Talk:Translation requests/WMF/Our projects/en

It should be updated:

• stats details
• Some descriptions
• Wikinews should be mentioned.

Who can make an introduction of Wikinews? Eloqunce? --Aphaia 07:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

hello. why not to make something like wikimapia.org but not with google because it is not gnu fdl or compatible but with nasa maps which are public domain, but they unfortunately dont have web api, i consider, do they? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.232.124.61 (talk)

Spotlight on Wikimedia Commons

Why is this page in red? Wrong link or link to be removed? --Jacob 17:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The translation pages here are copies of the version on the foundation wiki (for example this page is : wikimedia:Our projects). The links work when they are on that wiki, so they should not be removed. Cbrown1023 talk 00:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary official logo

Wiktionary logo on Image:Wikimedia logo family.png is different from Image:Wiktionary-logo-en.png, Image:Wiktionary-logo-ru.png etc. What is considered an official Wiktionary logo? If the new logo, why language editions of Wiktionary is not changed their logos? --Kaganer 14:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That is one of questions I've asked and not got a clear answer yet. It should be sorted out sometime - but I'm not sure if it is now. How about bringing it up on foundation-l? It is a branding issue and the WMF should have an opinion as well as the community. --Aphaia 19:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Lyrics

Just curious if there are any plans for a lyrics wiki. --Wikipedia:PerlKnitter

Wikisource is for free cultural works only. --Damian Yerrick 18:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia

Russian Wikipedia has also more than 500.000 articles, should it be mentioned? --Egmontaℨ♤ 15:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiResearch

I am often faced with the "Original Research" message. Despite the painstaking efforts undertaken to explain, in simple, logical steps, the points I am trying to get across, because I am often unable to find published research papers or articles into the subject matter, are often challenged and rejected.
I propose a new Wiki that can address this problem. It would enable those such as myself to post original ideas and theories or original adjustments to existing theories allowing for alteration and discussion by others. This could provide a repository of knowledge which can be reviewed by leading experts and be given the due consideration that (at least some of) it deserves.
Obviously, it would have to be more fluid than current wikis as a large percentage of proposed articles will, at some point, be disproven (which could lead to the page being cut down to a title, brief synopsis and statement of fallacy). However, I believe that such a resource could be of immense benefit to (in the very least, scientific) community.

For example (in brief)- According to relativity, time is a function of speed (re: Atomic Clock tests). Depending on theory, the universe is acc/dec-elerating, i.e. moving at a different speed from 1 billion years ago. Therefore time must be moving at a different rate than it was 1 billion years ago, meaning that radioactive decay, etc. is at a different rate, etc. This would mean that the Earth and the Universe are (again, depending on theory) either younger or older than have been calculated.

There are no published papers (that I can find) or articles on this matter, and (even with the material I have omitted) it needs padding out and approaching from various viewpoints.

Ideas such as this could change our understanding of our world, yet, coming from a single person with no pieces of paper saying they're qualified to posit these theories, will often be ignored. Coming from the collective efforts of the Wiki community, a million voices, they can start to be taken seriously by the scientific community.Kendroche 07:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikidata and Wikivoyage?

Are we ready yet to add Wikidata and/or Wikivoyage? Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)