Talk:WikiClassics User Group

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from Talk:WikiClassics)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Logos[edit]

Proposals[edit]

This is a knowledge project, therefore, I believe that the logo has to be an Athena, or an owl. I just put in a couple of Athenas, but if you do not like either, we can choose another one. --FocalPoint (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@FocalPoint: I've added two owls of Athena as possible candidates. However, the logo has to be recogniseable, so maybe the capitel or Oedipus with the Sphinx are better. But we have time to discuss. Thank you for your ideas, --Epìdosis 06:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, i have to make a logo so it must be something simple. And if possible not too much Roman or Greek. I will prepare some candidates asap.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Components of a possible future project logos:

We will suggest a contest to vote a possible logo.

I moved the thread here as a future activity.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I have five possible candidates to upload.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

User:FocalPoint WMF really would like us to pick an original logo as soon as we register as a new UG or we are stuck with the basic model, that's the rumor. So I could only create these logos so far in brief amount of time... do you have any decent additional svg file you would like me to use? Than we can vote and pick one.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I would skip the idea of the theatre because it's very similar to "WikiLovesParliaments" as a concept, that would be confusing. --Alexmar983 (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The mix between Wikimedia and the Classics in my opinion can be only be one symbol: the Owl. The ancient Greek symbol of wisdom. That's what we are looking for here. Marcus Cyron (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Marcus Cyron do you have a svg to create a logo? I am veeeeery busy right now so if you can find what you want me to use, I can create that version much faster.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Sadly not and I'm so what unable to do such things ;). But as far as I see do we have no preassure here?! Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Aparently we do, we either stuck with the generic logo or register with a clear one. I think it's too rigid and logo should be kept as a choice after the first events, when the group is getting solid but it seems that brand recognition is becoming everything, so... this is not urgent per se but it's a necessary step, a funnel. If we don't do this but we want our logo (which IMHo we should have), we can't submit a final application fr a while.--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
little help requested--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I must note that an owl is the logo of The Wikipedia Library. Yes, different colours, but it shows that it is too generic. I would stick with the ionic capital or the temple icon (which in fact is a classical building and not necessarily a temple). 🏛️ -Geraki TL 11:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Geraki: You are right about The Wikipedia Library. However, maybe the temple icon is too similar to UNESCO logo.svg Unesco logo. I would suggest the vase with the meander. --Epìdosis 15:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
put "classical building" in the caption, but it does not change the fact that it's probably not the best icon. I skipped the "theatre option" because of its similarlity to an existing logo fo WikiParliament, I was going to dismiss also the "temple" one but it was a simple copy and paste in the end so I did it anyway. BTW the logo of the Wikimedia Library UG is quite different from the Miverva's owl, the latter one has round big eye and there is no computer mouse in the mouth, but I do agree that it's not nice to share the same animal. it might be however quite different so it's interesting to see a final rendering. My favourite is in any case not the owl but the vase too, the ionic capital is IMHO a little bit odd.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Girl with stylus and tablets.Fresco found in Pompei.jpg

Maybe there's something possible with an iconig image as this. It's ancient art, it's visualizied ancient literature and it's what we do here - writing about this all. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not bad. I can ask for that too at the graphic Lab. In any case we will have a portfolio of logos that we can reuse for some presentation I guess... even for the subsections of our main page :D--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I can definitely visually relate to this in terms of classical poetry. Gts-tg (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


Dear fellow WikiClassics members, I would like to also propose for consideration to think of the w:en:Pharos of Alexandria as a further, classics knowledge centric, candidate. One of the wonders of the ancient world, tied to both the Greek and Roman w:en:ecumene, and strongly connected with the one place of antiquity where love of knowledge was very highly appreciated and pursued more than anywhere else. Furthermore, on an additional symbolic level I suppose it also works as a beacon of knowledge. As to which material could be used, I can think of an either relative fidelity oriented representation (based on ancient contemporary approximations), or more modern reconstructions (and perhaps slightly more broadly identifiable) in the spirit of the classical tradition through the ages. In this context I'm listing below some materials that could potentially be of use in order to determine a minimally abstracted clipart shape.

As a complementary idea, an alternative reasoning would be that if the Wikipedia logo has the lettered globe, Wikimedia Meta logo has the gridlike globe, then within the same theme WikiClassics could have the respective ''globe'' of the classical world, Anaximander's map, which could easily be converted to a clipart symbol and further processed with the green colouring and with or without letters.

