Meta:Babel

For the cross-wiki translator's noticeboard, you can see Meta:Babylon
For the Babel language-competence templates, see the Babel templates

---

←Index of discussion pages

Babel

archives (latest)→

This is Meta's multilingual general and policy discussion page (post a comment); for discussions about multilingualism or translation, see the translators' noticeboard, and for discussions about all of Wikimedia, see Wikimedia Forum. You can comment here in any language. Afrikaans: Laat 'n gedetailleerde boodskap op die betrokke artikel se besprekingsblad en 'n enkele lyn hier wat na jou boodskap verwys. العربية: هذه صفحة نقاش ميتا العامة (أرسل تعليقا); للنقاش حول الترجمة أو تعدد اللغات، انظر إخطار المترجمين. لو أن تعليقك يرتبط بصفحة معينة، من فضلك أرسله هناك وضع فقط وصلة مع وصف مختصر هنا. Boarisch: Sofern 's gåht, hinterlass Dei Nåchricht af da Diskussionseitn des betreffndn Artikels und plazier hia nur an Link dorthi. Беларуская: Калі гэта толькі магчыма, калі ласка, пакідайце свае каментарыі непасрэдна на старонцы «Talk» адпаведнага артыкулу Вікі, а на дадзенай старонцы пакідайце толькі спасылку туды. Български: При възможност оставяйте вашите коментарии непосредствено на беседата на съответната Уики статия, а на тази страница поставяйте само връзка до нея. بختياري: ای صفحه صحبت عمومی و صحبت در مَورِدِ خط مشی‌های ویکی‌مدیا هده. (نظرتو چنه); سی صحبت در مَورِدِ زبانهای مختلف یا ترجمه، تابلو اعلانات مترجمها را بوینین. ایِر دیدگاه ایسا منه یه صفحه خاصه، لطفاً هونو منه همو صفحه بفرستین و ایچو فقط یه لینک و یه توضیح خلاصه بنین سیش. Brezhoneg: E kement ha ma c'hallit en ober, laoskit ho kemennadennoù war bajenn gaozeal ar pennad zo e kaoz, ha na skrivit amañ nemet ur gerig displegañ gant ul liamm. Català: En la mesura del possible, deixeu el vostre missatge a la plana de discussió de l'article corresponent, i aquí només poseu-hi un enllaç cap al mateix. Česky: Pokud je to možné, zanechte detailní zprávu na diskusní stránce příslušného článku a sem dejte jen jednoduché vysvětlení s odkazem. Dansk: Prøv så vidt muligt at skrive dine beskeder på de relevante artiklers diskussionssider og blot sætte et link til den her. Deutsch: Sofern möglich, hinterlasse deine Nachrichten auf der Diskussionsseite des betreffenden Artikels und platziere hier lediglich einen Link dorthin. Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎: Sofern möglich, hinterlassen Sie Ihre Nachrichten auf der Diskussionsseite des betreffenden Artikels und platzieren Sie hier lediglich einen Link dorthin. Zazaki: Nara ke heqa werenayışi da şıma pela esta se, Kereme ke mesace xo ucade vırade u tiya de wastışe xo kılm tepşe. Ελληνικά: Όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο, σας παρακαλούμε να αφήνετε τα μηνύματα σας στη σελίδα συζήτησης του σχετικού άρθρου και εδώ να αφήνετε μόνο έναν συνδέσμο προς αυτή. English: If your comment relates to a matter relevant to a particular page, please post it there and only place a link with a brief description here. Esperanto: Laŭeble metu vian plenan mesaĝon en la diskuton de la koncerna artikolo kaj ĉi tien nur unu linion kun ligo tien! Español: En tanto sea posible, coloca tu mensaje en la página de discusión del artículo concerniente, y deja aquí solamente una línea con un enlace hacia el mismo. Estremeñu: Ena miia lo posibri, asiaha el tu mensahi ena caraba el artículu correspondienti, i solu quea aquí un atihu pal mesmu. Euskara: Posible bada, utzi zure mezua nahi duzun artikuluak duen eztabaida orrian, eta hemen lotura azaltzen duen lerro bateko lotura utzi. فارسی: این صفحهٔ بحث عمومی و بحث‌ در مورد سیاست‌های فراویکی است. (نظرتان را بیافزایید); برای بحث در مورد چندزبانگی یا ترجمه، تابلوی اعلانات مترجمان را ببینید. اگر نظر شما در یک صفحهٔ به خصوص است، لطفاً آن را در همان صفحه ارسال کنید و این‌جا تنها یک پیوند و یک توضیح مختصر بگذارید. Français: Dans la mesure du possible, veuillez laisser vos messages dans la page de discussion de l’article concerné et n’insérer ici qu’un lien vers ce message. Frysk: Dit is de Meta-side foar algemiene diskusjes. Sjoch foar diskusjes oer meartalichheid en oersettings the translator's noticeboard en foar diskusjes oer Wikimedia oer it generaal Wikimedia Forum. At jo wat sizze wolle oer eat dat in spesifike side oanbelanget, doch dat dan op de oerlisside dêrfan en pleats hjir allinnich een ferwizing dêrnei mei in koarte omskriuwing. Galego: Na medida do posíbel, deixe as súas mensaxes na páxina de discusión do artigo relacionado e non insira aquí máis que unha ligazón cara a mensaxe. Alemannisch: Wänn megli, setze Eiri Nochricht uf d Diskussionsyte vum jewylige Artikel un setze do numme ne Gleich ane. עברית: ככל האפשר, בבקשה להשאיר הודעות בדף השיחה של הערך ולהשאיר רק קישור כאן. Hrvatski: Ako se Vaš komentar odnosi na predmet u svezi s određenom stranicom, molimo pošaljite ga onamo na stranicu za razgovor tog članka, a ovdje postavite poveznicu s kratkim opisom. Bahasa Indonesia: Ini adalah halaman untuk membicarakan mengenai hal-hal umum dan kebijakan untuk Meta (klik di sini untuk komentar baru); untuk membicarakan mengenai hal multibahasa atau penerjemahan, lihat di papan pengumuman penerjemahan. Jika Anda hendak mengomentari dengan suatu halaman artikel tertentu, tuliskan komentar Anda di halaman pembicaraan artikel tersebut, dan letakkan di sini pranala ke halaman pembicaraan tersebut dengan penjelasan singkat. Italiano: Nei limiti del possibile, lasciate i vostri messaggi nella pagina di discussione dell'articolo e inserite in questa pagina solo il link alla discussione. 日本語: ここはメタの全体的なことや方針について議論するページです（新規の議論を追加する）。多言語化や翻訳についての議論は、翻訳者の掲示板をご覧ください。くわしい話はなるべく関連するページのノートに書いておき、ここにはそこへのリンクを添えた1行程度のメッセージだけを残すようにお願いします。 한국어: 만일 당신의 의견이 특정 문서의 내용과 관련있을 경우, 그 내용은 그 문서에 적어주시고, 이곳에는 그 문서로 가는 고리와 간단한 설명만 적어주세요. Ripoarisch: Wann mööshlesh, schriiv Dinge Bëijdrach op däm Attikkel singe Klaaf_Sigk un donn hee nur ene koote Henwiiß unn_enne Lengk drop henn. Македонски: Ако е можно, оставајте ги вашите коментари на страниците за разговор на конкретните статии, а тука ставајте само врски до нив заедно со краток коментар. नेपाली: यदि तपाईंको टिप्पणी कुनै एक विशेष पृष्ठको प्रासंगिक विषयसित सम्बन्धित छ भनें त्यो त्यहीं राख्नुहोस् र यहाँ केवल एउटा संक्षिप्त विवरणको साथमा लिङ्क गर्नुहोस्। Nederlands: Laat je gedetailleerde berichten zo veel mogelijk achter op de discussiepagina van het betreffende artikel en hier een enkele regel met een verwijzing daarheen. Norsk bokmål: Prøv å gjøre din beskjed her så kort som mulig, og legg heller en lenke til relevante diskusjonssider. Norsk nynorsk: Prøv å gjera beskjeda di her så kort som muleg, og legg heller ei lenkje til relevante diskusjonssider. Occitan: Dins la mesura del possible, daissatz vòstres messatges dins la pagina de discussion de l'article concernit e inserissètz aicí solament un ligam vèrs aqueste messatge. Português: Se possível, poste sua mensagem na página de discussão da página concernente e deixe aqui um pequeno lembrete com um link para a discussão. Armãneashce: Cãndu comentarlu-a vostru easte ligat cu vãrã frãndzã spetsialã, Vã-plãcãrsim s-u publicats aclo shi sade s-bãgats ligãturã cu unã descriptsia shcurtã aoatse. Русский: По возможности, оставляйте ваши комментарии непосредственно на странице обсуждения соответствующей статьи Вики, а на данной странице помещайте только ссылку туда. Slovenščina: Kolikor je le mogoče, pustite svoja sporočila z vsemi podrobnostmi na pogovorni strani ustreznega članka, tu pa naj ostane le vrstica s povezavo nanjo. Српски / srpski: Уколико је могуће, оставите свој коментар на страници за разговор конкретне странице, а овде оставите само линк са кратким објашњењем. Svenska: Om din ärende gäller en specifik sida så skriv då istället där och lämna endast en länk och en kort beskrivning här. ไทย: การอภิปรายเกี่ยวกับหัวข้อเรื่องใดๆ กรุณาเขียนไว้ที่ หน้าพูดคุย ของเรื่องนั้นๆ และทำลิ้งก์จากหน้านี้ไปสู่หัวข้อเรื่องนั้น โดยเขียนไม่ควรเกินหนึ่งบรรทัด. Türkçe: Eğer tartışma konunuz ile ilgili özel bir sayfa varsa, lütfen mesajınızı oraya bırakın ve buraya yalnızca bir bağlantı ile kısa bir açıklama ekleyin. Українська: Якщо можна, залишайте Ваші коментарі безпосередньо на сторінці обговорення відповідної статті вікі, а на цій сторінці розміщуйте посилання туди. Tiếng Việt: Nếu lời bình của bạn bàn về một vấn đề liên quan đến một trang cụ thể, hãy đăng nó ở đây và chỉ ra liên kết đến đó kèm theo lời mô tả ngắn gọn. Volapük: Ma mög, pladolös küpeti(s) olik sui bespikapad pada tefik; pladolös isio te nuni brefik e yümi lü bespik at. 中文（简体）‎: 请尽量在讨论页发表你的详细意见，只在本页用一行写下你的意见摘要，然后做个链接连到即可。 中文（繁體）‎: 請儘量在討論頁發表你的詳細意見，只在本頁用一行寫下你的意見摘要，然後做個鏈結連到即可。

