Not a big deal I guess but why "third-party wikis" - I have my own wiki, isn't that a "second-party wiki"? I'm not sure this is really that much clearer than "non-Wikimedia Foundation wikis" which seemed pretty clear to me. Just wondering why you're making this change.
Topic on User talk:Varnent
There was a lot of IRC discussion on how to refer to non-WMF wikis. I'm of the mindset that we need to be consistent in our use of terminology across the manual for ease of reading. The Manual:Glossary#Third-party definition references the chats where "third-party wiki" was discussed as the most commonly used existing term by WMF and core developers. While I'm not personally convinced "third-party" is the best possible term, I've conceded it makes the most sense at this point. I also tend to feel that any term with "WMF" is both longer and too "WMF-centric" - which is a complaint I've heard from folks and have made myself about MW documentation.
As to why third-party over second-party - the IRC transcript has a good excerpt by Ryan Lane: "wmf is a first party user. we create the software. everyone else that uses it is third party". Basically a reference to the technical terminology of third party that any non-orginal owner (WMF) or primary consumer (enWP, etc.) is then third-party (non-WMF wikis). Also consistent with how we refer to "third-party extensions" in the documentation and home page.
I'm certainly open to feedback on better terms to use - but do think there should be consistent use of the terms and for now, "third-party wiki" seems to be it.
Thanks for the reply - makes (some) sense. ;-) I'm good with it for now - so long as we keep the redirects in place, I don't really care (there are incoming links from meta). Hmm, this e-mail link worked the one on Project:support didn't, these LQT links are inconsistent. :-\
Not ideal - but like I said - I favor consistency and am totally open for discussion on a better term.