The above are just a set of simple additional ideas which may or may not lend themselves well for logo use or may not be easy to visually manifest into an aesthetically pleasing logo, but so far -and given that time is of essence so that we're not stuck with the basic logo- there is no shortage of good proposals as the ones already put forward by the other members are of high quality (out of which I have to say that I like the attic owl symbol most, due to its simplicity and instant linkage with knowledge -via it's association to Athena/Minerva-). Whatever the final selection will end up being, I am very happy to see the creation of this group and I am looking forward to further participating when my time allows in the near future; congratulations to Epidosis, Alexmar983, and Camelia for starting this, and cordial classical greetings (yep, Χαῖρε and Ave) to the other members that have signed up so far. Gts-tg (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I really love both Gts-tg's ideas! I think that the Pharos will be easily associated by most people with knowledge and antiquities, but I like also the idea of a map showing the classical world--Sp!ros (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
they are nice idea but don't forget to ask maybe also someone in the illustration laboratories/projects of your local wikipedias for a little help. I don't have the time in these days to produce something complex.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Gts-tg's the Anaximander's map was easy to create and upload with the svg. Here it is.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC) P.S. I have created a new commons category, can someone help me to do this on all svg files of the map? I am not sure I can use cat-a-lot correctly to add one and remove three categories at the same time, so I am doing it manually. Thank you!--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Alexmar983 I've added a small variation with an encircling meander (above), it's only a small detail (water related too, so sort of ties in with replacing the sea) but I think it makes it stand out more and makes it more easily identifiable as to what it stands for thematically. Gts-tg (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Also I was about to help with the category change (using cat-a-lot as well), but I think you've already gone through changing the files. Gts-tg (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

As a numismatist, here are a few proposals. More examples on my page (which I can upload here if someone likes some of them):

T8612 (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Lange Nacht der Wissenschaften DAI Berlin 07.JPG

Anaximander is a good idea, i like the first variant more than the second with a maeander. Also the idea with Alexandria is reasonable - but the lihthouse would not be my first choice. If we would chose an ancient building, it should be then a library. And the most famous is, I think, the one in Ephesos. Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC) PS depending the coins: the griffin has the same problem as the temple (Unesco) and the laurel (a lot uses) - it's already used in a prominent way, here for the German Archaeological Institute. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

More in general, I am still waiting for a reply from the illustration workshop for a much simpler task... so it's hard to get such complex shapes at the moment.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Marcus Cyron, FocalPoint... you asked for the Minerva's owl, could you please leave a comment on on commons? I am not really into such symbol, so maybe what you asked is what they prepared and it's fine for you. Thank you.--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The pharos one was done thanks to a svg flag of Alexandria.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks great!--Sp!ros (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The logo of the IAG can be converted to a svg but you should have some idea about is copyright and how to change it for a logo...--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Vote[edit]

As soon as we have enough candidates, we will decide how to vote.

I am thinking that maybe we "expert" could decide the best two or three options based on above discussion (pro and cons seem quite clear) and than we vote, but maybe we put the link to the final choice on the meta main page this time? This way we can select the best recognizable logo for a general audience and show the project a little bit more around. But it's just an idea, It's just brainstorming.

About the vote, another option is a ranking system, where all users order their options from best to last. I can later compute the ranking and average them similarly to what we do for Wiki Loves Monuments on the Montage tool. This way we can select the most voted options for a run-off. That final vote we can show around and open to everyone.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

My Top 3 under the actual: 3, 4, 6. Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Complete gallery of proposals

We thank User:Habitator terrae who created the last owl logo and User:Epìdosis for the gallery.

