[Changing the subject line since the subject of the thread has shifted.]
I think all of these naming discussions over the years have been more annoying than useful. WALRUS has its charm, but is a bit silly and no one denies that. I don't think the "Federation" was any less absurd, however, and I'm not sure the "Coalition" is far behind. The newer names are professional, but seem to tend towards projecting a false sense of formal organizational structure/maturity to achieve that. I don't think we should be too quick to change all the names on things yet again before we've hashed these things out. To be honest, I even missed the change from Federation to Coalition earlier this year, and I'm usually attentive to these things.
My opinion is that we should just be clear and descriptive, if we are moving away from adorableness. I would favor "Wikimedia United States" (do we actually know AffCom would dislike that, even if we became a user group, which is trivially easy?), and, if not that, "Wikimedians in the United States" or "United States Wikimedians".
Dominic
On 14 August 2013 00:52, Kevin Rutherford ktr101@hotmail.com wrote:
I second Jason, as WALRUS has never really sounded professional in my opinion, and I know there was talk at Wikimania in 2012 about finding a name to replace it. Right now, competing names don't help us, and I doubt most active Wikimedians could describe the function of each group mentioned below.
Kevin Rutherford
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 13, 2013, at 11:13 PM, "Jason Moore" anotherbelieverwp@gmail.com wrote:
I lean towards dropping the WALRUS name, and sticking with the more legitimate-sounding Coalition.
Jason / Another Believer
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.comwrote:
I'm not sure we can really separate the branding that way, since our en.wiki activity mostly consists of advertising for off-wiki events. If someone from en.wiki shows up at a "WALRUS" event and starts talking to someone from meta who believes it to be a "Wikimedia US" event, there's still going to be some degree of confusion (and resulting brand dilution).
Personally, I think we're at the point where we need to select a single brand and stick with it everywhere, rather than trying to maintain multiple competing brands.
Cheers, Kirill
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.comwrote:
I was thinking that we could differentiate the two by developing the 'WALRUS' branding more as a wikiproject-type campaign on enwiki, while reserving the "official unofficial" name of 'Wikimedia United States Coalition' for the more bureaucratic niceties of meta (widespread use of the latter name outside of meta without explicit WMF go-ahead might also be problematic).
Thanks, Richard (User:Pharos)
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Kirill Lokshin < kirill.lokshin@gmail.com> wrote:
The template looks good, but shouldn't we be using the same "Wikimedia United States Coalition" terminology that we use in the meta version of the template, so as to be consistent?
Cheers, Kirill
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.comwrote:
Following up on Bob's idea of regional "sister cities" cooperation, I've grouped together some of the more active cities on the new enwiki template, by the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WALRUS
Maybe it could be a good idea in future to have an on-wiki noticeboard for each of these four very rough chunks of the country, just to help with regional communication and scheduling of events (and especially as a way to reach out to some of the smaller / less active cities, and e.g. help the Texans settle on a meetup location).
Thanks, Richard (User:Pharos)
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.comwrote:
(yet!)
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikipedian@gmail.com wrote: > But none of those cities have a WALRUS chapter. :P > > Bob > > > On 7/13/2013 11:35 AM, Samuel Klein wrote: >> >> Boston is engaged in sibling rivalry and virtual event coordination >> would be natural with the cities of >> Boston and New Boston in NH, NY (an enclave of Red Sox Nation), IN, >> IL, OH, MI, KY, MO, AL, GA, and TX. >> Cambridge in PA, ID, IA, KS, ME, MD, MN, NB, VT, and WI... and NY >> again (enclaves 2 and 3) >> Brighton in CO, OR, and TN (and enclaves 4-6 in NY) >> >> That covers about half of the country. >> >> SJ >> >> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Bob the Wikipedian >> bobthewikipedian@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> Actually, we're already doing this in Indiana. Evansville, Bloomington, >>> and >>> Indianapolis are sister cities since we're within several hours of one >>> another. We've been taking turns hosting the annual Wiknic. >>> >>> Bob (Evansville) >>> >>> >>> On 7/12/2013 9:40 AM, Pharos wrote: >>> >>> Perhaps it might be a good idea to connect different local Wikimedian >>> efforts through an informal sister cities / regions program... >>> >>> Think of it: >>> >>> Cascadia and New England! >>> >>> Minnesota and Colorado! >>> >>> LA and Atlanta! >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Richard >>> (User:Pharos) >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimediaus-l mailing list >>> Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimediaus-l mailing list >>> Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l >>> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimediaus-l mailing list > Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
The problem with "Wikimedia United States" is, besides AffCom, that it implies we are a big national chapter to all of the international Wikimedians, who are used to this exact naming format for big national chapters.
