Thanks, and regards, Kaganer 18:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not that I'm aware of. I don't think there's anything odd there (unless there's something I'm missing). Students probably just need a reminder to sign up -- RobLa 19:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oh wait, I see. The link is to the list of proposals, which only mentors and admins will have access to. I'll see if I can figure out what the right place to submit a proposal is and put the right link in. -- RobLa 19:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rob. I saw you moved Project:Upload wizard to Project:Upload image wizard to "distinguish from Project:Upload media wizard". I guess you meant the Add Media Wizard for the latter. The upload wizard is not only for images. As a consequence, I have renamed Project:Upload media wizard to Project:Add Media Wizard and renamed Project:Upload image wizard back to Project:Upload wizard. We can have an IRL discussion about these projects when I get back to the office if there's any confusion about what they're about. Cheers, guillom 20:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the use of the "Project" namespace, and to an extent, the scope of this wiki. I'm not really sure what needs to be done about this, but I imagine it's going to involve moving some content around (either to Meta-Wiki or to namespaces where it belongs). While it may seem superficial, content separation and organization is incredibly important.
The "Project" namespace should only be used for pages regarding the administration of this wiki. Pages about the administrators of MediaWiki.org or the deletion policy of MediaWiki.org, etc.
This wiki's scope is explained at Project:About. Some of the pages (perhaps all) relate to MediaWiki.org development, its extensions in particular. But throwing everything into the Project namespace is simply wrong and needs to be addressed. --MZMcBride 04:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Responding since Rob is currently out on vacation: Thanks for bringing up this issue. We've discussed it but we haven't made a decision yet. Possible solutions include:
- Taking over the Project: namespace for projects, and moving the meta-namespace to another namespace, like Wiki:
- Moving the WMF project pages to the main namespace
- Moving the WMF project pages to a WMF namespace
- Moving the WMF project pages to meta-wiki.
- My personal preference would be 2, at least as a temporary solution until a better solution is found for the medium and long term. What do you think? guillom 18:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think option 1 is unacceptable. I don't have any issue with options 2–4.
- I moved the CentralNotice-related pages before realizing that was a whole family of similar pages. I moved them to be subpages of Extension:CentralNotice as that seemed to make the most sense. It looks like there are two broad categories of pages: larger, planning pages (like Project:WMF Projects) and pages that relate to specific ideas, usually implemented (or to be implemented) as extensions. It may make sense to move the first pages to the (Main) namespace and then move the other pages to be subpages of their respective extensions. The issue is that you'd probably have inconsistency as some projects won't be implemented as extensions. I'm not sure how much of an issue that would be if you're simply making a directory of the pages on the wiki.
- Moving everything to the (Main) namespace seems sensible, though I don't really like development specific to a particular extension taking place in the wild when subpages are available. I don't think moving the content to a separate wiki is really necessary (or cost-efficient). --MZMcBride 21:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- So, I just completed the move of all those pages (I think). Projects not attached to an existing extension were moved to the main namespace. Projects attached to an existing extension were moved to subpages of that extension. I fixed some links but I left redirects behind for cross-wiki or other incoming links. guillom 21:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is one of my wiki reform proposals: m:sortition. It might be a marginal improvement over what we have now, although Sanger's Law and lack of profit motive would still be problematic issues. I think that sortition wouldn't be technically too difficult to implement. We've probably learned a few lessons from our experiences with Extension:BoardVote. Leucosticte (talk) 09:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)