From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A proposal for a WMF run travel guide

A proposal for a WMF run travel guide is under discussion here. More comments welcome.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

For context, that is a request for a sitenotice here on Meta. Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Username changes

Hello. I made a request for changing username for me and for my bot. I know that's too much, but it's just a notification. Thanks.--Avocato (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Namespace for Iberocoop in Meta


Speaking in name of Iberocoop, we'd like to have a namespace in Meta. It will be used to publish relevant information about our activities, in order to increase transparency and publicity of our activities with the Wikimedia community.

We're already using a category, but a namespace will be much more effective for arranging information. We want to avoid sub-pages scattered all over Meta without a common criteria.

What do you think?

Regards, Mahadeva (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd preferr not to. We've recently removed a large number of namespaces at Meta, and moved those to subpages. If we're going to create a namespace for each new chapter/project we'll end flooded by namespaces again. Categorized subpages are better imho. Regards. — MA (audiencia) 19:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the request of a namespace for Iberocoop has anything to do with either "a chapter" or "a project", nor does it have to do with localization of pages or talk pages (your example of what has been deleted). Iberocoop is inherently a meta thing, since it brings together many chapters, chapters to be and interested individuals. I can imagine having some of the meta level split into "smaller" chunks. Note that the alternative to a namespace is yet-another-wiki somewhere far away from meta. I find the idea not only good but worth a shot to increase transparency and visibility of such working groups. notafish }<';> 22:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand, will this namespace replace the existing wiki (there is one IIRC)? That would indeed be a great improvement! The advantages of a namespace are only the filtering of recent changes, watchlist and search, but this can be very valuable in such a case, especially if you consider that it would allow non-English fluent people to avoid being cluttered with English crap (and this is partly the point of iberocoop).
I agree with notafish that the namespaces mentioned by MA are not a good comparison, we should compare this proposed namespace to Grants: or Research:, and to me it seems to have a broader scope and usefulness than those in principle, although we'd need some guesstimate of the numbers of pages and such just to avoid creating new namespaces without any consideration.
Oh, beware, something a namespace won't allow you to do is customizing the Translate extension, which will always be able to translate from English only on this wiki (until a new feature is developed at least). Cheers, Nemo 00:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Filtering recent changes, watchlists, and search are quite important. I think these should be possible to do by category, not just by namespace -- so that there can indeed by dozens of them without anything feeling 'flooded'. Having those pages here on meta, whether as a namespace or as a category, would be great. Let's see how we can make it happen. SJ talk  00:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Iberocoop is neither a chapter nor a project. As far as I know, Meta is the place where chapters, chapters-to-be and individuals gather and join efforts and cooperation initiatives towards the goals of our movement. A cooperation initiative between 7 chapters and 4 chapters-to-be is a lot of wikimedians working jointly. Arranging all of that work would be way easier through a namespace, not just for transparency reasons but also to add effectiveness to what we do on here. --Jewbask (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There's consensus so I've "activated" the request at bugzilla:38398. --Nemo 16:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)