Archive talk:Mobile partnerships

From Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Base in topic Order

Edit Summary

This is a new page with comments copied from


This is a really great project - it's fantastic to see it taking place. :-) Some comments/suggestions:

  1. Page title - suggest moving this to a title containing 'Orange', if other partnerships will come in the future (or is this FAQ intended to be updated on a rolling basis as new partnerships come out, or the details change?)
  2. Order of the content - I'd recommend emphasizing which countries this will take place in, and also which projects it applies to, higher up in the Q&A, since I think those will be particularly interesting to the community.
  3. Wikipedia languages - it might be worthwhile integrating some of the ideas behind en:QRPedia into the mobile phone access mechanism, such that the user gets redirected to the language project corresponding to their phone language settings.
  4. "Q: What is the duration of this deal? A: Three years, through November 2014." - that's about 2 3/4 years, not 3 years. I'd recommend just removing the 'three years' bit.

Mike Peel 10:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Any volunteers? - we need a coloured in map showing populations, languages supported etc. This is so well timed and on-message. I'm optimistic that this will be renamed Wikipedia Zero as I suspect other phone companies will realise that "text only" will appear miserly by comparison to this deal. Victuallers 15:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

A bit sad that Wikimedia France was not kept in the loop a little bit (dunno... dinner in Paris with some French wikipedians at least :)). But otherwise, the project is great great great.

One thing I have been wondering about is how much they will succeed to make sure their users know about the special deal. That must be quite a challenge. Anthere

No editing? Attribution?

Is the intro about no editing still relevant? It looks like this content has been copied from elsewhere? Attribution? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

No, it's not relevant anymore since it's on foundation wiki rather than meta now (probably should have been here from beginning). The original was written all by WMF staff; do we still need attribution in that case? suggestion? Akapoor (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Ah, okay. Thanks for updating the note.
Usually attribution is given in the edit summary when creating the page. For example, when creating this talk page, you would use an edit summary such as "new page; content from". Or something like that. Some kind of attribution trail is helpful, even if not required. This at least gives people the option of reliably tracing back to the source. Without a pointer (such as a URL), people are forced to do text searches of the comments. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Great, thanks for the tips Akapoor (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply


Is the default chronological order really useful when you e.g. want to check whether your/a country has 0wp (and it's about 100% of cases when I looked for the page on purpose rather than clicking on a link here from a page spontaneously)? Perhaps it should be changed to alphabetical per country. In that case date format should be changed as well to some thing like yyyy-mm-dd or alternatively some template should be used to make it possible sort per date when needed. --Base (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)Reply