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
About Meta Discussion pages Request pages Policies and guidelines Information and statistics Categories Help pages Participate: How to edit a page Meta-Wiki discussion page Meta-l mailing list

This page experimentally allows language localisation.

Navigation for those who want to understand subject in unknown world.

Wiki's application had been the well known application in the world which allow us to understand things effectively. But when we talk on topic like making people educated as in college or university, it would be a tough job for any site. I had always wanted to understand everything better, though I find it hard to navigate the favorable article on the topic, indeed it provide the link to another article if particular topic is unknown but the main problem is, how to get the destiny which is unknown to user them self. You would need an ideal navigation and user interface to unknowns. As I have been through such problem, I always like to suggest for the development of thing so called timeline, perhaps Wikiline! It would be a map in understanding the topic matter, rather than searching some random stuff in the topic people could actually read the topic more effectively. Everything had developed Itself with reference to time, Science, technology, society, politics, economics and so-on. Now articles describing the topic is linked by a timeline interface. This interface would allow us to navigate through time, like first come Galileo experiment then Newton and so on. It allow the user to see the reason for the development and let them understand and develop their perspective on the topic more accurately and effectively.In the interface I visualize this application as the Microsoft encarta's timeline with timeline on different topic selectable by the simple roll out. Though it would be very vast in every topic. Books, Musics, Movies e.t.c are arranged in author, Band or singer, or director, actor/actress e.t.c's biography arranged in timeline of About Personalities, Filtered according to the contribution place. Wiki, should also embed the Audio, Video, flash etc files to the articles. On lecture, Movies, Books, Songs etc. Posting it as an expectation to such well navigator of article, It would be my honor, to contribute to wiki society for any interface and conceptual problems.

-Ronit Ramdam

Of course! But for now, 1)a thorough use of the search engine features, and 2)clicking through the (diff'ed) sequence of a page history (if you're on a fast network), is enlightening enough for your prototype.

A category page is like your "topic". It has a history too, but its pages section is riddled with new and deleted, miscategorized and recategorized, pages that don't make for the solid history that could educate the public, like an "encarta" could. The history page sequence of a category page would show its subcategory section is riddled with category pagename moves and renames. The categories frame is likewise confusing. But you know what, in the future, you know, where ideals happen, a computer could generate notable events for your "wikiline" in a kind of programmable "hindsight" report whose criterion are simply that if the title is stable in time, (else if etc.), there is probably something to it that is worth looking into. But the end result will require creative intelligence, such as now available in people like yourself, to create them by hand. Cpiral (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Country name translation

I have found Category:Country names, but those templates only currently have translations into Czech and English. Also, that system is hardly used. Is there another way to get a translation of a country name? Can we use Wikidata or some already-defined translations? πr² (t • c) 22:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Using Wikidata shouldn't be a problem, in my opinion. Wikidata has already translations of all country names in all languages which have a Wikipedia article in their language edition. Regards, Vogone talk 01:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

How can we use Wikidata? Can we even do that yet? Wikidata/Notes/Inclusion syntax isn't clear and is a draft. πr² (t • c) 01:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not possible yet, but it will soon. It should be possible on Wednesday. Regards, Vogone talk 01:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible now on Meta? Or just on (11?) Wikipedias? πr² (t • c) 19:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Meh … sadly Wikidata is and will be only deployed to Wikipedias for now. I forgot about the fact that Meta-Wiki is not a Wikipedia edition. But I am sure you could use the data already manually (c&p). Regards, Vogone talk 19:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

History of Wikimedia

I recently added some historical information to the page Wikimedia Foundation. Does anyone want to add more dates or check it? Also, WMF#History is clearly outdated. πr² (t • c) 19:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

There's also wmf:History and w:en:Wikimedia Foundation, of course. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

"english"

Hi. The top of my Meta-Wiki page says "english". What it should say is "English". How might one go about fixing this? Killiondude (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

IIRC CLDR is correct. I guess you use monobook and that it's monobook unconditionally making everything in mw:personal tools lower case, right? I guess you'd have to file a bug against monobook; mw:ULS maintainers won't fight with unsupported skins I'm afraid. --Nemo 23:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't unconditionally make every personal tool lowercase. The username is exempt, of course. :-) And Monobook is still supported. Yes, please file a bug in Bugzilla (if there isn't one already). I'd noticed this as well, I just hadn't gotten around to filing a bug for it. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm that this is lowercase in Monobook, but not in Vector. I didn't even realize that before! πr² (t • c) 02:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Here it is: bugzilla:46725. Killiondude (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Minang Wikipedia

Hi, why still now Minang Wikipedia didn't have in the List of Wikipedias? I think it should had in a list because Minang Wikipedia was released since 7 February ago.--法尔汉 Aplikasi 08:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to add it. πr² (t • c) 04:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

List of active users

Hello. I don't know if this is the right place for this so if it isn't, please point me to it. However I found a dead special page on every wiki I've tried. It is Tools -> Special pages -> Statistics -> List active users. The wikis I've tried is commons, en.wikipedia, sv.wikipedia, sv.wikibooks and this one (meta). - Averater (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, ^demon killed it. You can join the discussion at mailarchive:mediawiki-l/2013-April/040964.html. --Nemo 09:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

bugzilla:41078. πr² (t • c) 16:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both. - That explains it. - Averater (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Zero configuration namespace coming to meta near you

Hi, I am a new employee (and a very long time volunteer developer), working on Wikipedia Zero. My current project is to make adding new telecoms very easy and painless process, and to do that I would like to create a new meta namespace specifically for that purpose. We plan to have hundreds of telecom companies participate in this program, and we need to be able to scale easily, as well as to provide very comprehensive editing, visualization, and error detection capabilities. For complete details and complexities, please read Zero Architecture RFC. The new zero namespace will replace this two pages.

