Talk:WikiClassics User Group

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
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)

Quick update: our twitter account is going pretty well, I am starting to interact with the community on line about projects on-wiki and they seem to be reactive, for example discussions about wikidata properties. I will give the password to the pt-N users soon, if you do not oppose and that would be a third language. Whatever is the project you have in mind, we can create a section to ask for tweet when necessary, you can access a global audience.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:10, 18 June 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)

Update: WMF contacted the legal team contact about the logo, so everything is a little bit frozen, but they will let us know. As soon as they confirm the "short" logo is fine we can submit, you all accepted the long name. If not, we have to make a logo with a new writing and at that point we can submit the final proposal. Of course, making a new logo with a diffent name is no big deal, I am only sorry it would look a little bit crowded.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank to you for keeping it rolling! Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
AffCom apporved the short name, after reconsideration, that's unexpected. We will revise the documents tommorrow and let you know asap.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

FYI (I will wait the official mail next week)--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The mail was sent and the UG is now official. Congratulation to everyone!--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

First international meetup at Wikimania[edit]

Hi, would be fine, if we could have a first international meetup at the Wikimania this year in Stockholm. Would be fine, if those who will attend put themself in this list, so we can block a room or something like this. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

you mean an official one? That was the idea since the beginning, and as I told, I won't be there.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
With or without you, we need to plan it :). -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Marcus Cyron and Ijon: So, when and where do we want to meet? --Epìdosis 07:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I will attend - sure/very sure[edit]

I probably/maybe attend[edit]

Report[edit]

@Ijon, Epìdosis, and Marcus Cyron: @Camelia.boban and Xenophôn: please use WikiClassics User Group/Activities/Wikimania2019 for comments and other ideas (so we have something for our yearly report)--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

New Wikidata IDs[edit]

Hello. I have requested in Wikidata the creation of a new identifier for people from Ancient Rome. This is the link. Un saludo. --Romulanus (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

See also d:Wikidata:Property proposal/PHI Latin Texts author ID and d:Wikidata:Property proposal/digilibLT author ID (and d:Wikidata:Property proposal/IntraText author ID has some Latin authors too). --Epìdosis 19:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

A possible more compact table[edit]

Hello, below is a suggestion for a more compact version of the table by only including the links but not the names for the wikiprojects across different languages, since they're summarised by the row heading. I think it makes the table easier to read, since now columns and rows are all the same size and it's easier to see which are filled or empty. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  ar ca da de el en es fa fi fr hu it ja ka ko lt mk no pl pt ro ru sv tr zh wikidata
WikiProject Council.svg Main Projects
Antiquity or Ancient history W W W W W W
Ancient Greece W W W W W W W
Ancient Rome W W W W W W
Roman Republic W
Roman Empire W
Greek mythology W W W W W W
Roman mythology W W
Latin Language W W W
WikiProject Council.svg Related Projects
Archeology W W W W W W W W W W W W W
Byzantine Empire W W W W W
Greece W W W W W W W W W W
Cyprus W W W W W
I actually quite like this! I think that this is more suitable for display on the main page. At the same time, I see no reason to get rid of the old table--I would just move it to a subpage and place a link in the new table. It could be very useful to see the actual names of these projects at times. I'm also wondering why some things are in alphabetical order and others are not. Prometheus720 (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
One other tradeoff worth mentioning: Merged cells prevent using visualeditor and also sortable columns. An alternative could be to put 'Related Projects' as a separate table of the same width below the main table. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Evolution and evolvability: Thanks for your work! Maybe the best option would be this: in the main page using your table splitted into two, in order to make them sortable; in a subpage, the old table. Bye, --Epìdosis 10:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Evolution and evolvability and Epìdosis: it's good.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I am definetly for more compactness. Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo). --Camelia (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Cuties[edit]

Hi, if you are going to wikimania (some of you) you will learn about the Wikimedia Cuteness Association. So the idea is to have a animal as a mascot for the affiliate. We have to make it ouselves because of trademark and copyright. Or we ask permission to the person who does it.

Now I can find a contact to do one. The owl is still owned by the UG of libraries, we can go for a lion, or for an hydra representing for example our crossplatform nature. What do you think?

