- 1 2008 discussion
- 2 Wikipedia: count 100k+ editions
- 3 Wikitionary
- 4 Adding Wikivoyage and Wikidata
- 5 Describing MediaWiki
- 6 Wikidata description sentence is getting old
- 7 Project's licenses mentioning
- 8 Counts
- 9 "to allow third-party users to freely reuse the data available, unlike other Wikimedia projects."
I think we need to remove meta from this page. The others are projects we propose to the public. Meta, along with officewiki, boardwiki, advisoryboardwiki, incubatorwiki etc... are all "organizational" wikis. There are not a goal, but simply a mean. Does any one see a reason not to remove it ? Anthere 15:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm ok with the removal. guillom 19:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia: count 100k+ editions
"... Nine other language editions contain 100,000+ articles, ..."
I am slightly concerned the front page of the English Wiktionary says "Wiktionary is run by the Wikimedia Foundation," That seems inaccurate; I left them a note since I don't really edit there. --AndrewCates (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is being discussed at wikt:en:Talk:Main Page, for anybody who is interested. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I just came here to post the same, except I was going to provide a permanent link: <https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary_talk:Main_Page&oldid=18064955#Main_page_error.3F>. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Adding Wikivoyage and Wikidata
Wikivoyage has now been added. Current issues I see:
- Wikidata still needs to be added
- Top navigation bar doesn't include "Wikivoyage"
- Top navigation bar will also need to include "Wikidata"
- Order of wiki families is unclear; should be cleaned up (pick alphabetical, by age, by size, etc.) and then explain at the top of the page
- I'm not a div expert but perhaps we could have the entries organized in two divs that would stand next to each other while they fit in one line, but then be one on top of the other if the width of the page is reached?--Qgil (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- That is possible with some @media parameters, but it might be ugly. A vertical navigation (like ) might work. However, I see this page as simply holding a brief description of what the projects are and then having more beautiful & complete pages like Spotlight on Wikimedia Commons - that format could be adapted for the other projects. Monomium (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's perfectly possible without @media parameters. You just need to make two sublists and then include them as part of a larger list. So... <ul><li><ul><li>Wikipedia</li></ul></li><li><ul><li>Wiktionary</li></ul></li></ul> or something.
- More spotlights might be nice, yeah. The relevant underlying code feels very hackish and glued together, though, so we'll need to work on that. The less raw HTML, the better. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikivoyage is a project dedicated to creating a free and open travel guide which anyone can edit. It originally began in December 2006 as a German language fork of Wikitravel when this site was acquired by a for profit company. In November of 2012 it launch in beta as a WMF project with approximate 50,000 articles in seven languages. Official launch is expected around January 15th, 2013.
I would like to discuss this edit. All entries are providing some basic statistics. What is wrong about saying that the MediaWiki maintains more than 5 million lines of code? I'm sure most will be surprised by this number. "several projects' alone doesn't do any justice to the hundreds of repositories aka projects that we currently have. Most people don't have a clue what MediaWiki is, and many that do think only about MediaWiki core plus some extentions. But mediawiki.org is a lot more than that.
Also, what is wrong about highlighting the fact that it's not only a community of developers, and many other technical profiles can be found there? Again, this is probably a surprise to many - including many developers and technical profiles, potential contributors unaware about what mediawiki.org has for them. I know the rest of projects are not making calls for contributors but all of them are primarily about editing + uploading media in the case of Commons. MediaWiki is an exception and I think it's worth to stress this.
The entry is quite short related to others. I don't this it hurts to add the little extra. Of course if you have better ways to express this I'm happy to see improvements to my text, but I hope at least the point is clear now. Thanks.--Qgil (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's a matter of balance and motivation. Your job is to promote and advocate for MediaWiki, so when you write on this subject, everyone should be wary. The five million lines of code may have a place in the blurb, but you'd need to demonstrate relevance and demonstrate its validity as a metric. Do lines of code really make up a project? Can we deduct 10,000 lines of code for every open bug? :-) And it'd be trivial to minify or un-minify files in a way that dramatically alters this metric. What value do you see in saying that the MediaWiki project has over five million lines of code?
- The metric's placement in the blurb also suggested a form of wiki-dick measuring that I found distasteful. That is, the balance of the blurb started shifting in a way I don't like.
- If you're interested in including stats, maybe you can include the number of volunteer contributors or the number of MediaWiki extensions or other stats that feel more insightful.
- Including a prominent link to mw:How to contribute isn't really appropriate as it doesn't fit in with any of the other blurbs and that page is not anywhere near ready to be advertised (it's currently a large wall of text).
- There's also nothing wrong with highlighting that MediaWiki is more than just developers, but as I understand it, your job is to promote and advocate for MediaWiki and that seems to be what you're using this blurb for. This blurb is not intended to be part of a recruitment brochure. It's intended to describe what MediaWiki is, what work it encompasses, and how it fits into the greater Wikimedia ecosystem (cf. all the other blurbs that describe volunteer projects without actively attempting to recruit volunteers). It's a balancing act, but I believe your edits went too far in the wrong direction, so I partially reverted. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, fair enough. The current writing is an improvement compared with the version that I found yesterday. The 5M LOC tried to address this problem: most people have no idea about the quantity, magnitude and diversity of projects we have under the MediaWiki umbrella. I wish I knew how many active contributors the MediaWiki community has. We have about 500 active developer and about 500 active bugzilla users, but we don't know whether those 500 are the same or not. We can also know how many users are active editing wiki pages at mediawiki.org, and how many are active in mailing lists. Still, the overall number is unknown. Anyway, the current text is good enough. Thank you.--Qgil (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikidata description sentence is getting old
"Wikidata is a new project hosted and maintained by Wikimedia." - this is getting old because Wikidata is no longer in its infancy, and the part about it being hosted and maintained by the foundation is redundant, in my opinion. If no-one objects, I'll remove this sentence.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have no objection to this. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Project's licenses mentioning
Under Wikipedia's total # of articles, I took some liberty and listed the major languages of the world while skipping two languages (Cebuano and Waray-Waray). My reason is that those languages have small userbase, few speakers in the world, and their low depth count. Low depth count may indicate that most articles were written by bots and tended to be short. If we have to list them based solely on article count, feel free to add those two languages back in. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
"to allow third-party users to freely reuse the data available, unlike other Wikimedia projects."
I think we should be a bit more careful with the use of the word "freely". Technically all the Creative Commons licenses are considered "free" content licenses, despite the attribution requirement, so I don't think it is good to say "unlike".