Having a separate namespace will allow us to:

• Store all configuration as a JSON text, easily parsable by other programs
• Perform exhaustive settings validation when saving, preventing accidental mistakes, verifying that IP ranges do not conflict with each other.
• Have explicit permissions for telcos to edit just these pages, with a possibility of even more granular per/user control.
• Eventually attach a form editor to simplify the process even further.
• Rely on meta's proximity to the rest of production environment for stability and high availability.

Update: Per Thehelpfulone suggestion, we will need a new security group as well (zeroadmin) that will have write access to this namespace. At first it should only be the engineers involved in the Zero project, and once all the validation code has been implemented, it can be extended to more people, including Telcos.

--Yurik (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered merging this to the Schema namespace, possibly changing the name if necessary? Creating a new namespace for every new application/extension is not particularly neat. --Nemo 06:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I have considered it, but it does not solve most of the goals - schema has a very different fundamental structure, requires very different validation, visualization, and editing tools. This makes sharing a namespace much bigger problem than what it would solve. And I don't think we add namespaces for each extension, only the very few that require highly flexible and rapidly changeable wiki-based configuration systems, especially the ones where many people may be involved in changing it. --Yurik (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Will the namespace be called "Zero" or something similar? What's its namespace number? πr² (t • c) 16:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I found the answer to the former question on MediaWiki.org. πr² (t • c) 16:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

See here. --Yurik (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

See also Gerrit change. Thehelpfulone 21:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here, Yurik. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Namespaces "Zero" & "Zero talk" added. --Ori.livneh (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ori, and here's the first zero page. We will be using it until for all internal testing until we are ready to make them all. Zero:250-99. --Yurik (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

How are you coming up with the names for the pages? Thehelpfulone 07:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

w:Mobile country code and mcc-mnc site. --Yurik (talk) 08:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Should WMF post our fundraising AB testing retrospective on Meta?

The Wikimedia Foundation fundraising team is working on a big report on past AB tests of fundraising banners. The report will look closely at up to 100 tests performed in past fundraisers, demonstrating how we think we got the statistics right or wrong in each one. We'll be asking for comment and assistance from anyone interested in AB testing -- not only from the Wikimedia community. Each test will have many graphs. The finished report could include as many as one thousand graphs and 100 different pages. We will also be posting data sets to go with each test. We have a new reporting server where those datasets can be stored.

Is Meta an appropriate place to post that kind of report and host discussion with people inside and outside of the Wikimedia community? Zackexley (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like the most appropriate wiki for what you want to achieve I think. Thehelpfulone 18:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

What about having lots of people come comment and discuss here who aren't from the WM community? For example, people who will chronically forget to sign their posts! Zackexley (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not really a problem, unless it will flood the RecentChanges for a long period of time. We have Foundation wiki feedback and the massive English Wikipedia anti-SOPA blackout/Congress data. I don't think anyone would have any complaints about hosting this on Meta. Will the graphs/images be uploaded to Meta-Wiki or Commons? πr² (t • c) 18:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I propose a new namespace</irony>. --MF-W 18:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The value of the graphs (both currently and into the future, as they become historical or not) is important to consider. If they're mostly valueless graphs, they probably don't need to be uploaded here (or on Commons), you could probably just link to a folder of the images on a server. (It's even possible to display the images inline without uploading them to a Wikimedia wiki using an obscure MediaWiki feature. That is, you could put the images in a folder on sillyserver.wikimedia.org and then link to them or display them inline here. It's something to consider.) That said, if the images/graphs are going to be valuable longer term, Meta-Wiki is a fine place to put them.

The same is true of text as it is with images. Meta-Wiki doesn't need 1,000 useless subpages. But it could always expand to host/house 1,000 valuable and neat subpages.

There's no issue with "outsiders" posting here at Meta-Wiki. If it gets bad enough, we'll get a SineBot, of course. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Meta_talk:Babylon#Weird

Please see discussion over there. I am not sure if I am the only one experiencing this issues. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

New RfC

Please see Requests_for_comment/Activity_levels_of_advanced_administrative_rights_holders. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

New RfC: Requests for comment/Interproject links interface. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Mobile CentralNotice Banner (on en.m.wp.o)

The mobile team in conjunction with the fundraising team is going to test out the new integration between the MobileFrontEnd and CentralNotice extensions. We will be doing this the next week (Apr 22-28th). What we will be putting up is a banner recommending users try out the new commons app (Banner). Specifically this banner will be targeted at logged in alpha/beta mobile users of en.m.wikipedia.org browsing in english and having a handset that we identify as an android device. If you have any problems please report them to Help_talk:CentralNotice/Mobile. Mwalker (WMF) (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

We need "Meta:For Wikipedians"

I think that it would be useful if Meta developed a page as some of the sister projects have done that expresses the point and value of this site for Wikipedians. Often we see Wikipedians come here expecting it to be like the wikipedias (inherently rule-based) and we don't do well to explain our point of difference, the purpose, the benefits that we bring. Some examples of pages that I see we could look to for ideas are

• n:en:Wikinews:For Wikipedians
• s:en:Wikisource:For Wikipedians

Whether this becomes a redirect for "Meta:For sister projects]] may be worth the conversation. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Draft created, based on the Wikinews one. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think part of the process of being a Wikipedian who metamorphoses into a beautiful Wikimedian is discovering these things on his own! Back in my day... Killiondude (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Meta:FAQ

Does anyone want to contribute to this page? I hope it's useful. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"It is on Meta™" and organizing things

Apparently, Meta is a mess. I believe Manuel (User:80686) has brought up concerns about how hard it is to locate anything on Meta. [1]. He's started a chapters portal here. I thought with the recent clean-up and Pir's efforts, the categorization system was.....better than before. Can we do something to improve these pages? a clean-up drive or something? There were suggestions for opening up a new chapters: namespace on Meta a while ago, maybe something like that can be reconsidered again? Theo10011 (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

We have an Iberocoop namespace, a chapters one makes about as much sense. However, I think we can accomplish this instead by using subpages (like Special:PrefixIndex/Wikimedia Australia) and categorization. I'll see what I can do. It would be much easier if other people helped overhaul Meta. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, we also have done a lot of clean up - we deleted all the old Help: namespaces in various languages last year, and have done a lot of categorisation work. I've been liberal in deleting old pages too (such as when I cleaned up all the OTRS pages on Meta). I'm happy to delete pages, but chapter people should help out too with the tidy up as they're mostly knowledgeable about which pages should be kept, which should be deleted and what goes where. If we did have a new namespace it would probably need to be called something else to include Thematic organisations etc too. Thehelpfulone 16:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe "Affiliates" or "Organisations" namespace then? Not sure if it's worth it though. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I know I should have helped out more with the overhaul, we all should have. I'm also not affiliated with any chapter, so most of my free time goes to following up on the lists and adding comments on existing discussions on Meta. Anyway, I'd still be very interested in restarting the discussion about a chapters/affiliates namespace - it makes more sense than an Iberocoop namespace, considering how much chapter stuff is already here. THO you can always ask the chapter people to help directly(don't know if they will). I'd like to have more thoughts on the namespace suggestion. Meta isn't only about chapters either, though I think some people get lost in that impression. Anyway, Thanks for all the great work PiR and THO! Theo10011 (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I know I'll regret this, but feel free to forward any tedious cleanup requests to Meta:Please do it for me, I'm lazy. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

And this is why you are awesome. But I'm not the one asking for help or even a cleanup. My thought was that even after a lot of work by a few people here, the impression doesn't seem to be shifting. Maybe a larger structural change is needed so it has a more measurable impact? Theo10011 (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Did we really categorise that many pages? Stats? :) I categorised a few thousands in 2010 I believe, but there's always more to do. Most cleanup nowadays should be related to translation work.

I doubt the specific case is about how Meta is messy, but rather a quite natural effect of morphing expectations. A normal organization deals with legal and procedural requirements and typically fills some well-defined forms; Wikimedia's bureaucracy is just impossible. A chapter has to deal with internal processes (legal and formal, but also defined ad hoc for internal purposes and social e.g. depending on the members); then the WMF invents a new thing every other month that "you're not forced, or maybe yes, but in any case if you don't you're SO evil", and may be anything in an infinite amount of manifestations; then there is the pressure of the chapters' peers; then the meta/global community and all the communities with their expectations (why didn't you tell us this, where is that information, are you seriously not reading this, oh you gotta be kidding you're not doing this and that while you're doing that and this) etc. etc. And the boundaries between what belongs to a group or another are not pre-defined, either, which is why we needed to introduce the concept (so much abused) of a "movement" in the first place.

