Talk:Wikimedia movement affiliates
up to date?
- @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)
Proposal - make this the default talk page for all subpages
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
(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)