We can now vote, we have enough options (8 ideas, 10 variants) for a balanced output. I suggest we all give a ranking of the images, maybe top 3 or just rank 10 points to 1 point all of them, than we make a sum. Once that step is concluded and we have a ranking, we could make a final choice between the two most voted ones. I suggest to open the very final second round vote to all wikimedians, linking it from the main page on meta. This way we are sure to select an image more people can relate to, and show around our new group as a welcoming and open platform.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

please vote when you have time for the selection of the logo.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Eunostos, T8612, and Renato de carvalho ferreira: please if you can, vote your best 3 options for the logo.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

My ranking is: 7, 8, 3. --Sp!ros (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
My ranking is: 7, 8, 2. --Epìdosis 08:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
8, 3, 2 - Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
8, 2, 4 - Sir Henry (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
8, 6A, 7 - Gts-tg (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
2, 6A, 3 --Alexmar983 (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
8 --FocalPoint (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
3, 8, 2 —DerHexer (Talk) 23:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
1A, 4, 5 --Romulanus (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
2, 3, 5.. --SurdusVII 09:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
2, 8, 3 --Ilbuonme (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
5, 8, 3. --Eunostos (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
5, 3, 2.--Geraki TL 15:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
2, 7, 8 --Saintfevrier (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
(out of time) 4, 1A, 3, I was sure to have voted time ago. 6A and 7 are very nice but are hardly identifiable at first sight. I exclude 8 (too similar to Wiki Library) and 5 (remembers the UNESCO logo). --Camelia (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Top 2[edit]

How do you want to convert the ranking in numbers? first=3 votes, second=2 votes, third=1 vote? --Alexmar983 (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

sounds good to me--Sp!ros (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
OK. --Epìdosis 19:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
1A:0+0+3= 3
1B:0+0= 0
2: 0+1+1+2+3+1+3+3+1+3= 18
3: 1+0+2+1+3+2+1+1+2= 13
4: 0+0+1+2= 3
5: 0+0+1+1+3+3= 8
6: 0+0= 0
6A:0+0+2+2= 4
7: 3+3+1+2= 9
8: 2+2+3+3+3+3+2+2+2+1= 23

--Sp!ros (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I updated the sums to include the last votes. The top three are numbers 8 (owl), 2 (amphora), and 3 (ionic column).--Sp!ros (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. So the ranking seems quite stable, few more votes might not affect it. We can wait to see if the second or third place change for some days, and than we complete the selection.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Final choice[edit]

I suggest, as I said, to take the firt two most voted options and let everybody vote (we want the logo to be clear for everyone). Everybody can vote just one of the two options and the vote is linked by the meta main page.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The rules are: we start on 2019-02-17 UTC 00:00 and we end on 2019-03-03 UTC 00:00 (after 14 days). Do you agree?--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

this a draft of the table.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC) we start tomorrow at midnight. I will insert a notice in Template:Main Page/WM News, as I said.--Alexmar983 (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

This is the proposed announcement.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Community Logo.svg Feb 17 – Mar 3: final choice for the logo of WikiClassics user group. We value your feedback. voting is running until 3 March 2019, 00:00 (UTC)

Run-off[edit]

The final vote to decide the logo starts on 2019-02-17 UTC 00:00 and ends on 2019-03-03 UTC 00:00

Each user can cast just one vote
Amphora Owl of Minerva
Supported by:
  1. Alexmar983 (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Epìdosis 17:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Novak Watchmen (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. --Romulanus (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. --Rashid Jorvee (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. Camelia (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  7. SurdusVII 10:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  8. Taketa (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  9. Alan (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  10. Ilbuonme (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  11. -- Carbidfischer (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  12. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  13. --h-stt !? 22:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  14. ...

Supported by:

  1. T8612 (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Sp!ros (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. Joalpe (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. Sir Henry (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  5. FocalPoint (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  6. DerHexer (Talk) 21:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  7. -- (and I work in the field of ancient ceramics ;)). Marcus Cyron (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  8. Gts-tg (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  9. --Hartmann Linge (talk) 08:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  10. ...