I was thinking about it, and perhaps "Wikimedia US Community" might just achieve the right balance between modesty and brandedness.
WALRUSly yours, Richard (User:Pharos)
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks mcdevitd@gmail.comwrote:
[Changing the subject line since the subject of the thread has shifted.]
I think all of these naming discussions over the years have been more annoying than useful. WALRUS has its charm, but is a bit silly and no one denies that. I don't think the "Federation" was any less absurd, however, and I'm not sure the "Coalition" is far behind. The newer names are professional, but seem to tend towards projecting a false sense of formal organizational structure/maturity to achieve that. I don't think we should be too quick to change all the names on things yet again before we've hashed these things out. To be honest, I even missed the change from Federation to Coalition earlier this year, and I'm usually attentive to these things.
My opinion is that we should just be clear and descriptive, if we are moving away from adorableness. I would favor "Wikimedia United States" (do we actually know AffCom would dislike that, even if we became a user group, which is trivially easy?), and, if not that, "Wikimedians in the United States" or "United States Wikimedians".
Dominic
On 14 August 2013 00:52, Kevin Rutherford ktr101@hotmail.com wrote:
I second Jason, as WALRUS has never really sounded professional in my opinion, and I know there was talk at Wikimania in 2012 about finding a name to replace it. Right now, competing names don't help us, and I doubt most active Wikimedians could describe the function of each group mentioned below.
Kevin Rutherford
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 13, 2013, at 11:13 PM, "Jason Moore" anotherbelieverwp@gmail.com wrote:
I lean towards dropping the WALRUS name, and sticking with the more legitimate-sounding Coalition.
Jason / Another Believer
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm not sure we can really separate the branding that way, since our en.wiki activity mostly consists of advertising for off-wiki events. If someone from en.wiki shows up at a "WALRUS" event and starts talking to someone from meta who believes it to be a "Wikimedia US" event, there's still going to be some degree of confusion (and resulting brand dilution).
Personally, I think we're at the point where we need to select a single brand and stick with it everywhere, rather than trying to maintain multiple competing brands.
Cheers, Kirill
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.comwrote:
I was thinking that we could differentiate the two by developing the 'WALRUS' branding more as a wikiproject-type campaign on enwiki, while reserving the "official unofficial" name of 'Wikimedia United States Coalition' for the more bureaucratic niceties of meta (widespread use of the latter name outside of meta without explicit WMF go-ahead might also be problematic).
Thanks, Richard (User:Pharos)
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Kirill Lokshin < kirill.lokshin@gmail.com> wrote:
The template looks good, but shouldn't we be using the same "Wikimedia United States Coalition" terminology that we use in the meta version of the template, so as to be consistent?
Cheers, Kirill
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.comwrote:
Following up on Bob's idea of regional "sister cities" cooperation, I've grouped together some of the more active cities on the new enwiki template, by the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WALRUS
Maybe it could be a good idea in future to have an on-wiki noticeboard for each of these four very rough chunks of the country, just to help with regional communication and scheduling of events (and especially as a way to reach out to some of the smaller / less active cities, and e.g. help the Texans settle on a meetup location).