Again I am not sure we will get there but if you want, give some advice. What about the color pattern for example? Let me know. One day I'll think about it.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I will be there, but sorry, for me this Cuteness Association is nothing more than nonsense. So I will only boycot this. And now have a nice table, and a logo, and a name, and the approval by the WMF. All fine. But maybe we should now start to work together? This group only make sense, if we really work together. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Marcus Cyron I am constantly looking for projects. But we are organizing WLM2019 in Toscany so I cannot be the one pushing with a new idea right now. This cuties thing is just a thing i was told in Portugal, I just shared with you. I don't like the idea per se, but I am at your disposition. Like the rest. We are doing some work about properties on wikidata specifically for mapping archeological and classical sites, we discussed it briefly at WikiDataDays in Portugal too, but I'd say the next event we planned is the on line edit a thon. I am also trying to find a place wth WMCH for conference since it'ìs perfectly half a way between Italy and Germany, but this will take time. It's mostly up to you, if you bring a specific project, as main organizer, I am sure you will see poeple join. I am here to catalyze the work more than to propose it. Than there is the rest of the on-wiki organization of work and I am sure Epìdosis is much better than I am on that, especially with the preparation of WLM2019.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I can't see any downsides. I'd be tempted to go with a wolf due to the link with Rome, but I have to know what a cute hydra looks like. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
To be honest, when it was suggested to me by the boyfirned of the girl who did the cutie for WMPT, I though it was an interesting idea. Yes, wolf is also possible.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Attack on the category system[edit]

I'm on Wiki projects long enough to know, that this is just the beginn of an attack on the system. They don't understand this, so they wanna destroy it. We should prevent people without knowledge from interfer our working area. And to be honest, I'm not really understand the problem. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Marcus Cyron: In situations like this it's important to assume good faith. I would need to see compelling evidence before describing a deletion proposal as an 'attack' which implies malicious intent to knowingly damage the category structure. Instead, what is important is to communicate the role of the category and what purpose it serves. Our role should be to work collaboratively and educate our peers. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks. The first serious thing - and no help, just empty words. Maybe this is not the right place for me. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
@Marcus Cyron: I intend to take part in the discussion, but I want to make sure we are not making it harder for ourselves by poisoning the well for collaboration. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I missed these converstaion, I am very active on WLM now and also to improve Twitter as a communication channel. I ma here because I was pinged. I'll take a look asap.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Include other classics within UG's scope[edit]

As much as this user group's name suggest, I see no reason why it should only include Greek/Roman classics. Classics in other languages may be facing similar problems, as much as I understand the focus of the group maybe Greek/Roman due to the overwhelming amount of editors from Europe/America, it is wise not to exclude other classics in the group's scope. Viztor (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Viztor I am very open, we just wanted to start to something not too much broad. it's not about the distribution of editors. people in the USA can have a very different approach on these topics than many European Countries, it's mostly about those civilizations close to the area of the Mediterranean basin. The group is still very much important for a lot of Northern African and Asian users, potentially. it's about Rome and Greece but also Etruscans, Phoenicia, Ptolemaic Egypt, Hellenistic Persia... and the role of classical culture in the next ages (including in the Islamic culture). That's already a lot. My advice would be to end the first year as UG and be confirmed, and than maybe enlarge the group, but you are welcome to propose an enlargement sooner if it's appropriate and nobody finds a clear reason to oppose it. As long as you bring some work in that. It takes some time to find an identity, we all come from very different backgrounds and have different visions. --Alexmar983 (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

On german language Wikipedia our scope are Europe, the mediteranean area and the near eastern cultures from bronze age until the middle ages and the Islam. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I feel like different local language edition could focus on the classics their community is most interested in, and by expanding the scope we're involving more language edition projects and I think that would be particularly helpful for the group. I am generally interested in all classics, Greek, Roman, Chinese and I find some of the ideas quite similar, and an improved understanding of all of them would be helpful to better comprehend the work of our ancestors. Some of the more interesting questions I find myself fascinated about is how these ideas bump into each other though trade route, and how the whole dynamic of ancient culture works. I hope someone is just as interested about these as I am, haha. Viztor (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
And here we are at the funny point: I would not see chinese cultures in our definition as a "classic" coulture. On the other site it would be possible to define the whole "old world" until a certain point (this point would differ in a lot of regions) as the classic region. At the end, we should start here with the graeco-roman world and their direct cultures at the edges as italicans, etruscans, cypriots, minoan, mycenean and cycladic people. There is much enough to do. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's talk about biographies[edit]

