From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
 ← Index of discussion pages Babel archives ( latest) →
This is the general discussion forum for Meta (this wiki). Before you post a new comment please note the following:
  • You can comment here in any language.
  • This forum is primarily for discussion of Meta policies and guidelines, and other matters that affect more than one page of the wiki.
  • If your comment only relates to a single page, please post it on the corresponding discussion page (if necessary, you can provide a link and short description here).
  • For notices and discussions related to multilingualism and translation, see Meta:Babylon and its discussion page.
  • For information about how to indicate your language abilities on your user page ("Babel templates"), see User language.
  • To discuss Wikimedia in general, please use the Wikimedia Forum.
  • Consider whether your question or comment would be better addressed at one of the major Wikimedia "content projects" instead of here.
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki


This box: view · talk · edit

Discrimination complaint[edit]

At Talk:Wikimania 2016 bids Hammersoft raises points about Wikimania 2016 being inaccessible to people with mobility constraints. This person has gotten no reply. In most nonprofit organizations, concerns about discrimination of this sort would be specially addressed by staff of the organization. Is there someone in the Wikimedia Foundation who would either like to address this concern, or otherwise state clearly the recommended communication channel for voicing concerns of this sort? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Generally, questions for specific persons or entities should go on their talk pages. --Nemo 13:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the question here is which specific person or entity should receive the complaint. harej (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not hard, comments go on the talk of the page they reference. --Nemo 14:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Bluerasberry for bringing this here. I do appreciate it. That said, it's post facto now. The bid has been confirmed by the WMF and it will go ahead as planned. I think at this point the WMF needs to figure out a response to media when asked why they chose a location so distinctly against people with mobility constraints. Answering "Well, we supplied a van..." isn't going to cut it. A van isn't capable of driving people into the main meeting hall for the event (and this is just the tip of the iceberg, there's accessibility issues in multiple locations of this event). Without a coherent, previously thought through answer as to why the WMF chose to not provide an accessible event, the WMF will get raked over the coals in the press. For a non-profit that lives on donations, this could be deadly. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for caring about the WMF's health; OTOH it already survived hundreds of negative press coverages for Wikimania 2011 by Arab press. :) --Nemo 14:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but it would be nice if the WMF would care about accessibility issues. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hammersoft: matters for the Board can be raised on Meta at the Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard. (Isn't that just the WMF way -- there's always another page to refer you to) It is possible that you may get WMF Board attention there, a Board member replied to something on that page less than a fortnight ago. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    • What sort of help is specifically needed? I have just returned from Mexico. One attendee was being pushed around by wheelchair by another. And a blind person was being lead around by an assistant. Both those can be provided in this venue by the looks of it. The best people to answer would likely be the event organizers who now the town very well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The specific question being asked here is, who in the WMF takes responsibility for accessibility issues and how do members of the community engage with that person or team. So far that question has not been answered. The context was the decision of the WMF to approve the accessibility arrangements for Wikimania 2016, which they have done: the WMF have thus taken some measure of responsibility as an organisation for the accessibility arrangements at that venue, and the specific question in that context is thus, who specifically in WMF is tasked with ensuring that WMF is able to and does indeed succeed in the responsibility it has taken on? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrol and CN admin[edit]

Is there any particular reason why autopatrol isn't part of central notice administrators other than no one thought to include it when CNA was created? 18 of the 30 CNA are also autopatrolled, the other 12 consists of 11 WMF staff and 1 WMDE staff accounts. If someone can be trusted with putting up banners across all Wikimedia projects, then there's no reason they can't be trusted with autopatrolled as well. (Yes, this is a very minor minor technical thing, but it occurred to me so I thought I'll mention it :) -- KTC (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Instead of changing the config, maybe we can add the right to those ones. Minor change indeed IMHO. —MarcoAurelio 12:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Policy (Meta:Autopatrollers; "Any administrator can grant this right at their discretion to trusted users who regularly create pages and have demonstrated they are familiar with Meta's policies and guidelines.") requires familiarity with metawiki content, which is not necessarily given in case of CN admins. Vogone (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


