Grants talk:Start/2018

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

Proposal to merge talk pages for grants[edit]

Currently there are various talk pages for different WMF grants I propose to merge all of these into a single talk page here. Benefits of doing so would be the following:

  1. Less confusion about where to post
  2. Centralized conversation about WMF grants
  3. Easier for users to watch one single page, which also would build a community of regulars in the forum
  4. Easier to search all previous discussions in a centralized archive

Here are the grant talk pages which I have found and which I propose to merge here:

  1. Grants talk:Project/Rapid
  2. Grants talk:TPS
  3. Grants talk:Project
  4. Grants talk:Start/Individuals
  5. Grants talk:Conference
  6. Grants talk:Simple
  7. Grants talk:APG

Here are some problems which a merge would address:

  1. The talk page is dead - Grants talk:Simple, Grants talk:TPS, Grants talk:APG, Grants talk:Conference
  2. Page attracts posts which are general discussion of WMF grants, not specific grant type for which forum is designated Grants talk:Project/Rapid, Grants talk:Project

I would not oppose forking out discussion pages after the merge if it happens that one type of grant gets much more discussion than the others, but right now, I would say that there is no regular discussion for any sort of grant. The usual wiki response to fragmented discussions on many similar topics is a merge of talk pages. Thoughts from others? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[]

I am posting notices on the above pages of my intent to merge soon. I am directing anyone with comments to post here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[]
Hi Blue Rasberry, which imminent/actual problem are you trying to solve here? Your assumptions for why talk pages aren't used very often are based on which information? Braveheart (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[]
@Braveheart: The actual problem here is that these talk pages are contrary to the status quo of Wikimedia community culture. No one should have to argue for talk pages to be organized in the normal way. My first assumptions are that there is an obvious normal way to do things here and the system here is not normal.
If I were to make an argument then I would note that main page here says that US$9 million goes through the grants process, which is about 10% of the Wikimedia annual funds. Despite that, neither is this talk page used much, nor are there many messages on all of these pages collectively. Obviously people care because they have questions. I think something about this infrastructure is a barrier to discussion here and unnecessarily encouraging less organized discussion, which is why I advocate for the standard way of organizing here.
"Wikimedia Grants" is a topic which I know that tens of thousands of people in the wiki community discuss monthly, and yet the main discussion page in the Wikimedia platform gets only a few comments a year. I cannot immediately think of comparable situations for other topics, and I think this odd talk page system is the most apparent difference here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[]
The problem is Meta itself, not a vast array of talk pages. I for one don't wont to talk about APG grants mixed in with individual or rapid grants because it gets too confusing. Affiliates are discouraged from commenting on other grants because it would come across as petty or patronizing, depending on the relationship with the other grantees. Hardly anyone reads the grants themselves and I surely wouldn't want to turn Meta into a second toxic Wikimedia-l. This problem needs big changes, not the reorganisation of some trivial talk pages ;-) Braveheart (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[]

Category:Reports for WMF grants funded in FY Pending[edit]

There are 132 pages in this category, some of them from 2014 or earlier. In many cases it seems to be a miscategorisation. --Nemo 10:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[]

Category mingling[edit]

I'm trying to make sure that it's possible to navigate the categories for grant reports (or selected proposals if impossible) by criteria which trascend the specific grant program, for instance the grantee. See:

When no specific subcategory is available for a grantee, better add the proposal/report to a category named after the grantee, so that other related proposals can be found more easily. Often the grant pages are also the only pages describing what a certain group does. --Nemo 10:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[]