@Epìdosis, Alexmar983, Camelia.boban, OrbiliusMagister, FocalPoint, Ilbuonme, Christelle Molinié, Mizardellorsa, Tursclan, Saintfevrier, SurdusVII, Marcus Cyron, Romulanus, Gts-tg, Geraki, Sp!ros, DerHexer, Ijon, Sir Henry, Eunostos, T8612, Renato de carvalho ferreira, Taketa, 4nn1l2, DerMaxdorfer, DarwIn, Prof.Lippold, Hartmann Linge, and Xenophôn:

Hi everyone! Wikipedias' gender gaps are well-known, but fortunately there are groups who actively work to address the imbalance. The page for WikiClassics says that the group's scope includes biographies of researchers, so my question is what can we do as a User Group to support these initiatives? Richard Nevell (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Shall we make a list of 10 women researchers and target ... say 50% minimum of articles about them at all wikis we are active? and/or another 50 women researchers to really fill up all wikidata for them? --FocalPoint (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The en:Wikipedia:Women's Classical Committee is very active, I have recently interacted with them on twitter [1] and [2] but they did not join us and in no way I wanted to look "aggressive". We had an idea with User:Camelia.boban to do something sepcifically on the topic. We can join WikiDonne in some international campaing and if they do so I think it will just sounds better. We can make some wikidata list of missing articles. It's feasable. Plus, I have expertise on the wikicite aspect which is weak in the area of some social science, so a lot of wikidata items to be updated.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I think that the WCC is a little anglocentric in its activities, I think we can agree on an international campaign with them. But I suppose that Cemlia is a much better ambassador to the idea, she organized many similar events in the past. Me and Epìdosis we can arrange a small meeting in Pisa about that, but it can be mostly on line.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, to be honest, I have my problems with such projects. We made a project on de:WP to create articles of all professors on german speaking Universities in the three mayor classics subjects (philology, archaeology, history) and we now have all those articles since modern time classics, starting with Heyne. We never cared about the gender of the persons. We just do it completely. We can not close gaps onwiki that came from outsite our projects. There are orfourse a lot of researchers without articles. But of both genders. Btw - a list of 10 female classicists seems to be impossible. Morata, Dacier, Harrison, Sellers Strong, Boyed-Hawes, Bieber, Norsa, Goldman, Richter, Jastrow, Delcourt, Toynbee, Speier. 13 and I had to ignore some important just born before 1900. Other people would see others as more and some of mine less important. And there are missing all younger ones, as the last year deceased Erika Simon for example. Just for fun we have an (ofcourse incopmplete) gallery of scholars of ancient european, mediteranean and near eastern civilizations: de:Wikipedia:Redaktion Altertum/Altertumswissenschaftler/Ahnengalerie. Because I wanna see the results, I marked women with a ♀. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Marcus Cyron: I'm unclear on what problem you have wihh such projects. Could you elaborate? Richard Nevell (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any cause for this, definetly not in the german language Wikipedia. Even it's a thousand times said, we did not have a gender problem here. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Marcus Cyron: The fact that less than 10% of the biographies on classicist on de.wp are about women suggests there is a problem. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
It probbaly means that if we do so, we don't do it on dewiki but on other wikis, which is similar to what occurs in other gender-gap activities. Please notice that we are all from different backgrounds and communities, so we are building step by step how a cross/meta-project works. It's easy for the Med project for example, all deaseases are relevant, and there is a standardized way to discuss such scientific topics but it will never be the same for us. We need some tactical flexibility on some issues.