. Please do you a post there ;) --Kaganer 00:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Just as a quick note to anyone viewing Www.wikimedia.org template/temp2: there's a very handy "preview portal" tab at the top of the page to render the page for you. --MZMcBride 22:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Now I see, thank you! --Kaganer 00:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This topic is died? If no objections - maybe move this version to main portal? --Kaganer 21:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Kaganer (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Meta-Wiki and Incubator

MZMcBride removed Meta-Wiki and Incubator (diff, diff). Any reason to add or keep removed? –Krinkle^talk 11:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Incubator should be kept! This site is entry point for all those whose languages ​​are not represented in the Wikimedia world! --Kaganer (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that's relevant. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Should be reverted, IMHO. They haven't ceased to be Wikimedia projects and such removals MUST be discussed before. Max Semenik (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

https://www.wikimedia.org has never listed every Wikimedia project (or family of projects), as far as I'm aware. For example, while File:Wikimedia logo family complete.svg includes a Wikimania logo, www.wikimedia.org template does not. (Though perhaps you think it should?) Meanwhile similar lists of projects such as wmf:Our projects have never listed projects such as Meta-Wiki or Wikimedia Incubator.

Template:Sisterprojects distinguishes between content projects and "backstage" projects. Is there a reason you think Meta-Wiki or the Wikimedia Incubator need to be listed on wikimedia.org? Are there others you feel are missing? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here, Krinkle. I removed the two icons as I view those projects more as administrative or "backstage" projects rather than content projects. But more importantly, the page had become awkwardly imbalanced with only two icons on the bottom row. I'm not opposed to re-adding those icons, but I think the page balance/layout has to be considered and I think we should come up with clearer guidelines for what is and isn't included (Wikimania wiki, Wikitech wiki, Outreach wiki, Strategic Planning wiki, etc.). --MZMcBride (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Meta-Wiki is the public face of the Wikimedia community and movement, so it's the most relevant presence of the portal. ;-) It's also the entry point for all backstage wikis, including those which were or are now part of Meta itself (like Wikimania or Usability, and the now-locked [!] strategy:), no need to add those as well.

The incubator hosts "content" but is not fully a content wiki, nor really a "backstage" one. For the public-facing aspects, it's now very well served by the links from the non-existing subdomains; for the internal aspects, it's way more effective to be part of the new languages process here on Meta. I'm not sure.

As for the order, I think projects are sorted by pageviews but the other wikis like Meta should indeed be the last ones. I've reverted the change for now, let's wait for comments from Meta and Incubator. Nemo 08:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nemo - odd action to take without discussion. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This change and discussion was uncalled for. Such removal should have been discussed with the general public instead of immediately executing it without support from the relevant communities. --Hydriz (talk) 10:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This wiki (and this too) ;) Of course, a good thing when all previously discussed with everyone - but not necessarily in the wiki. However, there is an opportunity to express their discontent, and to revert those changes, which caused protests. So do not focus on the actions of the brave MZMcBride - better discuss what logos should be on this page, and on what reasons. --Kaganer (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hydriz: Do you have a link to the discussion about adding Wikivoyage and Wikidata? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

About "links from the non-existing subdomains" what "now very well served": e.g. yrk.wikipedia.org or tyv.wikipedia.org is not "very well served" because is not worked (but I've seen a worked redirection for other codes). These links "well served" only for those who know the language code and realized that it can be so used. Incubator - entry point that does not require such knowledge.--Kaganer (talk) 11:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't think Meta should be on the portal page. I'm not sure how it at all relates to the others - Meta is for organization, cross-wiki coordination, etc. and not in the same category as Wikipedia, Wikiversity or Wikidata. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Incubator should unquestionably be there. Yes, it's a bit "meta" in scope and initial appearance, but it hosts content, doesn't it? As for Meta-Wiki, I would prefer to keep it there as well, as it is a central port-of-call for all things Wikimedia-movement-related.