@Ilbuonme, Saintfevrier, and Ijon: @SurdusVII, DerHexer, and Geraki: @Camelia.boban, FocalPoint, and Tursclan: @Christelle Molinié and Mizardellorsa: @Eunostos and Renato de carvalho ferreira: please vote...--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggest a smaller size of the amphora. --Camelia (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Didn't I already reduce it weeks ago? BTW no problem per se.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Also, I am having second thoughts... thuis might become a very close race if i change my vote :D--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I think the owl is already used too much by organisations related to knowledge, like schools and libraries. The amphora is less used and is more specific for classics. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Well the vase gives more an idea also of archeology, the owl looks to me sometimes even more Greek (although there is a meander pattern on the vase), I personally never saw the wol on other organization, but maybe if think carefully I recall some owls here and there. In the end, we could have written also some pros and cons before starting this final vote, my bad. Good news is that people can still change theri votes and debate, we have enough days.--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Due to the very close vote, maybe we could postpone the deadline just to be sure we have a decent majority? Also, can you inform your local projects maybe? Even if some users are not members here, I'd value their advice.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Now the vote has clearly shifted so we don't need to wait more days, there is a clear winner. We started on a midnight of Sunday so it should be closed but if you want we can keep it going few more days. i will make good use of the other logos in any case, there are very good.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Please don't wait for my vote. I don't care very much about logos and other visual items. Ijon (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I would like to have an archive, so we can archive those discussions, that not longer nesseccarry. Takes so much of this site, so other discussions vanish. Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I wamted to archive this one but it is not yet the moment. I have to add another section.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Final adjustement[edit]

I suppose I have to prepare some version with the final wording of our UG. Maybe "WikiClassics" in black and user group smaller in light gray. I will look at the other logos, please let me know if you have any direct advice.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

We have a small issue, in c:Category:SVG_Wikimedia_user_groups_logos there at least two different styles of writing based on the distance of the letters and the shape of the "A", I am not sure which one is better to use. Also, letters are encoded as shapes on my adobe so I cannot simply type a text: I have to recreate the text manually. This is not a big deal but I used one style of letters and than looking for a "C" I could only find logos with the other style, with slightly broader fonts. I write to the office, maybe they can fix it, i'll let you know.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ilbuonme, Saintfevrier, and Ijon: @SurdusVII, DerHexer, and Geraki: @Camelia.boban, FocalPoint, and Tursclan: @Romulanus, Christelle Molinié, and Mizardellorsa: @Marcus Cyron, Epìdosis, and Prof.Lippold: @DarwIn, DerMaxdorfer, and 4nn1l2: @Taketa, T8616, and Eunostos: @Sp!ros and Gts-tg: (missing anyone?) a quick update. I am still not 100% sure about the right style of the writing in the final composite logo, I have not an answer from the office yet (but it's the week end), maybe the legal team will say the vase icon is fine but maybe they still have to validate the final combination. I told you few days ago that I was not sure about the font and I had to collect the letters from previous logos. However this page says that the standard font is Montserrat, so maybe I can just use that one for a robust proposal.

The problem is that I use an old Adobe on a MAC, so I am not sure how to import a google font (which is something I have heard once it could be done on a Windows) so does any of you have a good graphics tool with the Monserrat font to do it? We just need to put the logo, write "WikiClassics"/"user group" below and than save in svg. I am trying to find a solution but if anyone can help directly, (s)he is welcome.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Good news, due to a HUGE luck a friend of mine with a good Adobe was free right now. These two are possible versions. if you open them you can't read as font, they are svg files, but if your adobe or other program has the Moserrat font you can try new versions yourselves too.--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I prefer the black version because the other line is already grey. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Same opinion as DerHexer, I prefer the black one as well.--- Darwin Ahoy! 01:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

it looks like I prepared the classical "dummy" second choice nobody really likes :D. If you are interested please take a look to this related conversation. Revising the naming policy I have discovered the WikiXxxx format is not standardized in the examples (despite the fact it exists). I hope this is no specific issue but so far nobody told so in any emal with WMF, I guess is just a not fully updated list of common occurances.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
As DerHexer, the black version looks better in my opinion. --DerMaxdorfer (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for not checking this page very often and for not being very active in the discussion. I'm activating the updates via email, so I should be more active from now on. I am probably missing something: wasn't the original name "WikiClassics" (with a final 's')? I read "WikiClassic" (no final 's') in the logo. Again, sorry for probably missing something obvious already mentioned in the discussion. As for the color, the black one is fine for me too. --Ilbuonme (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I prefer the grey color.. --SurdusVII 11:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
you are right is with an "s". I will correct it, sorry but it was already I miracle I had the right cobination of software. I hope people who did this sort of logo already or manage them daily can fix this easily, for them it take one minute... i am trying to do my best.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I prefer the black one. --Epìdosis 12:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I prefer the grey one (and yes, good thing someone pointed out the final "s":-) Good job, Alexmar983! --Saintfevrier (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
my friend with adobe had a family emergency, as long as it is resolved, I can upload a new version.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I prefer the black version. --Romulanus (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I have updated the minor corrections. I think we will propose as a final first choice the uniform black version, it looks to me slightly preferred.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I have sent the final mail for a legal evaluation yesterday evening. I used the version with the uniform black writing. Crossed finger.--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, the legal team replied that our logo is fine, since we did not modify the Wikimedia house mark. At this point, we miss only the final recognition from AffCom. Good job everyone--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Translation of the week[edit]