Meta is just the main place, the container, where this chaotic system coagulates and shows itself, it has no faults in itself. On the other hand, the visionary goal of the Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta has always been and still is to find a way to show to the external world what the Wikimedia movements really is and values in all its complexity, and at the same time to find a way to bring it all together. We're still very far from that, and I doubt we're going in that direction at all (see for instance how little discussion on WMF matters there is, or how WMF software projects are discussed on en.wiki rather than Meta), but that's the purpose of this wiki. Maybe we'll find a solution in a decade (or two) more! The goal was set only 5 years ago or so by Anthere. ;-) --Nemo 18:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see much that's actionable in this thread. What, specifically, is messy or disorganized? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S. You'll be happy to know, after six months of debate, discussion, and deliberation, we've concluded that Meta is not a registered trademark.

Wikimedia Foundation elections 2013/Post mortem

What's this?!? --Ricordisamoa 20:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Something like a feedback page for when the elections are over. See the linked "post mortems" from 2009 and 2011 as examples. --MF-W 20:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

wikt:post mortem. --Nemo 20:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

«19:19,27 April 2013 Gaggysingh type of disease is in a particular part of body,the type of dietary suplement should be given.»?!? --Ricordisamoa 20:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you know what that means? PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No way! --Ricordisamoa 21:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Restrict or abolish local file uploading to Meta-Wiki

TL;DR: Whether Meta-Wiki should abolish or restrict local file uploading, jump to conclusions

I would like to propose that we either abolish file uploading entirely in favor of Wikimedia Commons, or that we restrict the right to upload files to Meta to an 'uploader' usergroup.

I.- Introduction

Most of what is uploaded here is:

a) deleted (copyvios, out of scope stuff, etc.).

b) files perfectly suitable for Wikimedia Commons.

c) files missing essential information of source/licence/permission (but once linked anywhere Meta:Deletion policy prohibits deleting which is nonsense).

• Category:Images with unknown license
• Category:Images with unknown source
• Our list of local files will need for sure a deep review too.

II.- Abolition

Meta-Wiki does not have a fair use policy. Meta:Fair use has been in draft status since 2008 and was never approved nor half discussed. All files tagged as such are in violation of the wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. In a recent RFD in which several people participated we deleted several files irregulary hosted as "fair use" images based on the absence of a local EDP and the WMF resolutions.

As I see things, there's no reason why freely and appropiately licensed files should be uploaded here rather than to Wikimedia Commons, where they for sure will be best mantained. I can't see a reason of allowing local file uploading given the existence of Wikimedia Commons unless the project does explicity accept fair use, which is not our case.

It is also notable that there are not much people interested in doing image maintenance here. That has the potential result of off-topic files and copyright violations to be hosted here for a long time before anyone notices, as it's happening now.

Given that, I propose that we abolish file uploading to Meta. We have a central Wikimedia Commons project with a very active community specialized in image maintenance which can be used for this. They have the tools for that.

III.- Restrictions

If, on the other hand, Meta still wants to keep the ability to upload files locally, I'd beg to consider placing a restriction on who can upload files here. Most of what is (correctly) uploaded and licensed here could have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons without any problems.

a) If local uploading is kept, I think that we should restrict such uploading to the strictly necessary. That is currently things which can not be uploaded to commons because of —primary— commons:COM:PS (since copyrighted files aren't suposed to be stored here either) and to users that know what Meta is about. I'd suggest to restrict uploading to autoconfirmed users and/or administrators as some projects already do. This will ensure a low level of uploads, and from people that is expected to know basics for licensing and copyright (hopefully).

b) And just in case Meta-Wiki decided that fair use should be allowed here; I'd suggest to restrict local uploading to a 'uploader' usergroup (and admins) so that only approved users could upload files here that are not suitable for Wikimedia Commons due to licensing problems. The uploader permission would be granted to users that has basic understanding of licensing issues (esp. fair use) so they could just upload fair use files locally, uploading the free files on Wikimedia Commons.

IV.- Conclusion

I think that the most simple action would be to abolish entirely local uploading and start transferring local freely licensed files to Wikimedia Commons.

But I also can see a possible need of having local uploads in case a copyrighted files need to be uploaded because there's no free substitute for it (ie.: on bids, grants, fundraising, etc.). For that we would need to develop a decent EDP. However if we're going to host images (specially non-free) we need people interested in oversighting such activities or DMCAs and lawsuits could start to fly.

