[12:57:57] I think that we should begin by validating the six mostly endorsed naming proposals. (re @Csisc1994: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Wikipedia/Wiki_of_functions_naming_contest) [12:58:46] If the number of endorsements for the sixth proposal is limited, we can expand the validation process. [14:16:43] You mean by checking whether all of the votes fulfill the required conditions? [14:20:00] That would be nice, particularly for the options that are close to each other [16:53:38] The first round of the naming contest is over, we have a task for Outreachy, and a new view for objects in the wiki - check out our weekly newsletter here. [16:53:38] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Wikipedia/Updates/2020-10-14 [16:54:23] The six top proposals from the first round (which will now go to legal review) are: Wikilambda, Wikifunctions, Wikimedia Functions, Wikicode, Wikifusion, and Wikicodex. [17:05:31] According to the vote (without verification) [17:05:43] 1. Wikilambda: 81 votes [17:05:56] 2. Wikifunctions: 66 votes [17:06:13] 3. Wikimedia Functions: 26 votes [17:06:29] 4. WikiCode: 17 votes [17:06:46] 5. Wikifusion: 12 votes [17:07:05] 6. Wikicodex: 11 votes [17:07:25] 7. Wikimodules: 10 votes [17:07:37] 7. Wikicompute: 10 votes [17:08:00] 9. Wikiroutines: 9 votes [17:08:12] 9. Wiki(x): 9 votes [17:08:51] All other naming proposals have eights votes or less [17:11:26] Now, the votes should be validated: users not be blocked on more than one project; and not be a bot; and have made at least 25 edits as of 1 September, 2020 on any public Wikimedia production wiki (like Wikipedia, Commons, Wikisource, etc). [17:21:17] Seeing the important number of votes, I think that the criteria should be if eleven votes fulfill the validation criteria the proposal passes to the second round. [17:24:21] Sounds right. Quiddity and I went through that already, but it doesn't hurt to double-check. Thanks everyone if they do so! (We only found one relevant vote that had to be dropped) [17:26:55] 25 edits on any Wiki as in "A Wiki has to exist where the user has at least 25 edits since Sep 1." or "The sum over all Wikis of all edits the user in question has to be 25 or larger"? [17:28:15] The sum over all Wikis of all edits the user in question has to be 25 or larger (re @markus_goellnitz: 25 edits on any Wiki as in "A Wiki has to exist where the user has at least 25 edits since Sep 1." or "The sum over all Wikis of all edits the user in question has to be 25 or larger"?) [17:28:42] I've just finished double-checking the top 6, and all seems good to me. There weren't any voters where we had to worry about that nuance. :) [17:33:51] I have checked them now using XTools. The six naming proposals are valid. (re @wmtelegram_bot: I've just finished double-checking the top 6, and all seems good to me. There weren't any voters where we had to worry about that nuance. :)) [17:35:27] So, we are currently quite certain that the six naming proposals that passed the first round are: Wikilambda, Wikifunctions, Wikimedia Functions, WikiCode, Wikifusion, and Wikicodex [17:36:23] The current question is whether we will keep the first round votes as the second round votes [17:43:24] No. The second round is a preference voting round, so it would be difficult to merge the results. [17:44:40] This is currently clear. (re @vrandecic: No. The second round is a preference voting round, so it would be difficult to merge the results.) [17:45:39] So, I think that automated posts of the user pages of the voters of the first round can be useful to let them participate to the second round. [18:10:35] Not a bad idea, thanks