Hi y'all. One of the proposal I'd like to introduce is a brief selections of articles worth to be translated in more languages. Simple missing and multifaceted but not too long articles, perfect to be suggested for Translation of the week/Translation candidates. We could make a list and add one per month to the suggestions page. What do you think?--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree, lots of en.wiki very good articles would need to be translated in other languages. --Epìdosis 08:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Good articles could be proposed for a trans wiki activity such as writing weeks. "Translation of the week" aims at compact articles, with enough sources and possible future red links. So the very very good ones are not 100% fitting.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I draft a table like this

What we could do is to also fix the wikidata item. The week increases the number of language editions but not the quality of the wikidata items.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

More than german and english is nothing what I speak good enough. And with the german Wikipedia we would start making trouble. It's usually not the way we work there and - I only talk abouth the german Wikipedia (!) - I think we have a standard that's often not bad and our authors are by faar not enough, but enough not to need to do it in that way. Also the most of us have their own special focus.
But I like the idea of international translation. And I would do this more on Wikidata. Every week 100 data sets we try to fill as goos as we can in all our possible languages. Would be in one yeas 5000 good data objects. And from those data sets, the way to an article maybe is also easier to go. Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Look, it does not really matter if a language edition is left behind on this aspect, as long as there are other ways to involve them. We come from very different backgrounds, if we select only activities that fit every platforms, we are not left with many options. For example there are "global moth" with sitenotice that work on some platforms but not on itwikipedia and i would support them in any case. The writing week option is more efficient on nlwikipedia but again not on other ones. the #1Lib1ref initiative is weak on itwiki, and the gender-gaps events when we will do them will overperform in frwiki and itwiki probably. in the end, there are all acceptable means, IMHO. Your idea is fine, we can develop that too. Please notice that we probably need existing infrastructure and communication channels as a first step, building something relatively new is demanding. We have to look closer what medicine UG and militaria UG also do. --Alexmar983 (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I would do the Spanish translations from English. I've done it before (for instance Justianiano (general) Germano (primo de Justiniano)). I have also done translations from Italian (Agripina la Mayor) and French (Hatti). On the other hand, I don't understand German very well (Lucio Antistio Rústico). The only downside is that I usually take a long time to do the translations because I'm always on short notice. I'd prefer the translation of the month :D. For example, I'm going to start this week with the proposal (d:Q12292389) to see how long it takes. On the other hand, I agree to rationalize and complete the Wikidata items, creating thematic blocks (States, cities, people, objects...) and establishing which properties must have, which properties must not have and which are optional. --Romulanus (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Who we are, what we do[edit]

I think, this group is a very good idea, I thought for already a longer time to start something like this. My suggestion would be not only to enter our names, but also to give a little more about who we are, what we do, what we can do, what work areas we have, what projects. So you can do a lot of targeted work. For example, I've been working on a large ceramic project on ancient ceramics, potters, vase painters, workshops and producers for quite some time (for example, the almost complete Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum Germany is a scholarship from Wikimedia Deutschland). But otherwise much would be possible. For example, we have an excellent list of Roman consuls in the WP, which has been kept up to date by several authors for years and thus reaches far beyond all printed works. Our project on the Roman Limes is also first class. Less well are our articles on ancient literature, with a few exceptions. So our article situation is quite good at ancient philosophy. On the German-speaking Wikisource, we have an outstanding project for the development of Pauly-Wissowa, inclouding a list of authors that you will find nowhere else.