Please share your thoughts and opinions. I hope that this is not Yet Another Ignored Thread^TM on this subject. Thanks for reading.
-- MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support Obviously a good idea. No reason to host files here generally. There may be some very valid reasons for one or two people uploading them but that can easily be dealt with (I'm thinking WMF report type ones). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support for restricting local file uploading. Mathonius (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• support, reasonable idea. As a minimum, it should be restricted to autopatrolled users (this way the right can also be "managed" a bit). Creating yet another user group (uploaders) seems unnecessary to me. --MF-W 17:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• It seems awfully premature to discuss restricting uploading here when nobody has reviewed what's already been uploaded here. I'd start by moving files to Commons where appropriate and deleting anything that's no longer needed. Then we can see where we are and how we want to move forward with what's remaining. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • What do you mean? I do know what kind of files appear on Special:Log/upload. --MF-W 00:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I believe MZ is suggesting that we should go through the files that already exist on Meta (of which there are many!) to evaluate whether they should be moved to Commons. However, Meta does seem to get quite a steady stream of uploads so restricting existing uploads could help with the clean up as it would ensure no more files could be added to the clean up workload unnecessarily. Thehelpfulone 00:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, I'm suggesting going through Special:ListFiles and moving files to Commons as appropriate or deleting files as appropriate. Once we do that, we can see what remains here at Meta-Wiki and determine whether restricting local uploading makes sense. If local uploading needs to be restricted right now due to misuse or abuse, there's always the AbuseFilter. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Coordination draft page. Feel free to improve: Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta/Image review 2013. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Well, but when I look at Special:Listfiles and/or Special:Log/upload, I see that most uploads are either from/for chapters (unfortunately often without license info - to be changed of course), or get deleted as out of scope for Meta. Restricting uploads to e.g. autoconfirmed users would probably already take away most of the out of scope stuff, which gets randomly uploaded here (without license info, of course). --MF-W 01:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
          • "Restricting uploads to e.g. autoconfirmed users would probably ..." Except that it is already restricted to the autoconfirmed/confirmed users. Ruslik (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Autoconfirmed isn't great for this, as attaining autoconfirmed status here is trivial. Something like Special:AbuseFilter/66 might do. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
              • Oh, I meant autopatrolled. --MF-W 15:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
                • Hmm, autopatrolled wouldn't be helpful either. It is also a trivial right and we currently have 1,382 users flagged as such. If we choose to restrict file uploading (and not the option to abolish it entirely) I think we need a more restricted group for this IMHO, so we can ensure that uploads are being done by people who knows what they're doing :) -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support I have never really seen why this project needs local files. Non-free files are not allowed here, and other files should ideally be on Commons. Also, files in Category:Images with unknown source and Category:Images with unknown license tend to remain here for several years whereas Commons deletes them a lot faster. Commons users are better at handling these kinds of things. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support abolishing local uploading all-together. Just no need to put files here. Courcelles 15:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support abolishing local uploads, in accordance with the Licence policy of the WMF. Also meta:Fair use is not only a proposed policy from 2008, it also is not in accordance to copyright laws in the US and thus is inegible as an EDP.--Snaevar (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support, per above. On Wikidata, we have completely disabled uploading (see). --Ricordisamoa 19:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Most projects don't need local uploads, and having allowed it here is redundant at this point. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support restricting to uploader group only, and immediately, with clean-up to follow. I spend a fair amount of time reviewing images uploaded here and most are out of scope, copied from Commons, or not tagged properly for copyright. What remains are suitable for Commons. Tagging them for {{nld}} results in no, or very delayed, action from the Meta sysops. I've raised this before that I don't see the point in actually tagging files for delayed deletion because nobody seems very interested in dealing with it, so let's move it to Commons. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Tagging files doesn't always work as expected, no. If the tag adds the file to Category:Deleteme (e.g. {{NowCommons}} or {{Delete}}), then it is shortly deleted. {{No source}} has no notification template and the {{Possible copyright violation}} template tells that you should use a non-existing notification template. The good thing with {{Possible copyright violation}} is that it moves the file to Category:Deleteme if the file hasn't been edited for 7 days, so that the file eventually is deleted. Maybe that feature could be implemented for {{No source}} and {{No license}} too, so that we won't have a three-year backlog. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support This is a good idea. If specialized projects don't need a function that will only be prone to abuse, there is no reason to keep it around. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Until/unless a non-free policy is approved, there's really no reason to have local uploads here. Free and appropriatly documented files used here will automatically be "in scope" at Commons, so no problems on that count. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support I don't see much point. Numbermaniac (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Like above, I don't see a point in uploading here... iXavier (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support For totally abolish local uploading here. --Γλαύκος (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Free-licensed files on Commons will definitely be better maintained. Plus we don't have a local fair use policy. -Mys_721tx(talk) 20:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Actually, a fair use policy was drafted for meta. Nonetheles, I still think that Commons is where all of these questions will be dealt with more expertise. Therefore, Meta images should be uploaded on Commons, strenghtening the connection between the projects, and shifting the workload of maintaning images here Phelps246 (talk) 06:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support cutting off new uploads to Meta. Existing files can then be transferred to Commons or deleted as necessary. The only reason why local uploads would ever be necessary on Meta would be for fair-use media, which for some reason seems unlikely on such a website as Meta. harej (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support, per Herby. Trijnstel_talk 09:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• ((support}} CFynn (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC) In the long run, it should be much easier to manage and maintain things by keeping all media on Commons. There is already a common log-in for all sites.
• Oppose and what about chapters reports, financial statement , fudnraising agreements, etc.? these files have nothing to do on Commons. Charles Andrès (WMCH) 08:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  Why not? commons:Category:Wikimedia chapters contains several subcategories of local chapters that have uploaded there those financial statements and chapter reports, etc. over there (ie: commons:Category:Wikimedia France). -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  See my comment below. Deryck C. 15:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  Maybe because we should stop to fill Commons with documents that have nothing to do with the purpose of this project? Meta is here for global coordination, Commons is one project, I think it's a severe bias to use commons as a repository for wikimedia movement entities.--Charles Andrès (WMCH) 06:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Charles Andrès. Not all documents produced or curated by Wikimedia initiatives are CC-By-SA compatible. For example, working documents of Wikimania bids and other Wikimedia conferences are often produced by a third-party. These are customarily uploaded to Meta, but since they're produced by a third-party without being explicitly licensed as CC-By-SA, they'll be deleted if uploaded to Commons. Abolishing local uploading for autoconfirmed users would mean there's nowhere these documents could go, and would ironically give disproportionate power to, erm, Wikimedians who are close friends with Meta admins. Deryck C. 15:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The working documents of Wikimania bids are currently up for deletion at WM:RFD#All files in Category:Unfree Wikimania bid media files because Meta doesn't have any policy which allows hosting those files. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support, but with an exemption policy covering some sorts of files—for instance those mentioned by Stefan2 below and Deryck just above me. (I can be persuaded that we can use external links for pictures of buildings in FOP-less countries.) In the latter case, I think that Meta should only allow files which are not own work of the uploader, for instance scans of documents and letters of support created for bidding purposes. All materials which are created entirely by chapters and which could be copyrighted by them or their employees should go directly to Commons. odder (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment (edit conflict): note Grants:Retrospective 2009-2012#Require grant reports to be entirely hosted on Meta, or another Foundation site. If that becomes a legal/official/codified requirement on WMF's end, restricting uploads on Meta won't be possible, unless unfree uploads are allowed on Commons instead (or a new wiki is created on purpose...). --Nemo 16:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Can't we just require those to be licensed under some free licence? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Precisely — I cannot see a reason for them not to be released under a free licence if they are created by chapters or other Wikimedia entities. odder (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
      • No, we can't, if it's really all documents. Letters from others, receipts, estimates and all sorts of documents produced by others will not be under a free license and there's no way to force them to. --Nemo 06:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. ALTERNATIVE: Something along the lines of MarcoAurelio's temporary measure makes more sense to me. No one is saying that more than a relatively tiny number of files (at most) each of which took a lot of effort to create, need to be uploadable here. So limiting the number of uploads (e.g. to 1 per 30 edits) and requiring a captcha would address the problem while creating less of a problem than abolishing uploads. We certainly shouldn't be deleting or refusing to host Wikimania bids. We should have a proper EDP. And, the idea of deleting stuff that has a valid fair use claim (and is otherwise appropriate here) is an impressively inane and pointy non-solution to the problem of needing to adopt one.--Elvey (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • All users who can upload files also have the "skipcaptcha" user right, so the captcha would automatically be skipped. Why can't we demand a free licence for Wikimania bid files? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• My opinion has been repeatedly requested on this matter. I oppose this idea. Meta-Wiki already suffers from too many restrictions, it needs to be more open. --Nnemo (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  What other restrictions? Meta is the project where any autoconfirmed user can edit the Main Page. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  Are you kidding ? For example, the other day I wanted to edit the huuuge edit notice here : meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Main_Page/WM_News&action=edit. First problem : it was sooo difficult to find where it is. And, once I had found the place of this edit notice, second problem : it is locked. So I left this edit notice in its poor state. --Nnemo --Nnemo (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support I believe that Meta-Wiki should stay 'meta' and the uploads should be moved on to Commons as even the existing data on other wikis is being transferred. Cyan.aqua (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose What is the point of requiring reports (I'm thinking in particular of financial reports) to be freely modifiable ? As such, they should not be uploaded on commons; instead, if the meta policy does not allow for these files, the policy should be modified. There is no reason to call them copyvio or to talk about fair use -- I agree that they should be freely distributable (I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise), I agree that some of the content should be reusable in other contexts (e.g. template, maybe some text), but a free license allowing any kind modification sounds wrong. Schutz (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  The point in requiring to be freely modifiable: 1. It's a wiki principle. 2. What if someone wants to make a new report and copy the format of an old one? PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  And, of course, to make the license compatible with other projects. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  1. We are not talking about wiki pages here, but e.g. PDF documents. And a principle should not be applied blindly; what works for articles, photos, etc, does not automatically translate to any kind of document. Looking at a couple of examples (e.g. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:Jul-Dec%2712_Mid-year_financials2.pdf), even the WMF does not tag its financial report with a free licence. 2. Yes, I mentioned this above, but it's a huge stretch from "copying the format" and "allowing any modification, including changing some figures and redistributing the file". Schutz (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I do agree that there is a lot of useless images here at Meta, and staff like File:Feldmark2.jpg (just a random pick) should go to Commons or be deleted. However, at least three types of files definitely should be allowed: 1
  1. photos of non-free buildings. If there is no way to upload photos here and they are systematically deleted from Commons, countries without FOP will be disadvantaged during all biding processes - e.g. Wikimédia France will either have to choose old venues that are at least 70 years old or be unable to illustrate their bid with pictures of the venue.
  2. documents that concern Wikimedia projects but were not created by their volunteers (e.g. letters of support, government resolutions if they are not PD etc.)
  3. internal documents (e.g. financial reports) that are free to distribute but just do not need be modified and have nothing to do on Commons

  I think an EDP is definitely needed for Meta, as none of the abovementioned points is againts the free culture spirit and all of the above is definitely useful for Meta — NickK (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support I see three problems with uploading files to Meta-Wiki:

1. Unnecessary maintenance of multiple sites for uploaded content instead of managing centrally on Commons, with all associated benefits i.e. Commons users who are familiar with, even prefer to work with uploaded content;
2. Lack of effective filtering for uploaded files; On Commons, bots and editor-initiated processes are well-established. They flag or confirm license status, otherwise vet uploaded files, assign categories etc. Meta-Wiki does not have, nor does it need that. Meta-Wiki's function is not as an encyclopedia, but as WMF administration (non-computing "back end" for Wikipedia?)
3. Website security can be compromised by file uploads from users. It happened at Adobe. I don't know what measures are in place to mitigate such exposure on Commons, but I'm not concerned. Commons has system admins who watch for that sort of trouble. Meta-Wiki is very different than Commons or local Wiki's, e.g. traffic volume, type of edits. It shouldn't be used for purposes that it wasn't designed, as that will potentially cause unnecessary vulnerability and exposure. File upload-related security problems aren't necessarily malicious by intent! A file containing malware could be uploaded without knowledge that it was harmful.

