Talk:Www.wikimedia.org template/2012

Removal of Meta-Wiki and Incubator

MZMcBride removed Meta-Wiki and Incubator (diff, diff). Any reason to add or keep removed? –Krinkle^talk 11:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Incubator should be kept! This site is entry point for all those whose languages ​​are not represented in the Wikimedia world! --Kaganer (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that's relevant. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Should be reverted, IMHO. They haven't ceased to be Wikimedia projects and such removals MUST be discussed before. Max Semenik (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

https://www.wikimedia.org has never listed every Wikimedia project (or family of projects), as far as I'm aware. For example, while File:Wikimedia logo family complete.svg includes a Wikimania logo, www.wikimedia.org template does not. (Though perhaps you think it should?) Meanwhile similar lists of projects such as wmf:Our projects have never listed projects such as Meta-Wiki or Wikimedia Incubator.

Template:Sisterprojects distinguishes between content projects and "backstage" projects. Is there a reason you think Meta-Wiki or the Wikimedia Incubator need to be listed on wikimedia.org? Are there others you feel are missing? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here, Krinkle. I removed the two icons as I view those projects more as administrative or "backstage" projects rather than content projects. But more importantly, the page had become awkwardly imbalanced with only two icons on the bottom row. I'm not opposed to re-adding those icons, but I think the page balance/layout has to be considered and I think we should come up with clearer guidelines for what is and isn't included (Wikimania wiki, Wikitech wiki, Outreach wiki, Strategic Planning wiki, etc.). --MZMcBride (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Meta-Wiki is the public face of the Wikimedia community and movement, so it's the most relevant presence of the portal. ;-) It's also the entry point for all backstage wikis, including those which were or are now part of Meta itself (like Wikimania or Usability, and the now-locked [!] strategy:), no need to add those as well.

The incubator hosts "content" but is not fully a content wiki, nor really a "backstage" one. For the public-facing aspects, it's now very well served by the links from the non-existing subdomains; for the internal aspects, it's way more effective to be part of the new languages process here on Meta. I'm not sure.

As for the order, I think projects are sorted by pageviews but the other wikis like Meta should indeed be the last ones. I've reverted the change for now, let's wait for comments from Meta and Incubator. Nemo 08:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nemo - odd action to take without discussion. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This change and discussion was uncalled for. Such removal should have been discussed with the general public instead of immediately executing it without support from the relevant communities. --Hydriz (talk) 10:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This wiki (and this too) ;) Of course, a good thing when all previously discussed with everyone - but not necessarily in the wiki. However, there is an opportunity to express their discontent, and to revert those changes, which caused protests. So do not focus on the actions of the brave MZMcBride - better discuss what logos should be on this page, and on what reasons. --Kaganer (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hydriz: Do you have a link to the discussion about adding Wikivoyage and Wikidata? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

About "links from the non-existing subdomains" what "now very well served": e.g. yrk.wikipedia.org or tyv.wikipedia.org is not "very well served" because is not worked (but I've seen a worked redirection for other codes). These links "well served" only for those who know the language code and realized that it can be so used. Incubator - entry point that does not require such knowledge.--Kaganer (talk) 11:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't think Meta should be on the portal page. I'm not sure how it at all relates to the others - Meta is for organization, cross-wiki coordination, etc. and not in the same category as Wikipedia, Wikiversity or Wikidata. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Incubator should unquestionably be there. Yes, it's a bit "meta" in scope and initial appearance, but it hosts content, doesn't it? As for Meta-Wiki, I would prefer to keep it there as well, as it is a central port-of-call for all things Wikimedia-movement-related.

Having said that, Wikivoyage should be moved above the "meta" wikis, since it is unquestionably a content project. This, that and the other (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)