There're so many vandals here. I think a local rollbacker group should be created.--GZWDer (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with you, I think that in a wiki like this it is totally justified, I support the idea.--Syum90 (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I think we have enough groups around here. Sysop is granted liberally to people who need it. --Nemo 07:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
As Meta has a cross-wiki role, admins here are expected to have cross wiki experience. The same things can be said of this right...--Infinite0694 (Talk) 07:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Nemo here, however I also accede to the points of the supporters. Notwithstanding, I'd preferr not to granularize even more the standard sysop package and promote those with need of the tools to the sysop group (if they have a need for them and are responsible enough to be trusted with an adminship that gives them access to pages that do affect every WM project...). Best regards. —MarcoAurelio 18:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I think rollbacker would be a good idea. Becoming an admin here appears to be of similar difficulty to many wikis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Prevent non-contributive users from endless reverting[edit]

Moved to Wikimedia Forum. Matiia (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Please protect my user-page[edit]

Moved to Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat.--Syum90 (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I´m not sure that this is the right place to ask on meta, but could someone please protect my user-talk-page here? I have been hunted on English Wikipedia for years by this vandal: JarlaxleArtemis, and my talk-page there is protected. I got a SUL-account just a couple of months ago, and now he follows me around on commons and here. 10:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

General discussion on allowing or rejecting fair use at Meta[edit]

On 30 April 2013 I nominated a lot of unfree files for deletion, following previous unfree file deletions, as per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. Meta does not have an EDP so fair use material isn't allowed here. This RfD stalled and was put on hold in August 2014. As of today and in spite of several attempts of having that discussion closed and a result enacted (#1, #2 and #3) this is still pending. Trying to unlock the situation I think that we should first decide if Meta-Wiki wants to allow fair use here. If that option passes, then we can start discussing about different EDP proposals. Meta:Exemption doctrine policy is an advanced draft, but has some discussion. It serves nothing however, IMHO, discussing it if we decide not to allow fair use here. —MarcoAurelio 15:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose Oppose fair use. This wiki is not and has never been very interested on multimedia maintenance. Looking for example at Category:Images with unknown source and Category:Images with unknown license one can guess that (the deletion policy does not help too). The upload restrictions we enacted a couple of years ago have demonstrated that Meta can and has survived without the need of local uploads, and chapters and other organizations here started to use the central repository making files avalaible for everyone. However the cleanup of remaining images is still pending, because simply nobody seems to be interested or feels overwhelmed by the ammount of file problems we have, unresolved since a lot of years and with no signs of improvement in a near future. If we ain't able or not interested to solve past problems, I feel that we should not take additional responsabilities in mantaining hypothetical new images which needs careful control (check if the file is used, if it's properly licensed, has a fair use rationale which is valid, etc.). Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 15:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I Support Support a very limited scope of fair use on this wiki, as outlined in the proposed Meta:Exemption doctrine policy. In particular, chapters that do not have their own website may need to upload financial audits and the like to this wiki, even though the documents are not released under a free license for whatever reason. I would be very interested to hear from chapters or other affiliated groups, to see whether or not they would make use of this provision - if they say it is not necessary we can forgo it.
    As for the no-FoP images mentioned in that proposed policy, I am not sure why we need such images, but I once again defer to the knowledge of others. Other than those two narrow cases, I do not support the upload of other other non-free media here as I don't see why free media cannot suffice. This, that and the other (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose I agree with MarcoAurelio. Matiia (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose fair use. No need. --Krd 16:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose fair use on Meta. If any files are needed for use on Meta, they should be free-licensed and uploaded to Commons. I would also like to draw attention to the hidden categories for no machine-readable author, description, license, or source, which do overlap but contain 1400+ files between them. Green Giant (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose fair use. In addition, I think that Commons is a much better place to mantain and manage files, there are many users with much experience and practice for do it there; so, in my opinion all files should be moved to Commons and removed from here.--Syum90 (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose No need for this on Meta. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 17:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose non-free images here. I respect This, that and the other's statement, but think narrow cases such as financial audits can be handled outside of this project. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support As I mentioned below we should allow low quality logos on pages pertaining to collaborations we have with other entities without the other entity having to release their logo under an open license. We can already use WMF logos even though they are not under an open license here. Thus we are already making this exception for us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support per Doc James. I note that Wikimedia logos are available under a free license now, but I think a specific exemption for logos of partnering organizations is appropriate. harej (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Does that include the Wikipedia logo User:Harej? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes. harej (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose, there's no need to have non-free files at Meta. --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support limited fair use per Meta:Exemption doctrine policy. I see at least three cases where files cannot be hosted elsewhere and need to be on Meta: firstly, official letters and documents (e.g. support letters for Wikimania bids, audit reports of Wikimedia chapters: they are often copyrighted but are necessary for use on Meta pages), secondly, images in NoFoP countries (otherwise countries without freedom of panorama would have a strong disadvantage bidding for Wikimania, as they will either have to choose pre-1940s venues or have bids without photos), thirdly, logos of partners of Wikimedia events (less necessary but sometimes requested by partners). All of these uses are clearly within scope of Meta and cannot be hosted at Commons — NickK (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I think that official documents by third parties involved with Wikimedia activities should be released under free licenses. And most trademarked logos aren't an issue, since they are simple geometry. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
      That's quite a good dream (that all documents received by Wikimedia organisations and free and all logos are simple geometry). However, it is not that true. For example, we have File:HKTB support letter - wikimania 2013.pdf, a support letter for Wikimania clearly within scope. If this organisation releases the letter under a free license, we will have a free alternative to en:File:HKTourismBoard.svg, something they will clearly disagree with. Another example: File:DomOmladine.jpg, logo of a key partner of Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2012. Should we tell them that they should change their logo if they want us to display it as it is too complex? I would be glad if all third-party Wikimedia partners would release their logos and letters under free licenses, but we must manage to live in a world where such miracle did not happen — NickK (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support I don't see the need for such rigid rules in this project. We are not in Commons. Banfield - Reclamos aquí 12:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to repeal and modify some sections of Meta:Deletion policy[edit]