Thanks, Richard (User:Pharos)
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.comwrote:
> (yet!) > > On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Bob the Wikipedian > bobthewikipedian@gmail.com wrote: > > But none of those cities have a WALRUS chapter. :P > > > > Bob > > > > > > On 7/13/2013 11:35 AM, Samuel Klein wrote: > >> > >> Boston is engaged in sibling rivalry and virtual event > coordination > >> would be natural with the cities of > >> Boston and New Boston in NH, NY (an enclave of Red Sox Nation), > IN, > >> IL, OH, MI, KY, MO, AL, GA, and TX. > >> Cambridge in PA, ID, IA, KS, ME, MD, MN, NB, VT, and WI... and NY > >> again (enclaves 2 and 3) > >> Brighton in CO, OR, and TN (and enclaves 4-6 in NY) > >> > >> That covers about half of the country. > >> > >> SJ > >> > >> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Bob the Wikipedian > >> bobthewikipedian@gmail.com wrote: > >>> > >>> Actually, we're already doing this in Indiana. Evansville, > Bloomington, > >>> and > >>> Indianapolis are sister cities since we're within several hours > of one > >>> another. We've been taking turns hosting the annual Wiknic. > >>> > >>> Bob (Evansville) > >>> > >>> > >>> On 7/12/2013 9:40 AM, Pharos wrote: > >>> > >>> Perhaps it might be a good idea to connect different local > Wikimedian > >>> efforts through an informal sister cities / regions program... > >>> > >>> Think of it: > >>> > >>> Cascadia and New England! > >>> > >>> Minnesota and Colorado! > >>> > >>> LA and Atlanta! > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Richard > >>> (User:Pharos) > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Wikimediaus-l mailing list > >>> Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Wikimediaus-l mailing list > >>> Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimediaus-l mailing list > > Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l > > > > -- > Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 > 529 4266 > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimediaus-l mailing list > Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l >
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
I think you are arguing against yourself with "Wikimedia US Community". I don't see how "Community" is distinct from "Wikimedians". It seems like wordiness for no real purpose—is there or should there be a type of Wikimedia US that is not about or of the "Community"? Are you implying official chapters aren't about the community? Is it worse to confuse a chapter-like entity for a chapter than to be completely confused as to what some strangely named entity exists for?
I think that if this is the definitive group that would represent the Wikimedians in United States in some capacity, the specific governance structure makes little difference when it comes to nomenclature, and it shouldn't be denied the simple, traditional geographic naming convention just because it's one type of affiliation and not another. Certainly, we shouldn't act like it's off the table when it makes the most since in many ways.
Dominic
On 14 August 2013 01:44, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
The problem with "Wikimedia United States" is, besides AffCom, that it implies we are a big national chapter to all of the international Wikimedians, who are used to this exact naming format for big national chapters.
I was thinking about it, and perhaps "Wikimedia US Community" might just achieve the right balance between modesty and brandedness.
WALRUSly yours, Richard (User:Pharos)
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks < mcdevitd@gmail.com> wrote:
[Changing the subject line since the subject of the thread has shifted.]
I think all of these naming discussions over the years have been more annoying than useful. WALRUS has its charm, but is a bit silly and no one denies that. I don't think the "Federation" was any less absurd, however, and I'm not sure the "Coalition" is far behind. The newer names are professional, but seem to tend towards projecting a false sense of formal organizational structure/maturity to achieve that. I don't think we should be too quick to change all the names on things yet again before we've hashed these things out. To be honest, I even missed the change from Federation to Coalition earlier this year, and I'm usually attentive to these things.
My opinion is that we should just be clear and descriptive, if we are moving away from adorableness. I would favor "Wikimedia United States" (do we actually know AffCom would dislike that, even if we became a user group, which is trivially easy?), and, if not that, "Wikimedians in the United States" or "United States Wikimedians".
Dominic
On 14 August 2013 00:52, Kevin Rutherford ktr101@hotmail.com wrote:
I second Jason, as WALRUS has never really sounded professional in my opinion, and I know there was talk at Wikimania in 2012 about finding a name to replace it. Right now, competing names don't help us, and I doubt most active Wikimedians could describe the function of each group mentioned below.