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Is not a problem if some have issues with this kind of projects, we are all here to write about our interests, so I will write these biographies (mostly) in Italian. Let's complete this list first. --Camelia (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Ofcourse! Please! Write about whatever you want! I could make you a list of 250 female researchers of interest without any problem. My problem begins where we don't do this, becaus we wanna do it, but because of politics featured with false statements. I for myself wrote a lot of biographies about early female archaeologists, because I was interested in this theme. Not because of gaps. They were interesting and they are of a special importance. But the most of them are not of this mayor importance, that an encyclopedia could not exist without them. Emilie Boer, Marie Delcourt, Helene Homeyer, Gred Ibscher, Gerda Krüger, Claire Préaux, Jelena Michailowna Schtajerman, Éva B. Bónis, Olwen Brogan, Gerda Bruns, Ersilia Caetani-Lovatelli, Edith Eccles, Elvira Fölzer, Hildegund Gropengiesser, Margarethe Gütschow, Helga von Heintze, Elisabeth Jastrow, Annalis Leibundgut, Gertrud Platz, Isabelle Raubitschek, Helga Reusch, Gisela M. A. Richter, Elisabeth Rohde, Margot Schmidt, Hermine Speier, Margaret Thompson. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be lovely. Marcus only has appetite for a "completist" project, but I think it's perfectly okay to make a dent in a large void, and that if all you can manage for the short term is a dent, it is perfectly okay to prefer that dent to also eat into the gender gap.
I also like the idea of combining Wikidata work -- as a foundational fact-gathering activity that could serve and help article writers in all languages -- with article writing and translating. I suggest we start a subpage, such as /Classicists, to organize the work. Let's get cracking! Ijon (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The fact that less than 10% of the biographies on classicist on de.wp are about women suggests there is a problem. Dear @Richard Nevell: - what do you know about the history of the classiscs? In history of the classics, there are much less than 10% women of encyclopedic interest, that's a fact. It is completely unscientific to see just what you wanna have and not, and how it is or was. We can't change history! Beginning with Petrarca over centuries nearly all researchers in the field of classics were male. You can say, this was bad, you can say, this was terribe, you ca say, this was wrong and also very stupid, because so much talent was unused. But it's a fact. It was not before the middle of the 20th century, that the situation changed in some countries, in some more, in others less. In some areas more and faster (Archaeology), in other slowlier and not that fast (History). Did you know, how much women are with a biography in the 6th supplement of the New Pauly? 12. 12 of ca. 750! And it's not because of the bad men, who did not wanna see women there. It's because of the history of this field of research. Archäologenbildnisse features 164 (in) german publishing (classical) archaeologists - just 2 of them are female. You can do such a project, everybody can, no problem. But please stop telling untrue things! 10% women of all classical scientists are more than correct. The percentage will grow, because now females are much often in important positions. More and more women can do their scientific work and can become important in a encyclopedic way. But there will probaby never a 50/50 situation. We can not change history backwards! And this is my problem! If you wanna say, de:WP has a bias, then it's because of the wide majority of german speaking researchers. The attempt to change (scientific) history, the attempt to work with numbers that are not to understand in the way you do it here and as last to use this for a political fight! If you do this not because you are interested in the biographies, but because of to try to fix not existing "gender gaps", we will have a problem! So I like much more the idea of @Ijon:. Wikidata as a place to collect as much as possible data for those persons. It's often enough, that it's hard to find informations for other language scientists. I do this since a loger time for german classicists. I would like to see more data collections about scientists from other areas, escpecially of those I don't understand the language or can not even read it because of other alphabets. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a low percentage as a problem per se untill I have other data in the framework. I just like to help people do what they want to do as long as it improves wikipedia. Also, I like to work with WikiDonne in general, they are a very tolerant group. If it helps, I can assure that in Italian we pay attention to all biographies even in the gener-gap activities, if we find information about husbands, mentors and so on we always enrich those as well, so in my language focusing on gender gap is not a strong statement in general, it can work as starting point more than as a goal and it works in any case. It can be a goal for some of the volunteers, for many others it's a nice way to spend time working with nice and helpful wikimedians. On Wikidata, I work already a lot in the directions of items of reserachers and it's going well, so i can focus on that part a little bit more.