Hello. In order to perform a right cleanup of unsourced and unlicensed files here, I propose the we modify the deletion policy as follows:

Images placed in the categories "Images with unknown source" or "Images with unknown license" for more than 7 days, regardless of when uploaded.

  • Point §2.3 (2) (CSD#Images). Repeal "orphaned", and also include unlicensed files. Proposed new:

Unsourced or unlicensed files for more than seven days

That will allow us to clean both categories of unsourced/unlicensed files, tag the remaining ones and start a complete overhaul of the image system here IMHO. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 15:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Support, won't oppose better wording or other ideas though. —MarcoAurelio 15:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support There are many images that need to be cleaned.--Syum90 (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support It sounds good to me. Matiia (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support - makes sense. Green Giant (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Currently we do allow one category of non-free images on meta and other WMF sites, these being the ones the WMF owns. Some of the pages on meta are used to host collaborations between Wikimedia entities and other organizations. It is a little one sided if the WM side can use our logos without releasing them under an open license while the other side cannot. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support, but I'd recommend not to mass delete the old files but to check them with some care just in case there is one or another situation that needs special attention. (I could offer to assist the cleanup if welcome.) --Krd 07:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • This point should be highlighted. Prior to deletion, there must be an effort made to contact the uploader. This is common sense to me, but maybe the policy page should be explicit about it? And in general, we should try to move images to Wikimedia Commons instead of deleting them, I think (which actually is easier as it doesn't require user notification). There are a lot of important historical images on Meta-Wiki given how old this wiki is, so we need to be careful not to delete anything of value. This is true, even if some of the images uploaded here are insufficiently sourced or licensed under today's standards. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    • @Krd, MZMcBride: Of course. The idea is to unblock the situation where doubtful files cannot be deleted because they're not orphaned, but not by any means. Uploaders should be contacted and files that can be moved to Commons should be transferred. I have been doing some {{information}} tagging and metadata cleanup prior to moving files to Commons in the last months. I support making it explicit into policy that uploaders should be notified. {{no source}} and {{no license}} do have notification templates that we can use. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 08:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Per above.--Infinite0694 (Talk) 13:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support sounds reasonable. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Meta:Style guide[edit]

A stub untouched for six years. Any reason to keep this? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to delete it either because it's still accurate and is not outdated. --Glaisher (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Is it useful? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Several users from other projects are confused about the difference between main namespace and meta namespace here. This page helps in clearing some of the confusion, so yes, it is useful. Being an untouched stub for several years does not necessarily mean it should be deleted, imo. And it does get page views. (Let's assume that the tool is accurate!) --Glaisher (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's so surprising about a stub being untouched for several years. Meta-Wiki is not the busiest wiki in the world. :-) That said, this is a wiki and I'd encourage improvement and expansion of the page over deletion. Be bold! --MZMcBride (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Pages for WMF teams and departments[edit]