Kevin Rutherford
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 13, 2013, at 11:13 PM, "Jason Moore" anotherbelieverwp@gmail.com wrote:
I lean towards dropping the WALRUS name, and sticking with the more legitimate-sounding Coalition.
Jason / Another Believer
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Kirill Lokshin < kirill.lokshin@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not sure we can really separate the branding that way, since our en.wiki activity mostly consists of advertising for off-wiki events. If someone from en.wiki shows up at a "WALRUS" event and starts talking to someone from meta who believes it to be a "Wikimedia US" event, there's still going to be some degree of confusion (and resulting brand dilution).
Personally, I think we're at the point where we need to select a single brand and stick with it everywhere, rather than trying to maintain multiple competing brands.
Cheers, Kirill
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.comwrote:
I was thinking that we could differentiate the two by developing the 'WALRUS' branding more as a wikiproject-type campaign on enwiki, while reserving the "official unofficial" name of 'Wikimedia United States Coalition' for the more bureaucratic niceties of meta (widespread use of the latter name outside of meta without explicit WMF go-ahead might also be problematic).
Thanks, Richard (User:Pharos)
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Kirill Lokshin < kirill.lokshin@gmail.com> wrote:
The template looks good, but shouldn't we be using the same "Wikimedia United States Coalition" terminology that we use in the meta version of the template, so as to be consistent?
Cheers, Kirill
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria@gmail.com > wrote:
> Following up on Bob's idea of regional "sister cities" cooperation, > I've grouped together some of the more active cities on the new enwiki > template, by the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WALRUS > > Maybe it could be a good idea in future to have an on-wiki > noticeboard for each of these four very rough chunks of the country, just > to help with regional communication and scheduling of events (and > especially as a way to reach out to some of the smaller / less active > cities, and e.g. help the Texans settle on a meetup location). > > Thanks, > Richard > (User:Pharos) > > > On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.comwrote: > >> (yet!) >> >> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Bob the Wikipedian >> bobthewikipedian@gmail.com wrote: >> > But none of those cities have a WALRUS chapter. :P >> > >> > Bob >> > >> > >> > On 7/13/2013 11:35 AM, Samuel Klein wrote: >> >> >> >> Boston is engaged in sibling rivalry and virtual event >> coordination >> >> would be natural with the cities of >> >> Boston and New Boston in NH, NY (an enclave of Red Sox Nation), >> IN, >> >> IL, OH, MI, KY, MO, AL, GA, and TX. >> >> Cambridge in PA, ID, IA, KS, ME, MD, MN, NB, VT, and WI... and NY >> >> again (enclaves 2 and 3) >> >> Brighton in CO, OR, and TN (and enclaves 4-6 in NY) >> >> >> >> That covers about half of the country. >> >> >> >> SJ >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Bob the Wikipedian >> >> bobthewikipedian@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Actually, we're already doing this in Indiana. Evansville, >> Bloomington, >> >>> and >> >>> Indianapolis are sister cities since we're within several hours >> of one >> >>> another. We've been taking turns hosting the annual Wiknic. >> >>> >> >>> Bob (Evansville) >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 7/12/2013 9:40 AM, Pharos wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Perhaps it might be a good idea to connect different local >> Wikimedian >> >>> efforts through an informal sister cities / regions program... >> >>> >> >>> Think of it: >> >>> >> >>> Cascadia and New England! >> >>> >> >>> Minnesota and Colorado! >> >>> >> >>> LA and Atlanta! >> >>> >> >>> Thanks, >> >>> Richard >> >>> (User:Pharos) >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> Wikimediaus-l mailing list >> >>> Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> Wikimediaus-l mailing list >> >>> Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Wikimediaus-l mailing list >> > Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l >> >> >> >> -- >> Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 >> 529 4266 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimediaus-l mailing list >> Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimediaus-l mailing list > Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l > >
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
Actually, I suggested Wikimedia United States as a kind of overarching group that might someday help coordinate the smaller groups and help prevent the fears of other countries that think we’d overwhelm them in voting once regions get votes. Anyways, Dominic actually suggested this unintentionally, and I was thinking of it as I read his e-mail, but Wikimedians in the United States would actually be a great name, because it is short, simple, and doesn’t have any of the baggage that “Committee” or any of those other names have.
