Meta:Babel/Archives/2013-10

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Founding principles optional for smaller Wikis?

Please comment. - Frhdkazan (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia, images

Hi, I found two interesting websites, and i want to know if i can use images from them at wikipedia. First is http://www.stadia-md.com . How you can see, author says ”All photos can be used on other websites. Please name the source www.stadia-md.com”. So, i can use their images on wiki?.If yes, which license? Fair use, or other free? Second site is http://www.soccer.ru (russian). It also haven't © symbol, and in footer is written: ”Футбол на Soccer.ru - Разработано в Nekki При использовании материалов гиперссылка на www.soccer.ru обязательна ”.
Translation mot-a-mot: ”Football at soccer.ru - Developed by Nekki. Using materials, hyperlink to www.soccer.ru is mandatory”.
Same question for this site too. --XXN (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I would personally recommend contacting them, and asking them for clarification. Can the works be used for commercial purposes? Are derivations allowed? Can they be distributed freely? With the license notices given, the answers to these questions are unknown. (You can recommend that they license their work under a CC license to avoid confusion.) PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I will ask them. But, before that, i must mention - in a discution on romanian wikipedia, one local admin said that images from Stadia-md are colected from the web. He said that "for Example this page http://www.stadia-md.com/Chisinau%20Republican%20gallery.htm dates from 18 Octomber 2009. But first image from here appeared at Panoramio.com in 2007, where it is protected: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/1688728 .", He also said that he will check each image and if the image has been published somewhere else in internet before the apparition at stadia-md, he will delete uploaded image at wikipedia.
And now i want to ask: Should wikipedia admins to be detectives to to verify each image in part to find where it was first published and who is its owner, while i mention as source an website that offers this image freely? IMHO in this case i can upload this image on wiki, and all problems with copy rights goes to source website (stadia-md), if they steal protected images from i-net and share them under free license. I want to know the wikimedia official point of view in this case.--XXN (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Do you know some big (sports) websites that publish their images under free licenses so i can upload them on wiki? // XXN (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Watchlist

Whenever I try to check my watchlist here on Meta, it redirects me to wikimediafoundation.org. Any idea what's going on? Thanks, --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 11:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Is that problem still going on? See w:WP:VPT#What has happened to Commons? and bugzilla:56006. Yesterday, some projects such as Commons and Meta redirected to wmf:. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I can confirm that it at least still happens for my watchlist and my user talk page. Purging or clearing cookies/cache didn't help, the problem remains. Vogone talk 12:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I can't find any information wikitech:Server admin log, but #wikimedia-techconnect topic says "possibly some weird *.wikimedia.org cached pages" and I'm told it includes redirects to wrong domains, specifically foundationwiki. As it's cache, it shold fix itself quickly enough, I hope. --Nemo 12:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if it is related, but I sometimes get weird 404 messages when nominating things for deletion on Commons: http://i.imgur.com/pSeeZY5.png --Stefan2 (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Enable CleanChanges

I propose to enable mw:Extension:CleanChanges on Meta. You can see how it looks on translatewiki:Special:RecentChanges. It's useful for everyone but in particular to enhance collaboration around translation in a language, as RC can then be filtered by language. I'm particularly in need of this feature to monitor translations and translators in my language now that Special:SupportedLanguages has been disabled by Tim (hopefully temporarily) for performance reasons. The extension is part of the standard Translate set (mw:MLEB) so this is a rather trivial proposal; I'll request it on bugzilla in a week from now if there are no objections. --Nemo 12:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Good idea QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good to me as well. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Since it can be switched off individually, there should be no problems. --MF-W 20:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