I think it a good principle that WMF teams and departments each have a page here on Meta even if they have their main portal somewhere else, such as I would also suggest that the community-facing teams such as the Community Tech team and the Community Engagement department and its consituent teams should in general have their portals here. However, that leads to an interesting point about page names. Some WMF teams have (modishly) adopted titles which are themselves broader topics that we might wish to have a page on, such as Technology, Communications, Advancement. So I would suggest that the uniform style should be WMF Technology. Or would a uniform title ending "team" or "department" be clearer? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps something like [[WMF departments/Technology]] so they are linked at the top of the page? Green Giant (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no need to create more team pages. Engineering teams already have their pages on, which are linked from mw:Wikimedia Engineering. --Nemo 12:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Good point. I've made an interwiki redirect in case someone searches for the term on Meta. Green Giant (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The main reason for having pages here, even if, as I said, the main pages are elsewhere, is so that people can find them. Meta is the site for interproject discussions across projects, and WMF teams are often involved. is the site for development of the Mediawiki software. It is by no means obvious to someone working here to discuss, for example, a grant request, that if they need information about what some WMF team is responsible for, they should go to Hence my suggestion. Meta is used by WF teams for consultations on strategy, major and minor, regularly and frequently. Hence the specific suggestion that community-facing teams should have their principle presence here, where much of their community engagement, and the related community discussions, will be carried out. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
MediaWiki contains mostly working import and export tools, of course. I think centralizing on Meta-Wiki is a decent idea, but executing it properly will require appropriate planning. We want to make sure we're not making a bigger mess in the process of moving pages from (and and and probably other places) to But as a long-term goal, centralizing here seems reasonable and prudent to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I approve of planning, hence these preliminary discussions. I'm not suggesting copying all the pages lock stock and barrel, but having enough information here on Meta that users, who are perhaps not completely familiar with the internal organisation of the WMF and of the numerous wikis and other sites that they use, can get the information they are most likely to need quickly and pointers to where further information or engagement can be found. Community-facing departments probably should have their main pages and portals here, though. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Cool. So maybe the next step would be making an index here at Meta-Wiki of all of the current pages across the wikis so that we can evaluate what makes sense to move, what makes sense to use interwiki redirects for, what should stay put, etc. An index might help us make better-informed decisions. It sounds like perhaps a Wikimedia Foundation departments page would be a good start? From there, you could sub-divide into teams, I suppose. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that page would be a good start and volunteer to help get it started to begin mapping this all out. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 14:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
As for "so that people can find them", assuming we're talking of people doing searches here, we have a very simple solution which probably just requires a switch to be turned by the sysadmins: T87632: Enable interwiki search on Meta-Wiki. --Nemo 05:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
That would be nice too. After all, this isn't a simple problem with a single technical fix, it's about finding as many ways as possible of improving the community/WMF relationship. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Upon more closely reading the opening post here, I'd strongly prefer that we avoid abbreviations in page titles. As redirects, titles such as WMF Technology are probably fine, but the full phrase "Wikimedia Foundation" should be used in the content (i.e., non-redirect) page title.

In general, I agree that having clarification about what the "Technology" team does versus the "Engineering and Product" team would be helpful. Pages such as wmf:Staff and contractors don't explain the distinction. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

A good point. Incidentally, the wmf:Template:Staff and contractors list could usefully link to the department and team pages, which it currently only does in a handful of cases, as could wm:Org chart, which currently links into into wmf:Staff and contractors. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea whose times has more than come. :) It would also be great to get all of the department/team pages setup on Translate and also clear up mix use of "departments" and "team". My understanding is that there are limited "departments" which each have several "teams". I agree if WMF is added to the names, it should be the full Wikimedia Foundation and not WMF. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 14:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Unable to make a suggestion that spans Wikipedia[edit]

I could not find a way to make suggestions that span everything. I think a Main Page link for 'Suggested Improvements' would be a good Idea even if it's an email link. For example:

  ·I would like to see definitions support a mouse-over brief and a link to the more detail presentation.  
  ·I would also like to hear pronunciations of places and especially names.  The phonetic presentation is good but not as good as an audio voice.