Kevin
From: Dominic McDevitt-Parks Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:10 AM To: Wikimedians Active in Local Regions of the United States (WALRUS) Subject: Re: [Wikimediaus-l] Naming of pan-US Wikimedia group
I think you are arguing against yourself with "Wikimedia US Community". I don't see how "Community" is distinct from "Wikimedians". It seems like wordiness for no real purpose—is there or should there be a type of Wikimedia US that is not about or of the "Community"? Are you implying official chapters aren't about the community? Is it worse to confuse a chapter-like entity for a chapter than to be completely confused as to what some strangely named entity exists for?
I think that if this is the definitive group that would represent the Wikimedians in United States in some capacity, the specific governance structure makes little difference when it comes to nomenclature, and it shouldn't be denied the simple, traditional geographic naming convention just because it's one type of affiliation and not another. Certainly, we shouldn't act like it's off the table when it makes the most since in many ways.
Dominic
On 14 August 2013 01:44, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
The problem with "Wikimedia United States" is, besides AffCom, that it implies we are a big national chapter to all of the international Wikimedians, who are used to this exact naming format for big national chapters.
I was thinking about it, and perhaps "Wikimedia US Community" might just achieve the right balance between modesty and brandedness.
WALRUSly yours,
Richard
(User:Pharos)
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks mcdevitd@gmail.com wrote:
[Changing the subject line since the subject of the thread has shifted.]
I think all of these naming discussions over the years have been more annoying than useful. WALRUS has its charm, but is a bit silly and no one denies that. I don't think the "Federation" was any less absurd, however, and I'm not sure the "Coalition" is far behind. The newer names are professional, but seem to tend towards projecting a false sense of formal organizational structure/maturity to achieve that. I don't think we should be too quick to change all the names on things yet again before we've hashed these things out. To be honest, I even missed the change from Federation to Coalition earlier this year, and I'm usually attentive to these things.
My opinion is that we should just be clear and descriptive, if we are moving away from adorableness. I would favor "Wikimedia United States" (do we actually know AffCom would dislike that, even if we became a user group, which is trivially easy?), and, if not that, "Wikimedians in the United States" or "United States Wikimedians".
Dominic
On 14 August 2013 00:52, Kevin Rutherford ktr101@hotmail.com wrote:
I second Jason, as WALRUS has never really sounded professional in my opinion, and I know there was talk at Wikimania in 2012 about finding a name to replace it. Right now, competing names don't help us, and I doubt most active Wikimedians could describe the function of each group mentioned below.
Kevin Rutherford
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 13, 2013, at 11:13 PM, "Jason Moore" anotherbelieverwp@gmail.com wrote:
I lean towards dropping the WALRUS name, and sticking with the more legitimate-sounding Coalition.
Jason / Another Believer
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure we can really separate the branding that way, since our en.wiki activity mostly consists of advertising for off-wiki events. If someone from en.wiki shows up at a "WALRUS" event and starts talking to someone from meta who believes it to be a "Wikimedia US" event, there's still going to be some degree of confusion (and resulting brand dilution).
Personally, I think we're at the point where we need to select a single brand and stick with it everywhere, rather than trying to maintain multiple competing brands.
Cheers, Kirill
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
I was thinking that we could differentiate the two by developing the 'WALRUS' branding more as a wikiproject-type campaign on enwiki, while reserving the "official unofficial" name of 'Wikimedia United States Coalition' for the more bureaucratic niceties of meta (widespread use of the latter name outside of meta without explicit WMF go-ahead might also be problematic).
Thanks,
Richard
(User:Pharos)
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
The template looks good, but shouldn't we be using the same "Wikimedia United States Coalition" terminology that we use in the meta version of the template, so as to be consistent?