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I would like to see such an project and I also would support this active. And once more - I don't have a problem with a list of 10 of the most important female classicists, that should be on all projects. But because they were important and interesting, not because of politics. I would more than this like to see a group of 25, 50 or 100 biographies on all projects, and I would like not to care about their gender. Just because a person was important. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Marcus Cyron: It seems that the crux of your concern is that this is some attempt at ‘revisionist’ history, to suggest that there have always been equal number of women working in classics as men. I want to reassure you that’s not the case. The point of projects addressing the gender gap is to document the work of notable women working in the field which is important as research has found that there’s a glass ceiling which means that women have to be ‘more notable’ to be included on Wikipedia. It is unlikely that Wikipedia will reach 50:50 representation in its biographies because of historical sexism. There is no doubting that research by women in the past has been marginalised, and their work ignored. To ignore that would be a disservice to those who worked hard to achieve equality, but at the same time we need to be careful not to replicate and further crystallise structures of power which have marginalised women and their research.
Archäologenbildnisse was written in the 1970s and 1980s, so is a good snapshot of the perception of the subject at the time. Only 11 of the authors contributing the Archäologenbildnisse were women, and while second wave feminism was having an effect clearly the work of female scholars wasn’t as valued as that of men at the time. It is inconceivable that a similar project now, even written about archaeologists working before the 1980s, would have included just two women. It’s not a problem unique to Archäologenbildnisse, though it is an extreme example. The Database of Classical Scholars has just over 800 biographies of classicists, but only 9% of them are about women. That might make 10% sound good, but a significant contributing factor to the imbalance is because you only get an entry in there after you have died, and since classics was a predominantly male field until the mid-20th century the 9% figure is not necessarily surprising. The Oxford Biographical Dictionary has a similar problem because (1) historically individual women are less well documented than men because of gender inequality (2) living people aren’t included in its entries. If we are holding up collections such as Archäologenbildnisse as the benchmark we need to be aware of the inherent biases in the source material and not use it as an excuse not to aim higher. They set their own framework, as do we. Our key restriction is ‘notability’ and while that puts us at the mercy of the source material there is certainly more ground to be covered.
It is marvellous that all the professors at German-speaking universities within the fields of archaeology, history, and philology have articles – that must have been a very time-consuming and rewarding project. But Wikipedia will never be finished, with as more people becoming notable over time and more people documenting previous scholars. The idea that classics ends at the boundary of the university is flawed; there are librarians, members of research centres and learned societies, and independent scholars who don’t hold university posts. If the focus is solely on professors, we will end up overlooking notable people who contribute to our understanding of classics. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
OK. We will not come together. You see this all from an ideologic site, I see it from a scientific site. You bringt not one argument except "the bad men before the 1970s, 1980s did not accepted women". And even this woud be true, it would not change the realities. But I'm out here. Makes no sense to discuss this. It is impossible to come up with facts against feelings. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Marcus Cyron: That's not quite what I was trying to say. If there is one takeaway from this it would be that if you are using a particular benchmark to justify an approach you need to question how good that benchmark is. Saying that you don't care about gender is just as much an ideological stance as saying that we should care about it. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Classics[edit]