Having said that, Wikivoyage should be moved above the "meta" wikis, since it is unquestionably a content project. This, that and the other (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding Wikimedia Labs

Here is a notice (assuming no real controversy) that I will be adding Wikimedia Labs to www.wikimedia.org, as befits its no longer really in beta status. (Using my official account as this is an official action) LeslieCarr (WMF) (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Support: I'm probably biased here, but I think the project is ready to be displayed.--Ryan Lane (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Support; I'd suggest moving the Meta and Incubator links to the final row (replaced by the actual content projects of Wikidata and Wikivoyage), and adding Wikimedia Labs to that final row. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment: added to /temp. --Jeremyb (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Biased support MPelletier (WMF) (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Leslie: your approach here is a bit :-/. Starting a discussion is great, but you could have just said "I'd like to add an icon for Labs and here's why" without the officiousness. Most Meta-Wiki users are reasonable people.

Anyway, I don't see any issue with adding an icon for Labs, but the page still looks pretty retarded with four icons per row except for the final row. Is there some other icon we can add to the final row for symmetry? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

NB: I temporary fixed align of this row (before adding four icon). --Kaganer (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

After discussion with guillom, I moved the Wikimedia Foundation logo to the bottom row. Thoughts on this version? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It's nice and symmetrical; but what to do the next time we end up with a prime number of projects?  :-) MPelletier (WMF) (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

As my mother says, we'll burn that bridge when we get there. ;-)

Long-term, I imagine www.wikimedia.org will become a redirect to Main Page (cf. Wikimedia.org). But for now, I hope to God we're not adding any new projects anytime soon, so this should get us through at least this year. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry MZMcBride - I didn't think about the tone - I just figured it was a non-issue. I will be more careful in the future. LeslieCarr (WMF) (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries. :-) On some wikis, you certainly need an iron fist (and a healthy supply of clue-by-fours). On Meta-Wiki, it's mostly laid-back people (or people who can't be bothered to give a fuck). Assuming there aren't any objections, I'll sync the new layout in the next day or two. (MediaWiki:Gadget-wm-portal.css will also likely need a few tweaks.) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Super-obvious Oppose. Wikitech is to mediawiki.org as outreachwiki is to Meta.
  (Or wikimania wiki; also, as tswiki: is to mediawiki.org.) Wikitech has never been on wikimedia.org; the fact that labsconsole now lives on the same domain means little. There's a very clear distinction as of now, and if we add this wiki we'll soon have to add a bunch more. --Nemo 23:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC) P.s.: I suggest at least a week of discussion and notifications to all affected projects and mailing lists to compensate mailarchive:labs-l/2013-March/001055.html.
  • As I understand it, Labs is a pretty big initiative, on the same level as (or in many ways, much better supported than!) most of the content projects (Wikisource, Wikiversity, Wikiquote, etc.). I'm not sure your oppose was obvious, but I appreciate you making this point. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • "Compensate"? I'm not sure what you mean by that; but the Wikimedia Labs are a "first class citizen" sister project, and not really comparable to the event- and initiative-specific examples you gave. It's the place for community development of software tools in and around the other projects; the better comparison would be to mediawiki.org which is on the front page. MPelletier (WMF) (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I assume(d) it's something like a reverse poisoning of the well. Surely there's an expression to fit this... sweetening the well? Basically the post to labs-l could be seen as an attempt to (unfairly) garner support for the idea of adding Labs to www.wikimedia.org, so some people take the view that this can be compensated for by keeping the discussion open longer and informing a wider range of people. The theory is mostly that wider participation will either add credibility/support to the idea or will offset the current votes here and require even further participation among people who haven't been biased in either direction to make a decision. Or something. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Support! Silke WMDE (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Support --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Synced. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary logo

I thing logo of wikt should be changed to File:Wiktionary-logo.svg (I mean http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Wiktionary-logo.svg/200px-Wiktionary-logo.svg.png or something like this actually, sure. Or normal PNG version could be exported and uploaded) since current one is English language version only (because in other languages it is not "Wiktionary" even if these lang's wikts use stylized like current logos). This page should represent whole project but not it's English version only so language-neutral version should be ok. --Base (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

<https://www.wikimedia.org> matches <https://www.wiktionary.org>. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok i'll ask the same at <https://www.wiktionary.org>'s page too. --Base (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)