Cheers, Kirill
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
Following up on Bob's idea of regional "sister cities" cooperation, I've grouped together some of the more active cities on the new enwiki template, by the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WALRUS
Maybe it could be a good idea in future to have an on-wiki noticeboard for each of these four very rough chunks of the country, just to help with regional communication and scheduling of events (and especially as a way to reach out to some of the smaller / less active cities, and e.g. help the Texans settle on a meetup location).
Thanks,
Richard
(User:Pharos)
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
(yet!)
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Bob the Wikipedian
bobthewikipedian@gmail.com wrote: > But none of those cities have a WALRUS chapter. :P > > Bob > > > On 7/13/2013 11:35 AM, Samuel Klein wrote: >> >> Boston is engaged in sibling rivalry and virtual event coordination >> would be natural with the cities of >> Boston and New Boston in NH, NY (an enclave of Red Sox Nation), IN, >> IL, OH, MI, KY, MO, AL, GA, and TX. >> Cambridge in PA, ID, IA, KS, ME, MD, MN, NB, VT, and WI... and NY >> again (enclaves 2 and 3) >> Brighton in CO, OR, and TN (and enclaves 4-6 in NY) >> >> That covers about half of the country. >> >> SJ >> >> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Bob the Wikipedian >> bobthewikipedian@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> Actually, we're already doing this in Indiana. Evansville, Bloomington, >>> and >>> Indianapolis are sister cities since we're within several hours of one >>> another. We've been taking turns hosting the annual Wiknic. >>> >>> Bob (Evansville) >>> >>> >>> On 7/12/2013 9:40 AM, Pharos wrote: >>> >>> Perhaps it might be a good idea to connect different local Wikimedian >>> efforts through an informal sister cities / regions program... >>> >>> Think of it: >>> >>> Cascadia and New England! >>> >>> Minnesota and Colorado! >>> >>> LA and Atlanta! >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Richard >>> (User:Pharos) >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimediaus-l mailing list >>> Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimediaus-l mailing list >>> Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l >>> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimediaus-l mailing list > Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
\On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Kevin Rutherford Ktr101@hotmail.comwrote:
Actually, I suggested Wikimedia United States as a kind of overarching group that might someday help coordinate the smaller groups and help prevent the fears of other countries that think we’d overwhelm them in voting once regions get votes. Anyways, Dominic actually suggested this unintentionally, and I was thinking of it as I read his e-mail, but Wikimedians in the United States would actually be a great name, because it is short, simple, and doesn’t have any of the baggage that “Committee” or any of those other names have.
+1
Kirill
I'd generally go with Wikimedians in the United States as well. Not perfect but probably the best of the options and I can't come up with something better :).
On a side note I would definitely argue that chapters (or user groups etc) are not and never have been the 'definitive group that represents' anything ;) and I know many would agree (though certainly not everyone) it's one of the reasons I've never really like Wikimedia X or geographic exclusivity. I don't think that was a good decision on our part when it was made originally but sadly that ship has mostly sailed :( .
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimedians in the United States would actually be a great name,
+1 Kirill
+1 SJ
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimedians in the United States would actually be a great name,
+1 Kirill
+1 SJ
Agreed, I also like Wikimedia US Community ... but I'd add "group": Wikimedia US Community Group. (Maybe that can be the descriptive subtitle for whatever name is chosen). IMHO the name is mostly for outside people -- i.e. GLAM institutions who want a point of contact, new people looking for a community group to join -- which means it should be pretty straightforward & obvious about what is going on!
-- phoebe
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 8:58 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimedians in the United States would actually be a great name,
+1 Kirill
+1 SJ
Agreed, I also like Wikimedia US Community ... but I'd add "group": Wikimedia US Community Group. (Maybe that can be the descriptive subtitle for whatever name is chosen). IMHO the name is mostly for outside people -- i.e. GLAM institutions who want a point of contact, new people looking for a community group to join -- which means it should be pretty straightforward & obvious about what is going on!
-- phoebe
This is my sort of reservation with just "Wikimedians in the United States"; that it doesn't give the impression of a *group*, of a distinct if informal entity that could be a point of contact for GLAM institutions, etc.
