Oct 22 2019
Approved. Thanks, everyone!
Jul 24 2019
It doesn't seem like you need it, but this is approved. Let me know if you need something else.
Mar 21 2019
Sep 19 2018
That style guide is for Wikimedia products. The Wikimedia Foundation brand guidelines have areas of alignment but are not the same.
Aug 20 2018
Aug 14 2018
The German language version of the Wikimedia vision you are seeing on the website is a writing choice, not a bug. It is entered into the CMS in the same way the rest of the writing is added to the site, and shows up exactly the way we intended and expected it to.
Aug 8 2018
(And yes, Varnent is approved to be added. Thanks!)
Aug 2 2018
Nov 7 2017
Yes, thanks! I was just copying the language. Appreciate the correction.
Aug 4 2017
These look great!
Dec 21 2016
That looks good. Thanks, everyone!
Dec 7 2016
Thank you, Volker and Tilman!
Aug 15 2016
If you look from that page, it's very different: https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=wikimediafoundation.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Home
Jun 15 2016
May 12 2016
- Despite similarity of many icons in WMF and Material, I think there is value in maintaining an independent set of Wikipedia icons that differentiates us as a separate brand, however minute/subtle icon usage may be.
I have no idea. I just checked it again after you said you couldn't reproduce and things had gone back to normal.
Feb 9 2016
Thank you, Daniel!
Jan 30 2016
Dan gave us the Piwik. We're in!
Wait! How do we log in to Piwik? :)
Jan 29 2016
We have labs accounts now and are on the LDAP list. (Thanks, Yuvi!)
Jan 15 2016
This is how it looks to me now. Is it not correct?
This should be 2003. :)
Jan 12 2016
The end of the redirect should be 15.wikipedia.org
Jan 11 2016
Would you please update annual.wikimedia.org to redirect to 15.wikipedia.org?
Nov 17 2015
Oct 27 2015
@Dzahn it is not going to be a wiki.
Oct 23 2015
Thank you all for so much background and attention to this question, we really appreciate the time taken to uncover possible issues.
Sep 29 2015
We don't know if it is still the case, a lot has changed since 2010. Who can answer for sure?
Sep 25 2015
Like you just pointed out, in 2010 Stephen Walling said https://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#The_what_now.3F
What is this assuming, exactly? I'm thinking any implementation here would be some version of a static HTML file on a server (which is essentially what happens with MediaWiki wikis behind a caching layer...). A potential compromise in what sense or in which scenarios are you talking about here? What's the actual threat or concern here?
An attacker would need to find an XSS in the static site. Unfortunately it's not just a "static HTML file", there's also a bunch of JS being loaded, including a file from tool labs (which has been compromised in the past).
Sep 24 2015
I didn't miss your comment, I read that it said "should not". Since I don't know the ins and outs of the technology, I have no idea if should means absolutely can't, or if there are exceptions and work-arounds.
Sep 23 2015
Back to the actual site name. :)
Sep 21 2015
You make good points. There are a few reasons why focusing on only Wikipedia for the 15th anniversary could be confusing, or a bad idea. We’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this, because we want to be as inclusive of different communities and languages as possible. As a result, this year our intention is to celebrate the 15th anniversary of the birth of an amazing idea and community. It is not about English Wikipedia, or even about Wikipedia alone. 15 January 2001, is the start of this great movement and human accomplishment that we think should be celebrated.
Sep 18 2015
Adding to the complexity this year, we are celebrating Wikipedia's 15th birthday with the annual report. We would prefer if the new site can live at 15.wikipedia.org or if necessary, something like wikipedia15.org
Sep 17 2015
Yes! The "voice and tone" collection, blog tickets, and other things are relevant to us. Thanks, Joe!
Sep 11 2015
Yes. It does not need to include blog. Thanks, Joe!
Aug 3 2015
Jul 7 2015
As another 90 days is about to pass, can we revisit this request? Thank you!
Jun 2 2015
Right now it would redirect to the blog post. http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/10/wikimedia-v-nsa/
May 19 2015
Is a more informative message possible? It still seems pretty confusing, and should be considered within the entire sequence.
What is the pattern before they reach this point? Shouldn't it ask for the, "registered email address for your account" when they enter the address, and if it does, will the repetition help the situation?
What does up for grabs mean? :)
May 15 2015
Off-phab it has been decided that legal.wikimedia is not appropriate because this is about all of Wikimedia, not just about the legal team.
May 14 2015
Let's not put nsa anywhere it might be mistaken for a partnership.
Sorry I've been slow, it's not going to be nsa.wikimedia.org, you're right it would send the wrong message.
May 6 2015
That is a great idea. Communications doesn't really have the capacity at the moment, but it is really important to us to keep this unified with our voice. Thanks for adding me to the task!
Apr 27 2015
I'm not sure where we are with this as we had a couple of conversations offline. Daily views is a great start, any breakdown (like per region or timeframe) would be excellent. Thank you.
Apr 24 2015
Apr 9 2015
Please keep Communications in the loop when the copy and messaging is being created. Thanks!
Some breakdown would be really great for us. I don't know how much difficulty that adds. (Thank you so much for this!)
Feb 6 2015
Thanks! Would you mind setting up a meeting with Communications before the text is considered final? -- Whenever you are close.
This looks great! Would you mind sharing where the text is being finalized?
It is important for Communications that we get this resolved, is there anything I can do?
Feb 5 2015
This sounds excellent for many reasons.
Jan 14 2015
Erik, this is hopefully going up next week. After more discussion in Communications we'd prefer annualreport.wikimedia.org for a little more clarity, but annual.wikimedia.org would also work.
Dec 12 2014
I don't know who made that truck with the logo, but I wouldn't consider it official.
I don't know if this needs space inside the file, but here's something to try.
Am I not supposed to resolve it if I didn't open it? I don't even know :)
This should be fixed, check it out.
That is really strange. It doesn't look like that for me, and they have been given an SVG. I'll ask Tilman.
Oct 28 2014
Reply regarding the trademark issue: we need to use the entire thing. So the brackets need to be included or the flower should not be used.
I've asked Yana if it's a trademark problem. Branding-wise, the flower alone is probably the best solution with what you have, and we don't have strong guidelines set for Mediawiki. I made a black and white (but not exactly pretty) version for the trademark recording process if it helps at all. The flower with brackets is fairly hard to parse at small scale as we know.
Why is it just using part of the logo? Can the flower/button just be removed? Otherwise I think we need a stronger solution for the logo in this sort of context.
I'm not sure about somehow incorporating Phabricator. http://phacility.com/trademarks/
All white on black is fine. Edit: weird, I didn't see your second comment.
Oct 15 2014
That would be fantastic. Are there any new processes for review?
Please let's not make it so complex. At least before archiving, annual.wikimedia.org + links to chapter reports, sounds like a clean solution.
Oct 14 2014
It seems to follow that annual.wikimedia.org would be the best choice. Perhaps afterward we can archive all reports in some structure under reports.wikimedia.org.
Oct 10 2014
I have an actual request now. We would like reports.wikimediafoundation.org/annual and in the future they would be archived like, reports.wikimediafoundation.org/annual/2012
Nevermind! Brandon explained it to me. I will have a final version soon. Thanks so much.
It's not about https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Annual_Report, that is the wiki version. It's about a new version, similar to the recent transparency report. We need both.