There is a lot to do. For example, to sort the almost complete picture stock on Wikimedia Commons, not least with regard to the reorganization through the introduction of Structured Commons. Also the linking with Wikidata is actually not good enough. Here, the idea of ​​a meaningful structure would even be necessary. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Marcus Cyron fine with me, I reorganize the page to insert more details. Not today because I am following another wikibusiness, but asap.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@Marcus Cyron: Hi! I have just reorganized the section in a table with a cell for interests, it's a really good idea. I agree: there is really a lot to do ... this is why @Alexmar983: and I decided to found this group. Each project has its excellences (and in my opinion de.wiki is one of the best-quality projects for classical antiquity) and one of the purposes of this group is to share our different experiences in different languages, in order to raise the quality of all our projects, expecially Commons (Structured Commons is welcome!) and Wikidata (I've worked a lot on interlinks on Wikidata in many topics, among them classical antiquity in different projects), which we all share; here we can coordinate our efforces. In the next days (I hope!) we will send a message to all the WikiProjects listed in the table, in order to reach all the users interested in classical antiquity. Then we can start a really interesting brainstorming! Bye, --Epìdosis 21:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
If you both need help with organizing thing - please asked me. I'm willing to help here as good as I can. Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

OTRS and copyright[edit]

Hi, maybe it si strange to think about that now, but it is no harm to start the conversation and let it evolve for few months.

I start from this add to the goals list. One of the bottleneck in the wiki ecosystems is in some language groups the OTRS system for copyright permission, which might have not enough volunteers or be quite slow. Copyright issues are very important and related literacy is crucial, sometimes it takes some passages to understand the overall expertise of the operator processing the request.

So, I'd like to know if we have a OTRS expert among us 8current or previous volunteer). I am asking because that is something that will be very useful on the long term. I often help people to interface with OTRS but I am not a volunteer myself.--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I'm a Support team volunteer. @DerHexer: too. Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Not an expert either but some more than 1,000 tickets closed. —DerHexer (Talk) 20:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Good!--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
DerHexer and Marcus Cyron can you add it to the table? Thank you.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


Oh, I am also an OTRS agent. -Geraki TL 15:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Me too. Ijon (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

WikiSummit and Wikimania[edit]

In August this year the annual Wikimania will be held in Stockholm/Sweden. I think, it wold be a good idea, to plan a WikiClassics meetup there. Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course. I am sorry that the area where my sister's family lives was not chosen as host town or I would have been for sure to there, but I was going to write about international meetings. Thanks to WikiDonne, since I am basically replacing User:Camelia.boban, I will be at Iberocoop:Iberoconf 2019 in Santiago and Wikimedia Summit 2019 in Berlin, so there will some preliminary informal meetings. Enough to take some pictures, I guess. Because of this activites I will skip WikiMania probably, but it's fine, of course the UG should gather. I want this UG to be active on that side as soon as possible.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree, we will organize something @ Wikimania. --Camelia (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Not sure yet if I can attend Wikimania, but a good chance. If there is a meeting please let me know. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This year, Wikimedia Deutschland provides 6 "tandem scholarships" for a german and a foreign participant to Wikimania. Both should work in the same field and should also present this on the Wikimania. So there are the possibility to team up with a german author in the Classics and go for a tendem scholarship. For details @DerHexer: as MC knows all the answers. Candidates from the german sites could be for example @DerMaxdorfer:, @Einsamer Schütze:, @Mediatus:, @Hartmann Linge: Marcus Cyron (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

It's 3 tandem scholarships for 6 folks, though. ;-) —DerHexer (Talk) 12:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
DerHexer thank you for the info, I would really like to have a meeting already in Berlin. By that date, we will have the logo so i would like to start some social media tweet or post related to this event, too. I am happy if the German chapter can be inolved also for the future somehow. Some countries are too poor or weak/small, other chapters seem less interested in joining the activities at the moment, I would consider the possibility to have a full event also in the German world (besides in Italy) highly probbale in the not-so-distant future (maybe with some contacts from WMCh too). Like, we could ask for a grant or something. This is also another thing we should discuss on the long term. I have not spent all the money from a previous grant and even if I was very busy, I want to try to recycle them. So it'ìs time to get real on that front.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
We will find a time, it's a bit sad, that exactly at this time the local Community Space in Berlin is closed, because we moving. It would have been a perfect place to meet. But we will find an other place. Marcus Cyron (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@DerHexer: @DerMaxdorfer:, @Einsamer Schütze:, @Mediatus:, @Hartmann Linge: @Marcus Cyron: it's time to schedule a meeting in Wikimedia_Summit_2019/Thematic,_regional,_language-specific_meetups. I can let you do it if you "know the place" better. let me know. I have to schedule another one, so maybe Marcus can be the contact person. if I am free and another person schedules the other one, I can do this one. But I think the first scenario is more fair and functional, so it's probably more useful if a German chairs it there.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Hm, are we really invited to meet at the conference venue? Maybe Marcus will participate as WMDE board member but I am not sure about myself: volunteers can attend the party and staff can go to the dinner parties. I think that I can be around at some time, I will also pick up people for the sightseeing tour I provide. Whatsoever, we will find a time and place to meet, I am very sure. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 20:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I have NO IDEA but I can ask, but it's easier for you to arrange it. We should however write it down even with a TBD, IMHO. I don't think the list is intended just for events at the venue...--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm not one of the german participants. Marcus Cyron (talk) 08:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Marcus Cyron I am here in Berlin and this evening we are at events at WMDE office.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: I will also be here but have a Wikimania meetup at 9 pm which Marcus was thinking about joining as well. Maybe some time around that? Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 10:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I will come a bit earlier than 9 pm. Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Let's find the time for a group photo or something, plus I have to give you the password for twitter. It won't take too much time.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Social media[edit]