So... since I am very active on WLM and I also gear an international photo competition (WSC) I though about requesting a grant for "Wiki Loves Classics" that is giving a prize among the best WLM (semi)finalists related to the topics of this UG. Just a small idea to get recognized and make chapters understand we are here to help them and support their activities (for some reason some chapters and UG do not get along). I had a very preliminary interaction with WMPT who supported the idea, let me know. I have to make a local grant for WLM now, so this will come in the next weeks.

Ideally, the funding should be for 1-2 prizes and maybe shipping a certificate printed on high quality paper (I have good local sponsor here in Tuscany). Material will be sent to the local chapter or UG organizing WLM in the country of the winner. The big effort is to create a summary page with WLM sites that are related to the topic, and a landing page on commons, but we have the expertise. This cen be done mostly scrolling other countries lists. Having a jury will be a nice way to engage some of the members of the UG The social media strategy should not be a big problem, our twitter account is robustly growing.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Before talking about prizes, we should talk about, what do we wanna do in such an event. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
If there's a way to pool classics related images from across the competitions that would be fantastic. The UK competition is based on information stored in wikidata, but I don't think items are mapped to particular periods so I'm not sure where we stand on automation. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
A lot of them are Wikidata based, I think we should however get them one by one to get an idea. the simplest way to do so is simply to monitor, a small group of motivated users, all incoming images from WLM and add a specific category for those related to classics. We can also add later a specific code on wikidata for WLM-classics and to do so we can make queries for some types to narrow the research, such as item with WLM IDs with "instance of: vase/temple/ruins" and so on. It's not impossible, it's just a very tight schedule, I am sorry I had the idea so late. But without the prize, if that is not sure, there is no big point in doing it. But the core promotional idea is quite simple, we highlight the best image(s) of these topics. the most informative image of an artifact for example, the best scenery and so on. We can actually select categories that are meaningful to us. Plus, we also end up monitoring all the files on the topic, they require better descriptions in many languages on commons and better categorization in any case. This is just a way to force us to do it immediately. And once it's completed we can all make an edit-a-thon about those specific winner(s).
If it is logistically far fetched for this year, we can do it next year, or we can do it better next year but stil try to do something this year. For example we don't make any specific advertisement until we are sure about the prize and we don't create a landing page immediately, but we clean up all the uploaded files, we get an idea, and we end up with a series of images where we can select some winners. Next year, with the infrastructure we have built, we can start with a bigger goal on September the 1st.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft[edit]

Hi these are the rules, I would like to propose something for early August. I am discussing here with Epìdosis and giving some advice. These grants are usually geographically based so we are going to be "outside of the box". I am collecting information for the proposal draft but first we want to be sure there is a margin (I hope there is). I won't be particularly greedy, so I hope they will trust us for a small amount.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I have improved the gallery (I will continue later) and I am going to ask for the grant program. --Epìdosis 13:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Asked. --Epìdosis 13:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Draft in my sandbox. --Epìdosis 14:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@DarwIn and Richard Nevell: since you were more involved in this discussion on wiki and off wiki, I think that we have to be sure national chapters and geographical UGs find it useful. We want to promote our goal to quality and outreach, so I hope this is understood. I will also discuss as soon as I have more time with User:Camelia.boban and see if her experience in AffCom and/or CEE can help us to promote more balanced jury and activities. Overall, I think it has a good potential. If we can promote this strategy, this will maybe pave the way to other "transnational" effort for areas where the community is reactive.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ilbuonme, Saintfevrier, and Ijon: @SurdusVII, DerHexer, and Geraki: @Camelia.boban, FocalPoint, and Tursclan: @Romulanus, Christelle Molinié, and Mizardellorsa: @Marcus Cyron, Xenophôn, and Prof.Lippold: @DarwIn, DerMaxdorfer, and 4nn1l2: @Taketa, T8616, and Eunostos: @Sp!ros, Gts-tg, and Hartmann Linge: are you all there? Thank you for coming here. Let me explain.

So,there are many things we will do and we can do but this month is the only one when we can submit a grant for WLM. So we need your feedback now on our idea.

Now, to be clear... the grant we have in mind is potentially critical... it's a unicum and the WLM funding is supposed to be geographically based, but it's a very interesting opportunity. So with User:Epìdosis we prepared a draft (see his sandbox) and the basic idea is to revise the uploaded images for WLM2019, and select those related to Classics.

If they give us some funding we will also give maybe 1-3 prizes. Otherwise, we will perform (at least me and him) all this procedure as a useful exercise. We will select the best possible images and create content based on them. It's also a possibility to explore types of files that are maybe boring for a generic audience (such as inscriptions) and have no chance to win, but are useful for us. Also, it's a way to reach out to countries that are not present in our "pool" yet. Plus, it's something that can pave way to future similar transnational iniatives.

Do you like the idea? Even in the case our request will be rejected, would you like to join us at least as jurors in the final steps? And help us polish the finalists (better descriptions, related article enlargement)?