Thanks, Richard (User:Pharos)
Well, including "Wikimedia" and "United States" turns it into a huge mouthful. Brevity is super-important in conversation and many written/printed situations as well.
We can safely leave out "Wikimedia" - and only mention it where needed, such as "This Wiknic is hosted by Wikipedia's <INSERT NAME HERE>.
Also, "United States" is easily shortened to "America".
Bob
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 8:58 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimedians in the United States would actually be a great name,
+1 Kirill
+1 SJ
Agreed, I also like Wikimedia US Community ... but I'd add "group": Wikimedia US Community Group. (Maybe that can be the descriptive subtitle for whatever name is chosen). IMHO the name is mostly for outside people -- i.e. GLAM institutions who want a point of contact, new people looking for a community group to join -- which means it should be pretty straightforward & obvious about what is going on!
-- phoebe
This is my sort of reservation with just "Wikimedians in the United States"; that it doesn't give the impression of a *group*, of a distinct if informal entity that could be a point of contact for GLAM institutions, etc.
Thanks, Richard (User:Pharos)
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
We could just go with Wikimedia: US. Not only will it be shorter, but it will make us sound like awesome people who are in no way infatuated with ourselves! On a serious note though, should we continue this on a Wiki so that we can easily tally a vote?
Kevin
From: Rob Schnautz Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 1:26 PM To: Wikimedians Active in Local Regions of the United States (WALRUS) Subject: Re: [Wikimediaus-l] Naming of pan-US Wikimedia group
Well, including "Wikimedia" and "United States" turns it into a huge mouthful. Brevity is super-important in conversation and many written/printed situations as well.
We can safely leave out "Wikimedia" - and only mention it where needed, such as "This Wiknic is hosted by Wikipedia's <INSERT NAME HERE>.
Also, "United States" is easily shortened to "America".
Bob
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 8:58 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimedians in the United States would actually be a great name,
> +1 > Kirill
+1 SJ
Agreed, I also like Wikimedia US Community ... but I'd add "group": Wikimedia US Community Group. (Maybe that can be the descriptive subtitle for whatever name is chosen). IMHO the name is mostly for outside people -- i.e. GLAM institutions who want a point of contact, new people looking for a community group to join -- which means it should be pretty straightforward & obvious about what is going on!
-- phoebe
This is my sort of reservation with just "Wikimedians in the United States"; that it doesn't give the impression of a *group*, of a distinct if informal entity that could be a point of contact for GLAM institutions, etc.
Thanks,
Richard
(User:Pharos)
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
I'm fond of "Wikimedians in the United States," per Jason's suggestion.
From what I've seen, the group can hardly decide on what it is we're
actually doing here (attempting to represent the diversity of real persons in the United States, representing whatever that constituency is to the Europeans?). We shouldn't be jumping to give false impressions.
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Kevin Rutherford Ktr101@hotmail.comwrote:
We could just go with Wikimedia: US. Not only will it be shorter, but it will make us sound like awesome people who are in no way infatuated with ourselves! On a serious note though, should we continue this on a Wiki so that we can easily tally a vote?
Kevin
*From:* Rob Schnautz bobthewikipedian@gmail.com *Sent:* Wednesday, August 14, 2013 1:26 PM *To:* Wikimedians Active in Local Regions of the United States (WALRUS)wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Subject:* Re: [Wikimediaus-l] Naming of pan-US Wikimedia group
Well, including "Wikimedia" and "United States" turns it into a huge mouthful. Brevity is super-important in conversation and many written/printed situations as well.
We can safely leave out "Wikimedia" - and only mention it where needed, such as "This Wiknic is hosted by Wikipedia's <INSERT NAME HERE>.
Also, "United States" is easily shortened to "America".
Bob
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 8:58 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.comwrote:
Wikimedians in the United States would actually be a great name,
+1 Kirill
+1 SJ
Agreed, I also like Wikimedia US Community ... but I'd add "group": Wikimedia US Community Group. (Maybe that can be the descriptive subtitle for whatever name is chosen). IMHO the name is mostly for outside people -- i.e. GLAM institutions who want a point of contact, new people looking for a community group to join -- which means it should be pretty straightforward & obvious about what is going on!