We have a logo now, so twitter and facebook group will come soon. Any volunteers? I am here ready!--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Here. Marcus Cyron (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Good Marcus Cyron in the next days I create facebook and twitter. Facebook I need you as a personal contact for granting the sysop right, is it correct? For Twitter I have to tell you the password, if you want it to do it in a safe way 8not sending it by mail) maybe I can tell you in Berlin directly if you are there. I don't want to wait the end of March, I want to have enough follower by Wikimania. Is it ok? please tell me if you have better idea.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I have time. Berlin is not that much time away. Marcus Cyron (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
this one was taken, so on twitter we are @ClassicsWiki. It's going to be under the radar up to Berlin, if I follow too many new users at the beginning it will be locked, but fell free to ask around someone to follow it.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Found it, and the amphora looks great!--Sp!ros (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Alexmar983, Marcus Cyron, a good alternative would be @WikiClassics.org -Geraki TL 15:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I have already created it. I have never heard of ".com" used in twitter username. Is it common?--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Update about UG name[edit]

@Ilbuonme, Saintfevrier, and Ijon: @SurdusVII, DerHexer, and Geraki: @Camelia.boban, FocalPoint, and Tursclan: @Christelle Molinié, Mizardellorsa, and Taketa: @Eunostos, Renato de carvalho ferreira, and OrbiliusMagister: @Marcus Cyron, Romulanus, and Gts-tg:@Sp!ros, Sir Henry, and Rena: @T8616, DarwIn, and Prof.Lippold: @4nn1l2, Hartmann Linge, and Richard Nevell:... (did I forget someone?) here is un upodate.

Me and User:Epìdosis received the documents of the agreement last Friday and we revised them over the week end.

So if you remember the whole story, WMF asked us to move the page for the UG submission direcly as "WikiClassics User Group", the name we proposed based on other affiliates' name but now a different name was proposed. The name is Wikimedia Community User Group WikiClassics and we have to resubmit the application as a new one with this new name.

The reason is this guideline, and FYI please notice that before this request on our case I had already pointed out in March here how these guidelines do not include the quite common pattern WikiXxxxx User Group.

I don't think in general the repetition of wiki twice sound great (The placeholder WikiLand is replaced with a region name, in other UGs), but that's a minor inconvenience. The reason of this change is this guideline, we are stuck with these limits and, as I said, this is probably not a big deal. The core point is another one: we asked if once we signed with such name we must create another logo again or not. we are waiting for an answer. We are universally known as WikiClassics and this sort of long name is not common for thematic UG, so we want to be sure about the short form and its use.

In the meantime, while we are wating for a clear feedback, we share this information with you all. This is a open group and your comment is valuable, so let us know what do you think. It's Easter so maybe WMF won't reply soon in any case.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

OK. Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
In practice, UGs routinely use shorter names than the officially recognized ones. This seems a tolerated practice. Ijon (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes I agree with Ijon. Our official name does not need to be the name we go by. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I just hope they send us an official mail that says "yes you can use the logo with the shorter form". The point here is that routinely the form WikiXxxxx User group is also used as official name, yet it does not apply in our case, so we obviously can't rely on what is routinely done or tolerated, it is variable.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)