Wikipedia talk:Meta/Archive 1

Should this be merged with Meta-Wikipedia? --Brion 08:26 Nov 3, 2002 (UTC)

*sheepish grin* Yeah, I'm fixing it. (Which would be a lot easier if the response time hadn't just slowed down a bunch!) — Toby 08:31 Nov 3, 2002 (UTC)

Which name is best? "Metapedia" is also used by EL. --mav

Looking around the sites, it seems that "Metapedia" is only an abbreviation, and that I was just an ignoramus for not knowing that from the very beginning ^_^. But mav's report of EL's practice just clinches it: "Meta-Wikipedia" is the way to go. — Toby 08:59 Nov 3, 2002 (UTC)

Ugh! this is a perfect example of rules run amok. The link to Meta-Wikipedia isn't an external link to some web page about the subject of the article; it's a link to the subject of the article itself! People expect to external links down at the bottom to be merely recommended additional reading, but when you're looking at an article about a web site, then one of the basic facts about the site that you expect to see up front is the URL, just as you expect birth dates for people and populations for cities there. The link should be moved back into the body of the article. — Toby 18:19 Nov 3, 2002 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be in the Wikipedia: namespace?

This should be an NPOV article about Metapedia as a web site, no different from an article about any other web site. There's also Wikipedia:Meta-Wikipedia, which is different. -- Toby 01:57 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

I just don't think meta is important enough to warrant an article in an encyclopedia. It's not even really a standalone website - more like a subsidiary of wikipedia. Martin

I'm inclined to agree. it's a bit too much like navel-gazing. -- Tarquin 11:05 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

It seems harmless enough to me (not paper, and all that) -- but the real problem is that the official navel-gazing article, Wikipedia:Meta-Wikipedia, is too small. If somebody's thinking of moving this there, then I'd advise simply copying this there -- and rewriting a bit less NPOV. (That is, say things like "Please come over and join the fun!".) Or if somebody feels that this important to fix but doesn't know what to write, then indicate that, and I'll write it. -- Toby 06:34 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

Translations

I think a sixth point should be added to the list: Meta is a place for organising and performning translations of all kinds of non-article content: from pages on foundationwiki, material for fundraiser,and material for election of community representatives to the WMF board of trustees, to pywikipedia bot editing summaries. // habj 18:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The description on m:Meta:About is quite different from this one, and my first guess is the page on Meta should be more accurate. Time for a major update of this page? Or maybe changing it into a soft redirect to m:Meta:About? // habj 19:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is split

The article is a stub because it needs to expand.--96.247.51.182 (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an article. It is a project page, hence the "Wikipedia:" at the start of its name. As it is not an article, it cannot be considered a stub. It might need to be expanded, though. - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's too short, then why do you want to split it? - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Logo

Out of curiosity when did the Meta-Wiki Logo change? -Vcelloho (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent page move

I've reversed the recent page move to Wikipedia Meta Wiki, since it wasn't discussed, and since it was not correct in my opinion. This isn't an encyclopedia article, rather, it's a resource for editors; plus we already have an article at Wikimedia Foundation that covers all the aspects of Meta that are independently notable. I am open to discussion about this if anyone thinks otherwise, but please don't move it again without discussion. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

What about a soft redirect to meta's main page? fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 12:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)