Talk:Wikimedia movement affiliates
I propose to close wmmk:, any one who oppose me or not? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
up to date?[edit]
@JAnstee (WMF): Is this an authoritative overview? I note that at least Macau and Macedonia are still listed. Effeietsanders (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Effeietsanders: Oops, I missed this note until now. Thanks, it seems that no one has come along the page to remark for translation since these were removed from the template this page draws from. They are not on the templated page. JAnstee (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
A suggestion[edit]
Please add Wikimedia Korea to the list of chapters. It's a recently approved chapter affiliate. [1] --Agusbou2015 (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Proposal - make this the default talk page for all subpages[edit]
At Special:PrefixIndex/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/ there are 324 subpages of this page, each of which have their own talk page. Most talk pages are blank and inactive. Some of them have discussions. I propose that all of these subpages redirect to here by default, and that anyone making new subpages should by default send the talk page here.
The problem that this would address is lack of centralized discussion. If this were the main talk page, then general discussion about Wikimedia movement affiliates could happen here. This page is high traffic for meta, getting 10,000 views a month. Wikimedia affiliates collectively have perhaps two hundred thousand members, many of whom might want to ask a question sometime or watch conversation.
If we do not have a central board then there is no obvious place to ask questions and also no one single place where people can subscribe for updates.
I think that Wikimedia Foundation staff created most of these subpages, perhaps with semi-automation.
Auto-generating subpages seems to be a systemic problem in meta which is making for weird communication problems which are nonexistent in other Wikimedia projects. Maybe there should be a general rule to centralize discussion to mainpages. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Support - centralize subpage discussion with redirects to this talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)- your name here please
Standardizing affiliate codes of geographic-based and language-based affiliates[edit]
(I'm not sure where the proper place for this proposal is, so I'm putting it here. I hope that's okay.)
For most geographic-based affiliates, the affiliate code is usually the standard ISO 3166 alpha-2 code of the relevant area (AR, DE, FI, etc). The standardization is useful for various things, such as allowing one to set up systems that can easily determine the organization's area automatically, or looking up an area's affiliate. However, the practice is not completely consistent. The affiliates for Albania, UAE, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, DR Congo, Hong Kong, Haiti, Guinea, Mali, Malaysia, Malta, Myanmar, New Zealand, Peru, Slovakia, Slovenia, Chad, Tanzania, Uganda, and Vietnam, use the alpha-3 codes, rather than the regular alpha-2 codes. And the affiliates for Cameroon, the Philippines, Sudan, and West Bengal appear to not use any established code at all.
There are also many affiliates for languages: Catalan, Basque, Esperanto, Erzya, Hindi, Swahili, Kazakh, Maithili, Punjabi, Odia, Santali, Tatar, Albanian, Marathi, Hausa, Igbo, Yoruba. None of these have a consistent code matching up to any standardized format.
I propose to standardize all of these. The geographic affiliates should all use ISO 3166 alpha-2 codes where possible, and the language-based affiliates should use a prefix to indicate that it's for a language, followed by a dash and the ISO language code (perhaps allowing for an optional geographic code as well). Thoughts on this? --Yair rand (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
suggestion re chapter[edit]
hi. is it possible to add an affiliates page for the USA as a whole, similar to other countries? I would like to ask for one to be set up. could you please let me know? thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Upcoming vote on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct[edit]
Hello all,
In mid-January 2023, the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct will undergo a second community-wide ratification vote. This follows the March 2022 vote, which resulted in a majority of voters supporting the Enforcement Guidelines. During the vote, participants helped highlight important community concerns. The Board’s Community Affairs Committee requested that these areas of concern be reviewed.
The volunteer-led Revisions Committee worked hard reviewing community input and making changes. They updated areas of concern, such as training and affirmation requirements, privacy and transparency in the process, and readability and translatability of the document itself.
The revised Enforcement Guidelines can be viewed here, and a comparison of changes can be found here.
How to vote?
Beginning January 17, 2023, voting will be open. This page on Meta-wiki outlines information on how to vote using SecurePoll.
Who can vote?
The eligibility requirements for this vote are the same as for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees elections. See the voter information page for more details about voter eligibility. If you are an eligible voter, you can use your Wikimedia account to access the voting server.
What happens after the vote?
Votes will be scrutinized by an independent group of volunteers, and the results will be published on Wikimedia-l, the Movement Strategy Forum, Diff and on Meta-wiki. Voters will again be able to vote and share concerns they have about the guidelines. The Board of Trustees will look at the levels of support and concerns raised as they look at how the Enforcement Guidelines should be ratified or developed further.
On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,