I DO believe that files needed by Meta-Wiki to conduct Meta-Wiki related business should reside on the Meta-Wiki website, not Commons. That's part of an EDP discussion though. --FeralOink (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Charles Andrès. Some files actually make sense to host here. Kaldari (talk) 07:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Remove all files from Meta and disallow future uploads. Arguments in opposition by Charles Andrès, Deryck C, Elvey, and Schutz are not persuasive to me and the arguments in support are. Some of the reasons for opposition include Commons not being a repository for documents, but I think that it should become one. Some files uploaded on Meta are not free files and cannot be uploaded on Commons, but neither are they legally allowed on Meta and should be deleted from here anyway. Some documents are not modifiable, but I think they should be if anyone chooses to adapt them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Follow up

As a temporary measure while this is resolved I have just activated the proposed MZMcBride's edit filter, raising the limits to 30 edits before a user is able to upload anything. As we speak, Meta continues to be flooded by innapropiate files and I'm deleting a bunch of recent copyvios now. From those that have commented here I see there's consensus in favor to restrict local uploading. If so, which restriction do we want to set? Absolutely no local uploads or allow certain users to upload, and under which conditions? -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• It will not made sense to me to allow local uploads if we do not allow unfree content. And if we are going to allow unfree content, do we have the capacity (community interested, tools, etc.) to oversight how that unfree content is being uploaded and kept? I do not think we have any of this right now sadly. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• I don't see any point in accepting local file uploads if Meta only allows files which are allowed on Commons anyway. If an EDP is created, it may be better to restrict uploads to a separate uploader usergroup which is granted to users who need to upload files. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• I see no reason for an EDP here. Disable local uploads completely. --MF-W 13:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• I do see use for an EDP - and have run into it myself. Meta can be used for many things, including talking about what is happening on other projects. Since there is no way to transclude files from a non-Commons project, if you are writing an essay or using examples from projects that have an EDP, the related materials (or remixes of them) should be hostable here. Similarly, partner press releases that might include fair use media should also be hostable here.

My proposal: have an EDP which is, roughly, the union of all other Wikimedia EDPs. (Derivatives of files that are allowed on at least one of our wikis should be allowed here - under the same fair-use or other conditions.) Uploads should be restricted to a usergroup. MZM's hack should be ok for now; a proper usergroup makes sense. –SJ talk  14:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

How would that EDP work? For example, the EDP on English Wikipedia heavily depends on how you wish to use an image and on which page you wish to use it. A file which is OK on one page may be unacceptable on another page, and Meta will obviously not use the file on the same page. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Per Stefan2. That EDP would be too wide in scope that would defeat the purpose that fair use should be kept at minimal and to be used only when really needed. Such a wide in scope EDP would even tresspass IMHO the borders of the fair use doctrine, pretending that a Wiki policy is above of the Law; not to talk that fair use is ilegal in most countries. If an EDP is to be developed, it must be strict and well written. Franckly, it's not worth to try. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• I do see the use of an EDP, as per Sj. I like the idea of a "cross project" EDP. I would up the minimum number of edits though (100?) as understanding the cross EDP thing might be too complicated after only 30 edits ;) notafish }<';> 18:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Would a cross-project EDP satisfy the requirement from wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy that the EDP must be minimal? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    • No, I don't think so. See above. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• What on earth is an EDP? An edit filter or something like that? --– Geitost ^diskusjon 20:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • An Exemption Doctrine Policy ;) --MF-W 20:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Ok, thanks. Always these English abbreviations. --– Geitost ^diskusjon 21:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• A complete ban on image uploads makes the most sense to me for the time being. Whether we should have an EdP and what should be covered by it should be treated separately and allowing certain users (perhaps staff and admins) to upload can be discussed then. Until/unless an EDP is approved, there's no reason for having local uploads and therefore no reason for having local uploaders. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support banning To confer with en:wikt, where they don't have uploads, the only exceptions are screenshots of buggy software or extensions which can be uploaded locally but aren't put on Commons because they aren't really of use to anyone else. With the caveat that maybe uploads of that sort could be allowed here. Alternately, there's no really good reason someone couldn't use Flickr for those screenshots... I'd certainly like it if the only file here was File:Wiki.png (better yet, an SVG version). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Restricted uploaders please appreciate that chapters are required to use this site for reporting and applications for funding. These types of files don't seem appropriate for commons. I therefore support restricting uploaders. Alan.ca (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Question: Commons currently doesn't accept photos of buildings from certain countries unless the architect has been dead for at least 70 years (sometimes a different number of years depending on the country). For example, looking at Wikimania 2013 bids, I see that there were Wikimania bids from Indonesia, Italy, the Philippines and France, and Commons doesn't accept photos of recent buildings from those countries. Would Meta need photos of recent buildings from cities from which there is a Wikimania bid, such as the buildings in which Wikimania would be held? If so, we may need to copy over w:Template:FoP-USonly and keep local uploads enabled. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Per Philosopher, though I can understand SJ as well but I have no idea how to solve that problem. Trijnstel_talk 09:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Question: Oppose i believe that all the wikis, including this one, are a resource intended to be shared and updated by all users.such a limit would go against it, if i'm not mistaken... Billycop32 (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  In fact the proposal would allow much more sharing by moving and deferring the uploads to the shared repository so they can be used everywhere included Meta. Commons can be editted by anyone in the same way as Meta; with the big difference that Commons is a specialized project for multimedia content and thus have a community interested and specialized in curating those, as opposed to here where copyvios and crap sits for years until somebody notices and delete them. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• I would oppose a complete ban on local uploads in the current situation. Meta has traditionally been used for a lot of reporting work, some of which is (as pointed out above) not really compatible with licenses that allow modification at will. These reports also do not really belong on Commons, as much of it has no value to any of the other projects (Would a financial report of a Wikimedia chapter be in scope on Commons? It doesn't have any obvious educational value. Or is that covered by "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose"?) We should find a solution for such reports, and restricting file uploads does not seem to be that solution unless additional options are created. I suppose that technically these not-entirely-free files have never been allowed here, but it hasn't really come under close scrutiny until recently. I would be very grateful if we could find a workable solution to that problem before we start completely banning local uploads or mass-deleting them. Bumping the threshold for uploading to 30 edits seems to make sense for now, to keep the (reported) incoming deluge of copyvio images at bay. I could also live with local uploaders, but all of that is a temporary solution. Paul B (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• Case in point for why this whole "let's make averything free and move it to commons" seems to me to be a really bad idea: This file is a draft budget, developped for a very clear purpose, with a context etc.. What kind of value does it have as "educational material" for our thousands of users if we put it on commons? In my opinion, absolutely none. It simply does not belong on Commons. It does, however, definitely belong on meta. Others have made good use cases for other sorts of material (fair use or whatnot) that just belong here and do not really sit well with a free license. I understand the problem about having too many crap uploads from things that are no use to even meta, but I don't see any value in abolishing uploads on meta. I think it will just limit its usefulness (as well as open the door for even more crap to find its way to commons). notafish }<';> 22:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, File:20120710- budget WCA draft.pdf has a non-commercial licence, so it can be speedily deleted per criterion 1 at WM:CSD. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I know, I put the license on it. Well, my conclusion at least is that there is in the end probably no suitable "all free" policy on meta concerning files, if free means they have to go to Commons right away. In any case, I think that Commons' way of absorbing *everything* that's free is harmful to the project, but that's another debate entirely. notafish }<';> 23:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiLang demo on Meta

The demo of the proposed WikiLang project has been started here on Meta. Everyone is welcome to contribute or comment (on Talk:WikiLang). PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hah, that's cool! Thank you, PiR17. –SJ talk  14:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Comparing Arabic Words to Hebrew's

Hello,

I am a native Hebrew speaker with some fair knowledge of Arabic.

I am curretnly engaged in a PERSONAL project of comparing VOCABULARY between the 2 languages & am wondering if my work may be revelvant/ useflu to your (this Wikimedia) wesbite & if its input can be incorporated in it. Ideally, it should be ALPHABETICALLY!