-- phoebe
This is my sort of reservation with just "Wikimedians in the United States"; that it doesn't give the impression of a *group*, of a distinct if informal entity that could be a point of contact for GLAM institutions, etc.
Thanks, Richard (User:Pharos)
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
I dunno...WALRUS just seems the most tasteful of all these; it rolls off the tongue much more easily. I wish there were more Wikimedia/Wikipedia-related organizations with brief names like that. And nothing is to stop us from saying "Wikimedians Active in Local Regions of the United States" on formal stuff.
I see no reason to rename this; that would only cause the same confusion that the Wikipedia (Global?) Education Program (Coalition?) now suffers from.
Bob
On 8/14/2013 6:44 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
Wikimedians in the United States would actually be a great name,
+1 Kirill
+1 SJ
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
Oh, and WUS doesn't sound much better. ;)
Bob
On 8/14/2013 8:04 AM, Bob the Wikipedian wrote:
I dunno...WALRUS just seems the most tasteful of all these; it rolls off the tongue much more easily. I wish there were more Wikimedia/Wikipedia-related organizations with brief names like that. And nothing is to stop us from saying "Wikimedians Active in Local Regions of the United States" on formal stuff.
I see no reason to rename this; that would only cause the same confusion that the Wikipedia (Global?) Education Program (Coalition?) now suffers from.
Bob
On 8/14/2013 6:44 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
Wikimedians in the United States would actually be a great name,
+1 Kirill
+1 SJ
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
I can appreciate *Wikimedia United States *or *Wikimedians in the United States*.
Jason / Another Believer
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:12 AM, Bob the Wikipedian < bobthewikipedian@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh, and WUS doesn't sound much better. ;)
Bob
On 8/14/2013 8:04 AM, Bob the Wikipedian wrote:
I dunno...WALRUS just seems the most tasteful of all these; it rolls off the tongue much more easily. I wish there were more Wikimedia/Wikipedia-related organizations with brief names like that. And nothing is to stop us from saying "Wikimedians Active in Local Regions of the United States" on formal stuff.
I see no reason to rename this; that would only cause the same confusion that the Wikipedia (Global?) Education Program (Coalition?) now suffers from.
Bob
On 8/14/2013 6:44 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
Wikimedians in the United States would actually be a great name,
+1 Kirill
+1 SJ
Wikimediaus-l mailing listWikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
Wikimediaus-l mailing list Wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaus-l
On 8/13/2013 10:33 PM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks wrote:
[Changing the subject line since the subject of the thread has shifted.]
I think all of these naming discussions over the years have been more annoying than useful. WALRUS has its charm, but is a bit silly and no one denies that. I don't think the "Federation" was any less absurd, however, and I'm not sure the "Coalition" is far behind. The newer names are professional, but seem to tend towards projecting a false sense of formal organizational structure/maturity to achieve that. I don't think we should be too quick to change all the names on things yet again before we've hashed these things out. To be honest, I even missed the change from Federation to Coalition earlier this year, and I'm usually attentive to these things.
My opinion is that we should just be clear and descriptive, if we are moving away from adorableness. I would favor "Wikimedia United States" (do we actually know AffCom would dislike that, even if we became a user group, which is trivially easy?), and, if not that, "Wikimedians in the United States" or "United States Wikimedians".
I generally agree with all of that. Maybe I ought to be more supportive of WALRUS, given what I named some of the regular Signpost features in the early days, but even there the name on the actual masthead is serious enough. I think the only objection to "Wikimedia United States" would be if someone believes that name should be reserved for a full-blown national chapter. I don't know if this group is on that track ultimately, or wants to be, but I equally don't know that we'd want to operate completely outside such a chapter if there was one. Now that I see Richard's suggestion, "Wikimedia US Community" could work as an interim name if we do want to be on that track, but not sound like we're claiming the status prematurely.
--Michael Snow
wikimediaus-l@lists.wikimedia.org