bugzilla:53541. --Nemo 15:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that feature pretty much sucks, imo. It should be made opt-in only and not the default for everyone. Users who want this new design can opt-in and all others aren't bothered with unneeded changes they don't want. -Barras talk 22:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. And there should've been more discussion than only on this page (it should've been advertised more; I have enough to take care of). Trijnsteltalk 22:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I was away during this discussion, so I guess it's my fault. But I never noticed this until it was enabled a few minutes ago. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Advertised where exactly? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Awful, please disable by default. --Ricordisamoa 22:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Can you please expand on what you mean by "awful"? That isn't constructive feedback. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Barras: what sucks about this feature? The idea is to reduce the amount of clutter in various recent changes lists (watchlist, etc.). This is a noble goal, I think. What don't you like? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This discussion was poorly advertised and four supporting !votes is of course not enough. Please disable it by default, at the very least; it's quite ugly, doubles my page load times, and needlessly conceals buttons and information I want to see.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Poorly advertised how? Where else should it have been advertised?
If this feature has truly doubled your page load times, please file a bug in Bugzilla: <https://bugs.wikimedia.org>.
What information is needlessly concealed? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I prefer to see all the diffs rather than some, as is for log entries. I don't want vandalism to slip below my watch this way. Also, I want full log entries. This should've also been advertised in watchlist notice, stewards' noticeboard, and other noticeboards around Meta, not just here. As for page load times, the doubling of the load time occurred on enwiki, which was mainly because I have a massive watchlist (I have the 1000 entries option enabled) there. But my point is that it takes up bandwidth/resources.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Then go to your preferences and disable it individually. :) Vogone talk 23:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Which I did, but enabling this without full consensus was totally improper.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe Meta-Wiki has ever used a watchlist notice (cf. MediaWiki:Watchlist-details). If you believe there are other noticeboards that should be advertised in the future for changes of this nature, please explicitly list them somewhere. As far as I can tell, you're creating an impossible standard by retroactively announcing the places you feel a change should be discussed. How was Nemo (or anyone else) supposed to know your standards?
As it was here, there was an advertised discussion in the appropriate venue ("Meta:Babel"), a week went by, there was unanimous consent (four supports). And the feature can be disabled on a per-user basis. I'm not sure what the big deal is. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Meta:RFC and the watchlist (or site) notice were the minimum... if you don't know how to advertise a proposal properly, I don't really think you should be making them (the advertisement of this proposal was much disproportionate to the magnitude of the change involved). These aren't my standards. They go without saying.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Are these written or unwritten standards? I'm not sure how you expect people to strictly adhere to unwritten standards. If you're particular about where and how changes are advertised and discussed, I'd recommend documenting this somewhere. Otherwise, nobody has a chance of ever satisfying your (unstated) requirements. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
They are unwritten because they are fundamental to how wikis operate (although consensus is a written guideline and this proposal did not comply with it). I don't think I need to be specific about which pages, because it's up to the proposer, but it has to be reasonably wide enough for the community to see.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
And that's why I chose the most prominent place on this wiki. ;) RfC is also the wrong place, it's never been used for configuration matters on Meta. Of course you can open a discussion (or RfC) to change that. ;) --Nemo 09:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC) P.s.: I'm sorry if my original message was not clear enough; I'm always too verbose, I thought a visible and live example as the link I provided was more effective than words.
This is definitely not the most prominent place on this wiki, especially for such a change.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I've submitted gerrit:84102 --Ricordisamoa 23:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Fwiw, here's some specific feedback:
  • I miss the expanded userlinks (I like being able to see at a glance whether someone has a red talkpage link) + (I like being able to use Popups over someone's usercontribs).
  • I dislike the distracting (visually grabbing aberation) use of a clickable image to expand the userlinks.
  • I strongly oppose using the file:magnify-clip.png image () as non-standard interface affordance.
  • I miss the bulletpoints - They were a clear visual indicator of each item.
  • The alignment is broken - see screenshot of four problems
  • I miss the "diff" links in a column - Whenever I use my watchlist, I hover over these each in turn, using Popups. I middleclick on each in turn, to open in a new background tab.
  • The time is in UTC, and I am not, so that information is generally not useful to me, and doesn't need to be as prominent as this change makes it. (I could change the watchlist-time in my preferences, but then talkpage signature timestamps wouldn't match)
That's all the specifics I can think of.
I do agree that updating/redesigning the UI of the history/watchlist/recentchanges pages is a good idea to pursue, and I'd very much like to be able to filter in/out of translation changes, but I'd want to see a page detailing design-driven rationales for each change to the UI that we're all used to, especially of such overhauling-magnitude as this.
Hope that helps. Quiddity (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Ahh, I had "Group changes by page in recent changes and watchlist" enabled, but I had "Expand watchlist to show all changes" disabled, hence today's change was a massive revamp. Turning off the former, fixed it for my needs. I'll leave the feedback above though, in case it is useful. Quiddity (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I just created {{CleanChanges}} to better advertise that this change was opt-out, not opt-in. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Quiddity, of course for the date and time you have to set your timezone in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-datetime as for all features on all wikis, if you decide not to it's not their fault. I'll file enhancement requests for the actionable items you reported so that they appear at [1] but I don't get some of them, so you may want to do it yourself for those (I know you are able to ;) ):
