(I'm copying this to wikien-l since the issue of whether the English Wikipedia needs its own "meta" is probably better discussed there. See http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-March/thread.html for previous mails.)
Alex Schenck linuxbeak@gmail.com wrote:
A.) It would be heavily based upon most of the policies from en.wikipedia. Some things can change, but it will be a site designed with the purpose of being an extention of en.wikipedia instead of an entirely separate project. Meta2 will exist for Wikipedia instead of being a standalone project.
Does the community on the English Wikipedia need or want to be expanded in this way?
There has always been some opposition to moving anything to meta (though perhaps single login will alleviate some of the concerns).
There is currently confusion about what should be on the English Wikipedia and what should be on meta. "Don't be a dick" is on meta, but "Wikipedia:Complete bollocks" is on Wikipedia. Recentism is on Wikipedia, deletionism is on meta.
Is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_essays supposed to be different to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Essays ?
Are chess, quizzes, and humor pages supposed to be on meta or en? (They're currently on both).
Are you suggesting that all of this stuff would move to Meta2? Is there any advantage to that? Is there likely to be any agreement about it within the English Wikipedia community?
Angela.
What would *exactly* be on the english meta ?
What would editors do there ?
How would we handle duplications with meta ?
I can see some benefits for an english meta, but if the only arguments to set up one are 1) editors will have the benefits of following english wikipedia rules ----> what about the other projects in english ? 2) that meta will be clean of any historical pages (most of them actually being from english editors...) I would say that might not be sufficient.
Anthere
Angela wrote:
(I'm copying this to wikien-l since the issue of whether the English Wikipedia needs its own "meta" is probably better discussed there. See http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-March/thread.html for previous mails.)
Alex Schenck linuxbeak@gmail.com wrote:
A.) It would be heavily based upon most of the policies from en.wikipedia. Some things can change, but it will be a site designed with the purpose of being an extention of en.wikipedia instead of an entirely separate project. Meta2 will exist for Wikipedia instead of being a standalone project.
Does the community on the English Wikipedia need or want to be expanded in this way?
There has always been some opposition to moving anything to meta (though perhaps single login will alleviate some of the concerns).
There is currently confusion about what should be on the English Wikipedia and what should be on meta. "Don't be a dick" is on meta, but "Wikipedia:Complete bollocks" is on Wikipedia. Recentism is on Wikipedia, deletionism is on meta.
Is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_essays supposed to be different to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Essays ?
Are chess, quizzes, and humor pages supposed to be on meta or en? (They're currently on both).
Are you suggesting that all of this stuff would move to Meta2? Is there any advantage to that? Is there likely to be any agreement about it within the English Wikipedia community?
Angela. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hi, Can you give us a little more context? I can see that there is a proposal to create a separate meta wiki just for the english wikipedia, presumably because many things currently on meta.wikipedia are not really applicable to other wikipedias?
Wouldn't a new namespace (or even re-use of existing wikipedia: namespace) handle that?
Steve
On 3/30/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
What would *exactly* be on the english meta ?
What would editors do there ?
How would we handle duplications with meta ?
I can see some benefits for an english meta, but if the only arguments to set up one are
- editors will have the benefits of following english wikipedia rules
----> what about the other projects in english ? 2) that meta will be clean of any historical pages (most of them actually being from english editors...) I would say that might not be sufficient.
Anthere
Angela wrote:
(I'm copying this to wikien-l since the issue of whether the English Wikipedia needs its own "meta" is probably better discussed there. See http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-March/thread.html for previous mails.)
Alex Schenck linuxbeak@gmail.com wrote:
A.) It would be heavily based upon most of the policies from en.wikipedia. Some things can change, but it will be a site designed with the purpose of being an extention of en.wikipedia instead of an entirely separate project. Meta2 will exist for Wikipedia instead of being a standalone project.
Does the community on the English Wikipedia need or want to be expanded in this way?
There has always been some opposition to moving anything to meta (though perhaps single login will alleviate some of the concerns).
There is currently confusion about what should be on the English Wikipedia and what should be on meta. "Don't be a dick" is on meta, but "Wikipedia:Complete bollocks" is on Wikipedia. Recentism is on Wikipedia, deletionism is on meta.
Is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_essays supposed to be different to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Essays ?
Are chess, quizzes, and humor pages supposed to be on meta or en? (They're currently on both).
Are you suggesting that all of this stuff would move to Meta2? Is there any advantage to that? Is there likely to be any agreement about it within the English Wikipedia community?
Angela. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 30 Mar 2006, at 17:43, Angela wrote:
(I'm copying this to wikien-l since the issue of whether the English Wikipedia needs its own "meta" is probably better discussed there. See <http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-March/ thread.html> for previous mails.)
Until we have single sign in, meta is a minority interest.
Move things to en.wikipedia.org/Meta: if its about en.
Justinc
On 3/31/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 30 Mar 2006, at 17:43, Angela wrote:
(I'm copying this to wikien-l since the issue of whether the English Wikipedia needs its own "meta" is probably better discussed there. See http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-March/ thread.html for previous mails.)
Until we have single sign in, meta is a minority interest.
Move things to en.wikipedia.org/Meta: if its about en.
Justinc
No if it is pure En it should probably be in the wikipedia namespace.
-- geni
On 3/30/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
No if it is pure En it should probably be in the wikipedia namespace.
Unfortunately, people have gone through 'Essays should be in userspace or on Meta:' rampages before on En:.
-Matt
On 3/31/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/30/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
No if it is pure En it should probably be in the wikipedia namespace.
Unfortunately, people have gone through 'Essays should be in userspace or on Meta:' rampages before on En:.
-Matt
Yeah but now [[Wikipedia:Process is Important]] and [[WP:SNOW]] have a fairly solid position there I doubt anyone will suceed in future.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 3/31/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 30 Mar 2006, at 17:43, Angela wrote:
(I'm copying this to wikien-l since the issue of whether the English Wikipedia needs its own "meta" is probably better discussed there. See http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-March/ thread.html for previous mails.)
Until we have single sign in, meta is a minority interest.
Move things to en.wikipedia.org/Meta: if its about en.
No if it is pure En it should probably be in the wikipedia namespace.
Why?
On 3/31/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 3/31/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 30 Mar 2006, at 17:43, Angela wrote:
(I'm copying this to wikien-l since the issue of whether the English Wikipedia needs its own "meta" is probably better discussed there. See http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-March/ thread.html for previous mails.)
Until we have single sign in, meta is a minority interest.
Move things to en.wikipedia.org/Meta: if its about en.
No if it is pure En it should probably be in the wikipedia namespace.
Why?
Meta should be stuff about wikipedia which is also what the wikipedia namespace is for.
____ geni
At 01:19 +0100 31/3/06, Justin Cormack wrote:
On 30 Mar 2006, at 17:43, Angela wrote:
(I'm copying this to wikien-l since the issue of whether the English Wikipedia needs its own "meta" is probably better discussed there. See http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-March/ thread.html for previous mails.)
Until we have single sign in, meta is a minority interest.
Move things to en.wikipedia.org/Meta: if its about en.
Justinc
Fook me, that is so simple, so brilliant!
:-)