Also, do you have personal contact with your related chapters and UGs to whom you can show this is a good idea? In few days we will create the final draft with the minigrant scaffolding, than crossed finger but please give us you feedback. and maybe your support. This could be the first international initiative we do as a group.--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I support everything, that works on the projects content. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I have no objection, but am not personally motivated to spend my volunteer time on this. I'm a text-only kind of guy. :) Ijon (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Ijon we do all that we can do but please if possible start to inform your chapter, i think that as long as they understand we are there to increase the chance of winning of their uploaders, it should be fine, but there is some political undertone. WMF cares a lot about cooperation, so many problems in the last years.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The proposal of a grant to support prizes for photographs on subjects related to WikiClassics is great! I fully support and endorse it, and though I cannot speak for the board, I'm pretty sure Wikimedia Portugal, as a chapter, will be happy to promote that in our national contest.--- Darwin Ahoy! 18:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Epìdosis since the first comments in this phase are all positive, I think you should start to insert the scaffolding for the grant proposal in your sandbox so we can move it in the next days. Thank you!--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Camelia.boban do you think you can start to reach out to countries such as Algeria or Albania? For example at Wikimania (not sure if Epìdosis can be there). We have nobody from those areas, we should inform them as soon as possible so the proposal is not a total surprise.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I can help with CEE countries and North Africa. --Camelia (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Nice idea. I like your suggestion of a prize dedciated to artworks or buildings with inscriptions or writings, since I specifically support the activities of this group related to languages. -Mizardellorsa (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
...also plaques. There are a lot of plaques (almost in Latin, but coul be searched in other languages too) on the building. --Camelia (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Nice idea, happy to help. —DerHexer (Talk) 19:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
DerHexer we will do the selection manually so you could help to spot the images in your country. We plan to add a hidden category. Than of course you can be part of the selection jury.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, User:Epìdosis updated the sandbox, I am preparing c:Commons:Wiki Loves Classics and categories and subpages. we are ready to move the proposal, do you have any last comments?--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: This would be useful for the UK competition, and WLM-UK could encourage people to take photos of Roman monuments. I don't think we have time for this year, but perhaps for the future we could use Pleiades as the basis of the competition? Richard Nevell (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Richard Nevell I do not know Pleaides very well but User:epìdosis probably do (I recall some proposal of some wikidata IDs). So, yes next year can be much better, with more infrastructure. Manual selection is old fashioned but in the current timeline we have no time to set up anything more "efficient". We will however analyze carefully the situation for 2020. So, please if you can inform UK about this draft that would be great, so I can point this out in the final proposal (I sent this afternoon a mail to Epìdosis to move the draft, it's a matter of few days).
Also, can I add you to our jury in c:Commons:Wiki Loves Classics 2019 (please it's the same for you all)?--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

For WLM Greece the monuments list is already Wikidata based and photos can be easily tagged by their WLM id. https://w.wiki/7Bb We will filter this by another property: [3] Next days we will add more items. Feel free to add P1435:Q29048715 to any ancient monument in Greece missing this property, and we will assign a WLM id to it. --Geraki TL 15:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Greece UG WLM2019 grant[edit]

Hi all, dont' forget to support the Greek proposal Grants:Project/Rapid/UG_GR/Wiki_Loves_Monuments_in_Greece_2019 in the meantime. User:Magioladitis, User:MARKELLOS I have no idea if User:Geraki informed you of our proposal but I ping you also here.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately the budget for all WLM rapid grants proposals was cut to 50% per decision by the WMF... :-( -Geraki TL 15:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Romanian WLM2019 grant[edit]

Another grant we should support is Grants:Project/Rapid/WMROMD/Wiki Loves Monuments 2019 in Romania. User:Strainu hi, I ping also you since you are the writer of this current draft. We are the WikiClassics UG and we are going to submit a proposal for the cultural heritage images related to Classics. Our goal is to improve the content related to our topics and we also hope to get funding for some additional prizes. This way photographers of temple or artifacts or tombs or plaques related to these topics (also in your countries) have higher chance of winning another prize. --Alexmar983 (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

CC CEllen, Andrei Stroe. Thanks for letting us know, we'll see how we can best collaborate. Strainu (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Strainu basically, we will add a manual hidden category to the uploaded files if related to Wiki Loves Classics so if you want, we can give you the instruction and you can also add it yourselves while checking the files. We will revise them a second tme of course, but that's the way we will populate the category for the evaluation.--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

CFP: Classics and Civic Activism[edit]

If we would have someone in the area of Washington DC, it could be interesting for us as Wikimedia projects to be presented there as an example for Civic Activism in the field of Classics. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

We lack some Americans so far. But if you find somebody, fine with me, it's a useful activity in our list.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)