  • I don't know what a "non-standard interface affordance" is, enhancement requests appreciated detailing requirements for satisfactory new icons;
  • we have a clear visual indicator of each item and it's the time;
  • diff links are still there and I have the same workflow of opening in new tabs without problems. --Nemo 09:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • UTC Time: Yup, as I said, it's my choice not to set a local time-zone, because otherwise talkpage timestamps don't match, which makes fixing things like unsigned messages more confusing, or discussing timestamped items with other editors.
  • Icon choice: sorry, my bad wording - I meant: we shouldn't use the icon that is already universally (afaik) used for the "enlarge thumbnail" link in all images/videos.
  • Expanding/Collapsed "Usertalk/Usercontribs": I don't think collapsible text is a good thing here (especially as it's the default for anonymous/logged-out users) so I'd suggest just removing that function altogether, rather than trying to pick a different icon. If it does have to remain, then I would suggest using a text-link instead of an icon-link; either "+" or "more". I'd also suggest a user-preference or a button at the top, to auto-expand all instances on "the current page".
  • Question: Is it possible to auto-expand all of the "grouped changes", so that I/we don't have to click all the blue arrows () every time for every item? Possibly through user CSS/JS? (If not, I guess I could file a bug for that, but I'm not sure what component it would go in.)
Hope that helps. :) Quiddity (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The "enlarge" icon seems appropriate to me because it's familiar; suggestions would go to CleanChanges component.
  • The arrows are part of core, so an enhancement request needs to be filed there (remember to cc Rillke who identified this as an area of improvement too). --Nemo 21:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
@PiRSquared17: That works fabulously! That you muchly. Maybe I can finally start using "expand my watchlist" on En.Wiki, after 8 years of avoiding it!
Would you be able to field Nemo's suggestion of filing an enhancement request for making this a feature? I only just started using the "expanded changes" tool so am on very unfamiliar ground. I'm not sure if it would be best as a button at page-top, or in user-preferences, or what.
Lastly, How would I/we auto-expand all of the username/usercontrib links? Quiddity (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
@Quiddity: I filed bug 54149. I could make a similar one for enhanced RC, if you would like.
I'll work on the other things. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes please! Quiddity (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I would have to agree that this should have been more highly publicized. --Rschen7754 03:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Certainly good to know for the future. I advertised this change (retroactively, unfortunately) via {{CleanChanges}}, which now shows on Special:RecentChanges and Special:Watchlist. Where else should this discussion or proposed feature been advertised? (Is there a written list of such places?) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not really sure... I have this page watchlisted, but I was not aware of this thread until today. Maybe RFH, SN, and other places? --Rschen7754 03:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
If there is a wrong place, then it is RFH/SN. This is neither a request for help nor a steward matter. It's purely about the Meta-Wiki and its community and the community has its discussions here. Anyway, I agree that RC/watchlist notices are a good thing to advertise important discussions about the wiki itself. Vogone talk 08:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I mean a link to the discussion, not the actual discussion. --Rschen7754 08:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I mean that as well, as this is in no way related to admins/stewards. Vogone talk 08:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • i think clean changes should be opt-in and not enabled for everyone (e.g. anons) by default. I prefer to see the standard recent changes format when logged out and not be forced to log in all the time. I look at recent changes quite regularly, though I am not logged in all the time. If clean changes is a preference, then maybe at some point I can grow to like it more and be more willing to have it be default. :) Aude (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Not enough discussion IMO. It should be opt-in only. I don't know why default on Meta should be different from others. How many people would use it? Not too many I guess. It is easier to make those couple of persons that want it to opt-in than to force all others to opt-out.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 05:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
    • In case you didn't notice, translation is one of the major activities on this wiki and we have hundreds of translators: their work and collaboration must be appreciated and empowered, not dismissed as irrelevant. The changes made were requirements for the proposed solution; those who want to change the current situation should point to alternatives for the purpose or their complaints won't be actionable. --Nemo 09:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Opt-in is the way. And now some remarks: Enable CleanChanges is a shitty small change of the software, thus it is a waste of time to discus here. But it shows one point: 1. there is no reason tomake it by default, 2. it seems that the most users here wants an opt-in, but 3. somebody says no, it should be default. This remembers me to other discussions like Visual Editor etc, see the polls on dewiki and enwiki, where the community says NO, but somebody comes and decides YES. People, remember please the original roots and goals of Wikipedia. -jkb- 00:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I hate this. Theo10011 (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
    @Theo10011: Please be more specific. Why do you hate it? PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
    Let's see, I'm not technically inclined but I'll try -
    Similar changes are collapsed in the tree by default, It seems like an awful waste of screen space, when half of the 50 default change setting end up showing about half of those.
    It is not arranged by time. For those who monitor recent changes for vandalism etc., the changes are arranged by page not time. So a lot get missed unless someone individually checks the changes.
    The font choice seems odd from earlier, maybe it's not but something feels odd about how it looks compared to the regular RC feed.
    The settings to rollback and see user contrib is again collapsed by default. Some of these things should be visible.
    Lastly, I don't think the new system is ready for prime time yet. It needs more work, a better look and some customization before its deployed. Anyway, That's what irked me from the first look, might actually be easy to get around those things for all I know but those stood out. Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