I am NOT Wiki-technically inclined-so, in case of relevance, I'd need someone's help guiding me how to do things...

I'd appreciate an early response on it & look forward to it :)

Kind thanks,

Avi

Welcome! I do not think that it would be appropriate to host such a list on this Wiki (the Meta wiki) (just so you know, Wikimedia is the organization that runs Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, Meta, etc.). However, such information could well have a place on a relevant Wikipedia article, in a Wikibook, or at Wiktionary.

Regarding not being wiki-technically inclined - wikis are designed to be (relatively) easy to edit and contribute to. And with the edit bar at the top of the edit box, that should simplify it a bit. If you start, it shouldn't be too hard to learn. If you are interested, you could read this editing tutorial on Wikipedia. Also, if you have any questions about anything in specific, you could ask me at my talk page, and some other Wikimedians would also doubtless be happy to help you. Gottistgut (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Great job now, User: Meta Wiki Welcome

I'm so proud that you're here. In Wikipedia, I never saw that nice present from you! (Son Phan) (talk) (UTC) 2:05 5 May 2013

Wikimedia Foundation elections 2013

Should not they be linked from the main page? I tried to find the page, and I am a relatively experienced meta user, but it still took me five minutes to check that there is no link on the main page, there is no sitenotice (I think it was at some point but now I do not see it), and that Meta:Elections is a red link. Well, I would probably be able to find it anyway, but I see absolutely no reason why it should not be in the current events.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Anything in the Meta: namespace would relate to the administration of Meta itself (i.e. Meta:Requests for adminship.) --Rschen7754 08:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This is fine, but this is not my point. My point is that if someone heard about the Foundation elections and has come to Meta to look at the schedule/ look at the candidates / ask a question / vote there is no easy way they can find the relevant pages. Linking from the main page (we have there Goings-on) would be natural.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest to add those to Template:Main Page/WM News (which transcludes on Goings-on and on Main Page). -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is pretty fine as a news item.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to add it to WM News. I can help add it if you want. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate your help, since apparently the markup is too complicated for me. I would like to insert the following text (feel free to change): Candidate nomination at [[Wikimedia Foundation elections 2013|Wikimedia Foundation elections]] started. Questions to the candidates can be asked now. May 17 is deadline for nominations; voting starts June, 1. , probably as of April, 24. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Allow admins to grant and revoke the "confirmed users" user right

I just noticed when Steven gave the "confirmed user" right to DPeterson (WMF), a WMF volunteer for Communications, that neither admins nor crats are able to grant this right to users (and so this was done through an account with the global staff flag). I don't see any harm in giving admins the ability to grant and revoke this right here on Meta, as is the case for both Commons and the English Wikipedia. Thoughts? Thehelpfulone 19:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sure, though a separate rollbacker group may be helpful as well (though I don't want to hijack this discussion). --Rschen7754 20:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• I don't see why not. -Mh7kJ (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• No. There is no need for this user right here on meta at all. Vogone talk 20:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Fine with that too btw. Trijnstel_talk 20:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Don't see any harm in doing that, though I'd prefer giving this right only bureaucrats. I don't see the need for admins (neither for local rollback btw). Trijnstel_talk 20:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe it would be good to give bureaucrats the ability to remove, but not to grant the right (for cases like the one you mentioned). Regards, Vogone talk 20:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• I don't see a pressing need for this, as I don't remember this was used much before (and also the example of DPeterson (WMF) apparently was only by accident, as the account was also autoconfirmed and Trijnstel removed the rights a few minutes later). In my opinion stewards & staffers (for other staff accounts) can handle this sufficiently well, if it's ever needed. But also don't care much (maybe it should be set as standard on all projects to make the group assignable locally?). --MF-W 15:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Per MF-W. I don't see the need. Some stats on how many times this userright was needed here would be good. If we had the need to assign this right regulary I'd probably change my opinion, concurring with Trinjstel's appreciations on bureaucrats. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  I cannot imagine a single situation where this right could be of use. I guess, there are only quite few accounts who are less than 4 days old and the only permission which might be of use here is the autoconfirmed permission, which lets users editing half-protected pages. An urgent need for that is quite unlikely for a new account. Giving bureaucrats at least the ability to remove it from accounts might be useful, though as it gets redundant quickly. Regards, Vogone talk 19:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  I mostly agree with you, Vogone. This is why I am asking to keep the current status of the system, because it is not worth the config change in light of the very sporadic cases where this right was ever needed. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  'Autoconfirmed'='confirmed'. So 'confirmed' usergroup permits users to edit semi-protected pages as well. It was actually created in order to make it possible to grant users (auto)confirmed status before they become autocomfirmed naturally. (As 'autoconfirmed' is an implicit usergroup.) Ruslik (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• This should be the case globally. Also at en-WP, de-WP, fr-WP and others, if any user shall get the confirmed right, there has to be a request on the stewards permission page. There’s no need for this at all, since sysops can also give and take away other rights which do harm more than just confirmation. They can give and take away the editor right and the ipblock-exempt right. To have to go to Meta each time, a person may need the confirmed right, is just an unneeded burden and it should be changed globally and not locally. --– Geitost ^diskusjon 18:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • If people should think that the confirmed right isn’t of any use, then there shouldn’t be this right at all. If it is of use, then there’s no reason that no sysop can grant that right, it’s just stupid the way it is. --– Geitost ^diskusjon 18:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Is there any reason why someone whose account has existed for less than four days would need to edit a semi-protected page? PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • He or she could have the wish to move own articles from the user namespace into the article namespace or pages of a wikibook that (s)he is editing at the time (I once had such a case) and had to request the right on Meta for the user because no sysop/admin (is there any difference between it, by the way?) or bureaucrat could help him. And why should users be asked to wait a few days before they can do that, if they have at that time the time for editing? And why should others move pages for mentees, because they may not do it themselves? --– Geitost ^diskusjon 18:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • There also may be blind users who want to add useful external links and always get Captchas and have difficulties with that. --– Geitost ^diskusjon 18:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    • OK, I'm convinced. This seems reasonable. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, it makes sense to me that admins should be able to grant this flag. –SJ talk  15:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• I do see a need for this for a long time. But not admins doing rights, let bureaucrats handle rights subjects, that is what the bureaucrats role is for. Romaine (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Move meta.wikimedia.org to www.wikimedia.org

Hi.

The multilingual portal for Wikipedia is at www.wikipedia.org. Same for Wiktionary, Wikinews, Wikiversity, etc. Even Wikidata and MediaWiki are multilingual projects located at www.

I propose moving meta.wikimedia.org to www.wikimedia.org. This is a variant of an older proposal, but is much more limited in scope. This proposal is only about changing the URL from "meta.wikimedia.org" to "www.wikimedia.org". Other redirects (such as http://meta.wikipedia.org) would continue to work.

Consequences

• No more www.wikimedia.org template; https://www.wikimedia.org would redirect to Main Page (just like http://www.mediawiki.org and http://www.wikidata.org do).
• It would bring more consistency with the other multilingual www portals.
• It's arguably a prettier/more easily remembered URL.

Feel free to edit this list to add good or bad consequences of this proposal.

Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Currently, this website is known as Meta-Wiki, or Meta. Would the website at its new location be called "Wikimedia.org" or something like that? harej (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a good question. I have no idea. I don't see any good reason to change the site name (or project namespace). This site will still be a meta-wiki. I'd say the site name is outside the scope of this proposal, but I'd be interested to hear what others think. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The site name is very much part of the proposal if you're proposing eliminating the current site name from the URL. Right now, we have a website called Meta that is logically at meta dot wikimedia dot org. Eliminating that and just making it wikimedia.org would create a disconnect between the URL of the website and what it's actually called, and I hate when people do that. harej (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It'd be more logically at meta.org or metawiki.org. :-) I agree that you raise a good point to consider. I just personally don't see the two as being as tied together as you do. That is, it doesn't bother me to use www.wikimedia.org and continue calling the site Meta-Wiki. Perhaps I'm alone in this. It would bother me to call the site "Wikimedia.org," I think. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This is "Wikimedia Meta-Wiki", so it's at meta.wikimedia.org. The www. subdomains should only used when there is no other project, like for mw.org and Wikidata. For "Wikimedia", we however have also Wikimedia Incubator, Wikimedia Outreach, Wikimedia Commons, etc. --MF-W 14:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No. I'd preferr to keep things as they are. The current URL makes more sense than the proposed. Meta is not the whole Wikimedia, and as MF-W says, other projects use the same terminology. This is Meta, at meta.wikimedia.org; not very hard to remember. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

What about links like https://www.wikimedia.org/wiki/? They currently redirect to the Foundation wiki, so this may create a few broken links. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

They should never have been used. Luckily, only MZ abuses them as far as I can see. :) --Nemo 16:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see any benefits. Personally, I also don't see meta being a frontispiece for any of that WMF stuff, nor the need for it to be. Meta is inwardly customer focused, it supports the broader wikis, and is mechanistic, not leading with content, especially not for the casual visitor. If someone comes to wikimedia.org, I am pretty certain it is not meta for which they are looking. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  What are they looking for then? There's no reason whatsoever to visit www.wikimedia.org. --Nemo 16:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  I think it's still fairly common for people to type in "noun" + ".com" when looking for something on the Internet. For example, if you want shoes, you'd go to shoes.com. If you want porn, you'd go to porn.com. For information about Wikimedia, you'd go to wikimedia.com (which kindly redirects to wikimedia.org). --MZMcBride (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  And surely they don't find anything relevant at the current portal. :) I don't know what they're looking for, but certainly not what there is now. By the way, I think people are more likely to type noun+whatever in Google: yes, I saw them, they are lazy like that. And here's what they get.

  File:Google2013-wikimedia-com.png

  google:wikimedia.com

  --Nemo 09:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose People going to www.wikimedia.org are probably not looking for Meta-Wiki. Meta-Wiki is a background project which not too many people know about. More likely, they are looking for information about the Wikimedia Foundation or any of the projects run by the Foundation. Instead, I suggest moving the link to wmf: to some place more prominently on that page, with links to individual projects below, or even moving wmf: to that location. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• &   the current template rightfully points users to the wide array of projects that compose wikimedia and allow them to find what they're looking for. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Meta and wikimedia.org cover quite different "communities":
  • here we have policies for admins, CU, and so on hwo reflect a community caring for meta-wiki affairs; this project could be seen as a "Times Square", a "Campo", where people coming from from many places meet and talk, discuss, chat, sometimes quarrel about WMF projects.
  • www.wikimedia.org has a stricter and stronger need for security and control, and a foundation managing and regulating in terms of economy and law a wide array of projects; this site can be compared to a skyscraper of corporate presence facing Times Square, or the Public Palace in Siena.

Square and buildings can be part of the same landscape, but are built for complementary but different activities. - εΔω 15:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - this proposal breaks in my opinion more than it solves. If the page www.wikimedia.org is a problem, just let it redirect to the front page of Meta. I certainly do not see the consistency, www.wikipedia.org is the same as www.wikimedia.org, and many others, that is consistency. People are used to Meta, all links point to Meta, it has taken years for communities to get used to Meta, please not again. Romaine (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Move wikimediafoundation.org to wikimedia.org

Extracted from section above for separate discussion.

• I'd rather wikimediafoundation.org be moved to wikimedia.org. It would be consistent with the various WMF chapters (such as uk.wikimedia.org), and at this point, I think the WMF is what people generally look for when they visit wikimedia.org. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• This suggestion is good. The Foundation is the top level and should get the central domain, which is wasted on the current content of wikimedia.org. — Scott • talk 09:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• + 1, like Minh above me. If you look at Wikimedia, en:Wikimedia, de:Wikimedia, fr:Wikimedia you won’t get any explanation about Meta-Wiki, but about the foundation which is responsible for the wikis, so it could be the only wiki that can use this name. --– Geitost ^diskusjon 18:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• + 1 to Minh above. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 18:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• &   the Wikimedia Foundation is a distinct entity from the volunteer run project. This is especially important when it comes to the OTRS email addresses, which are answered by volunteers and not WMF personnel. Also, several volunteer-run wikis are housed under *.wikimedia.org and it would be wrong to put them under the foundation's own wiki, especially given the recent events regarding the kicking out of all volunteer admins from wikimediafoundation.org . Solution in search of a problem imo. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• The Wikimedia Foundation is, as the name suggest, a Wikimedia Foundation — it's not Wikimedia. Wikimedia is the movement (community) around Wikipedia and its sisters projects that encompasses a variety of groups and organisations—of which the Foundation is only one example. Therefore, wikimedia.org should be a portal through which people can access those projects, and if necessary, also websites of those organisations—a role that it's playing now, so there's no need to change it. odder (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Per Odder. Furthermore, moving a wiki would be quite unnecessary effort. Vogone talk 16:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• The top level of the Wikimedia movement is the Wikimedia community, not the Wikimedia Foundation. Also as having seen the discussion around the situation on WMF wiki, and being a closed wiki and acting like that is certainly not something we should put on top. Romaine (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed modification of WM:DP

Summary: Whether it should be possible to delete files with unknown copyright status or unknown origin if the file is in use.

As a part of the image cleanup and disabling of local uploads discussed above, I suggest that we make a few modifications to the deletion policy on this project.

Proposed modifications:

In the section "Special cases for images and media" under "Consensus deletion process":

• Current wording: Orphaned images placed in the categories "Images with unknown source" or "Images with unknown copyright status" for more than 7 days, regardless of when uploaded.
• Proposed new wording: Images placed in the categories "Images with unknown source" or "Images with unknown license" for more than 7 days, regardless of when uploaded.

In the section "Images" under "Criteria for speedy deletion":

• Current wording: Orphaned images placed in Category:Images with unknown source for at least a week.
• Proposed new wording: Images placed in Category:Images with unknown source or Category:Images with unknown license for at least a week.

Reason:

Per the licensing policy, Meta can only accept images which are available under a free licence. If the file has no licence, then it isn't available under a free licence, even if it is in use somewhere. If we don't know where the image comes from, then we don't know whether any licence claim is valid, and we can only keep the image if the licence claim is valid. Please state your opinions below. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support because as WM:DP is currently written it obviously hinder the maintenance of this site. I'd preferr to repeal the current deletion policy and create a new updated one; but until that happens this proposed modifications will obviously help resolving the annoying situation with problematic files on Meta. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• There are a lot of files with historical value to the Wikimedia movement here on Meta-Wiki. I'm concerned that they're going to be deleted when they should really either be left alone or moved to Commons if necessary. (My hesitation with moving files to Commons is that (a) Commons has a tendency to delete files it shouldn't; and (b) there's no clean way to move the files, as far as I know [it always results in the upload history getting horribly mangled].) --MZMcBride (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Please solve ca.wikipedia.org scandal

In red, hatred Catalonian nationalism that bans spanish flags on catalonian wikipedia

Catalan speakers that know the Kingdom of Spain, and its State exists

Please solve future ca.wikipedia.org scandal, where a few extreme nationalists are shamefully banning Spanish flag, substituting by the local flag in the region of Catalonia. So, hilarious situations arise as replacing the flag of Spain by the local flag of Catalunya region, suggesting that the Kingdom of Spain did not exist at the 1888 Barcelona International Exposition or that lie: Spain did not participate in the Olympic Games of 1992, also censoring Spanish Olympic Committee to shamefully ban the Spanish flag in that list. Examples:

• http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposici%C3%B3_Universal_de_Barcelona_(1888) "Preceeded by Flag:Australia - Flag:Sovereign Catalonian State Succeeded by Flaf:France"
  
• http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jocs_Ol%C3%ADmpics Olympic Games hosts: 1988 Seoul (Korean State Flag) 1992 (Catalonian local region Flag) 1996 Atlanta (USA Flag)

It's normal, extreme nationalism is excited using Wikipedia to invent history, that also goes to the extreme right or the extreme left -Why these people do not use their own wiki to invent their own stories they invented?-, but there is something a person can not to invent: the history. Like it or not, the history takes us we can not invent.
I (and the historians) hope you fix solution to this scandal, as this shameful ban of Spanish flags, as well as being full of hatred, goes against all historical encyclopedic accuracy, and goes against what Spanish and American municipalities, institutions, organizations and schools want to give to their children. Spain exists in 1888, in 1992, and Today, and either wikipedia will not change history under dark interests. Sorry for my bad english. Regards.