The mass creation ofportals on Wikipedia has come to a stop. Several discussions about how to deal with the mass-creation of portals byThe Transhumanist, who created over 3,500 portals, started around mid-February and are many are still ongoing.

Adiscussion related to portals concluded with "overwhelming support here for a hiatus on the creation of portals using semi-automated tools". At the same time, along (and still-ongoing) discussion at the Administrator's noticeboard concluded with "a rough consensus to formalize a moratorium on creation of new portals", and theBot Approvals Group expanded theWP:MASSCREATION section of thebot policy to expand the restrictions on mass creation of pages via semi-automated/automated means. The restriction was previously understood to apply to articles and categories, but has nowbeen expanded to cover any type of "content page", including article, books, categories, projects, and so on.

Ongoing discussions involve thepossible creation of a speedy deletion criteria,expanding proposed deletions to cover portals, and arequest for an ARBCOM case with an accompanyingRFC. Independently of this, several hundred portals have been listed atWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, with nearly a hundred discussions still active as of writing.

–H

ThoughNorth Macedonia had previously been moved fromRepublic of Macedonia (see move discussion here) following thePrespa agreement, a new RfC was created to determine how we should refer to Macedonia in other contexts. The main proposals are as follows:

1. How should the republic be referred to onMacedonia (disambiguation) — should the linked text be "Republic of Macedonia" or "North Macedonia"? And in what order should the list items be listed?Likely outcome: Calling it North Macedonia on the disambiguation page.
2. Should people from North Macedonia be called "Macedonians" or "North Macedonians"?
3. Should the government of North Macedonia or similar entities use as the adjective (A) "of North Macedonia" only (per the Prespa agreeement), (B) "North Macedonian" or "of North Macedonia", or (C) "Macedonian" or "of North Macedonia"?Likely outcome: (B) "North Macedonian" or "of North Macedonia" are okay.
4. In other contexts (e.g. "(North) Macedonian football team"), should Wikipedia use (A) "Macedonian" only, (B) "North Macedonian" only, or (C) both, depending on context?
5. What should the country be called when discussing events between 1991 and 2019 — (A) no change, (B) add an optional note of "(now North Macedonia)" when the country is referenced, or (C) use North Macedonia?Likely outcome: Option B.

–P

TheWikimedia Foundation is conducting acommunity consultation on the Wikimedia/Wikipedia brand. In particular, therebranding project proposes:

• Using Wikipedia as the central movement brand rather than Wikimedia.
• Providing clearer connections to the sister projects from Wikipedia to drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to all movement projects.
• Retaining Wikimedia project names, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons which is recommended to be shortened to Wikicommons to be consistent with other projects.
• Exploring new naming conventions for the Foundation and affiliate groups to use Wikipedia rather than Wikimedia.
• Considering expository taglines and other naming conventions to reassert the connections between projects (e.g. “______ — A Wikipedia project”).

So far, most people inthe discussion object to usurping the Wikipedia brand (aportmanteau ofwiki +encyclopedia) and plastering it over projects which are not encyclopedias, likewiktionary (a portmanteau ofwiki +dictionary), creating a weirdWiktionary, a Wikipedia project tagline, when Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia, andWikipedia is not a dictionary. Other projects also feel that they have strong identities of their own, such asWikinews, which is not affiliated with Wikipedia. Broad consensus is that rebranding other Wikimedia projects as "Wikipedia projects" is both inaccurate, and creates more confusion than it solves.

Other aspects of the rebranding efforts are less opposed, with several suggestions aiming to establish more effective brands forWikipedia,Wikimedia projects, theWikimedia Foundation, andMediaWiki.

–H

• OnWT:CSD: A proposal was made for thecreation of a CSD T5, to allow for the speedy deletion of unused templates. (Consensus is probably not.)
• OnWT:CSD: A proposal was made for theexpansion of CSD G5, to allow deletion of some articles made by undisclosed paid editors was made. (None of the proposals currently seem likely to pass.)
• OnWT:TFD: ShouldTFD be used to discuss major template changes, in addition to the delete and merge discussions?

There are hundreds of websites with "Wiki" in their name. Only a few of them are within our movement. How should we clarify which are with us without confusing the wider world? Many of the suggestions here are really good IMO.Doc James (talk ·contribs ·email)11:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that Wikimedia Commons should become Wikicommons.Rorix the White (talk)00:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has the disadvantage of not addressing the question@Doc James: has raised. It's just another thing that starts with "Wiki" like Wikipolitica, Wikipotter,Wikitree, orWikileaks. It still needs adding something to indicate that it's part of the Wikipedia complex, empire, conglomerate, whatever, instead of an independent unaffiliated enterprise. However, we could decide that the question is not important for sites that don't try to face the world; only insiders need know. That would apply to Metawiki and perhaps Wikidata and even Commons. Unless of course the various sites want to appeal directly to the general public as well, instead of being only back offices that outsiders would learn about if they became earnestly curious.Jim.henderson (talk)01:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only meant for simplicity's sake, and uniformity. A banner or note at the bottom (or top) of every page may do the job, especially if it is more of a "back office" as you describe it. Until I joined D&D Wiki, I had no idea that Mediawiki or Meta-Wiki existed (both are occasionally referenced over there), and until I joined Wikipedia, I had no idea about Commons or other "background" projects, suggesting that they may not need much more than a note, as only "insiders" normally know about them.Rorix the White (talk)13:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • But should more than insiders know about Commons? IMO yes. Additionally one can use the term "Wikipedia" in a broader sense than just an "encyclopedia". For example when I tried to recruit partners for "Wikimedia Canada" I would often be corrected "you mean Wikipedia Canada right?".Doc James (talk ·contribs ·email)19:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Doc James: I suggested having a WMF-made primer for press/partners to help them understand things. You might have relevant feedbackthere for that idea.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}00:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • User:Headbomb an excellent suggestion no matter what we do with naming.Doc James (talk ·contribs ·email)19:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Doc James: I suggest you comment there too, given the WMF's propensity to sometimes be hard of hearing / not realize what would actually help people 'in the field'.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}21:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Will point them to this.Doc James (talk ·contribs ·email)21:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Rorix the White: We start with a simple naming question and find ourselves wading into strategic concerns. For years I've been as much a Commonser handling pictures, as a Wikipedian handling words. Over there, some of my colleagues think our service to outside publishers is as important as our role as the picture bureau of Wikipedia. My view of the proper balance has been more the "back office" one, yet I'm pleased that a couple hundred of my photos have been used by local news outlets. I figure, if Commons is to face outward, then distributing press kits to a thousand other organizations is both too big an effort and too little an accomplishment, as the publicity bureau (huh, do we have one?) will surely miss many. Umm, and then we can get intoWikivoyage which might be much more robust if it could take more advantage of the famous brand. The naming question has many tentacles.Jim.henderson (talk)01:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can see the potential there. That makes sense.Rorix the White (talk)03:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]