CleanChanges extension temporarily disabled

Hi everyone.

We've temporarily disabled mw:Extension:CleanChanges on Meta as a security hole was identified, and we weren't happy with the extension being live here with a security hole in it. I've consulted with Chris Steipp, our security engineer, and he has advised me that he expects the security hole to be fixed tomorrow. We expect the extension to be redeployed to Meta by the end of the week, but we'd like to do a more through security review before we redeploy to make sure there are no further issues.

For now, Special:RecentChanges will use enhanced recent changes to group things up. If you still wish to have the old view, the grouping can be disabled by following the instructions at the top of the recent changes feed.

Best regards,

--Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update Dan. Can we also remove the notice about this on our watchlists (with the purple border)? It doesn't seem to be generated by MediaWiki:Watchlist-details like on most wikis, so I'm not sure where it's coming from. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
It's on Template:CleanChanges which is transcluded to MediaWiki:Recentchangestext. I had to use Google to find that out, hah! I'll update it now. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
It's linked above: Template:CleanChanges. Though the border looks blue to me (or at most indigo? unsure about English name), so you may be looking to/talking about something else. --Nemo 20:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC) P.s.: Search finds it perfectly by clicking "All", so for once we don't have to blame Lucene.
I've updated Template:CleanChanges. Thanks, Steven! --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone describe what the differences between CleanChanges and grouping in the enhanced recent changes are? I liked CleanChanges, and have now tried the enhanced recent changes option, and it looks quite the same to me. --MF-W 17:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

See the next section. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

User experience and design improvements to CleanChanges

Hi everyone.

Howie and I are now taking a closer look at mw:Extension:CleanChanges. In particular, I think the extension is a bit lacking in terms of its user experience and interface design. I'd like to get some improvements made and polish the UI a bit. I'm going to pass it over to Jared and the rest of the design team, as this is what they're great at. I'd appreciate any input that people here might have into the design of the extension, so that I can pass those concerns on to the design team.

In light of the fact that the folks above specifically asked to have the extension enabled, I'm still going to reenable the extension after the security hole is fixed. Although overall I'm not totally satisfied with the design, I think that it's good enough to be used while the UI is polished. The opt-out will remain for those that aren't happy using it.

Best regards,

--Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dan.
Is there any difference between the CleanChanges extension and MediaWiki core's enhanced recent changes?
Is there a Bugzilla bug that tracks the work that you're proposing? --MZMcBride (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey MZMcBride.
There are some differences, but they're subtle. The best way to see the differences is to look at RecentChanges on Meta and compare it to RecentChanges on translatewiki. The main difference is the collapse of a few user links, and the ability to filter by language (useful here on Meta, potentially).
Thanks for the suggestion about the bug. I'm used to putting stuff in Bugzilla only when I find a bug, so I'm still trying to transition into using it for my regular workflow. There's no bug yet. I'm going to gather some feedback from the designers, sift through it, and put it in a bug then. There's already some feedback which I'll pass to the designers. I'll link the bug here once it's up.
--Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Why can't your merge the extension with the code in core? PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
That's on the table. See this. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

As it wasn't said, this also changed the enhanced RC preference to users like me that had it true since the beginning of time; I had to set it again. --Nemo 16:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. A bit annoying. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Dan Has the problem with CleanChanges been fixed? My Meta watchlist says that it's still disabled. --Pine✉ 05:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pine. Yes, the extension is still disabled. Yesterday Chris Steipp asked the owner of the extension to review the security patch to verify that it fixes the bug. In the time it's taken me to write this message, that verification has been completed. Chris will include this patch in the next security release and then we'll get it re-enabled. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

AbuseFilters are not friendly

Please see Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#AbuseFilter_review. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Central Notice problem - redirects to special pages do not work

The central notice that appears here on meta and on en.wp (other projects not checked) needs fixing. Currently it links to FDC portal/Proposals/Community/Review/CN/1. That is a redirect to the special page Special:MyLanguage/FDC portal/Proposals/Community/Review but redirects to special pages do not work and appear very similarly to how double redirects do. The central notice should link to the special page directly. Thryduulf (en.wikt,en.wp,commons) 19:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I had tested the Special:MyLanguage link but not that redirect itself... Should work again now. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

SE-25 15 START

SE-25 15 START. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 25chelywan (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

What does that mean? PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe a question as to when the Steward election 2025-15 will start. --MF-W 21:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, that would be equal to 2026-03 then. But SEs usually start in February. So I guess he wants a fortune teller to tell him how the elections will end (= start of the steward promotions/demotions) (or who will be in the ElectCom, I don't know). Vogone talk 21:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
No, you need to see that SEs are numbered, if there are multiple ones in a year, not distinguished by the month they take place in (SE2011-2 in September). So he must assume that there will be 15 steward elections in 2025. --MF-W 22:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
That makes sense. Anyone here who knows an answer to this question? Vogone talk 22:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, we would have to use almost every week, since SE is 3 weeks. The nomination periods could overlap with the elections from the last election though. --Rschen7754 23:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Why do you think there will be a need for so many stewards (or at least steward elections) in 2025? Increased vandalism or a decrease in local users to deal with it? PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe by a catastrophe, the number of stewards will reduce greatly in 2025 multiple times. Or the community could be so divided that only 0 or 1 candidate are successful in each election. Both are unnice scenarios of course. --MF-W 23:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Or maybe Wikimedia will no longer be existent and there is a lone user trying to elect a steward from no community? John F. Lewis (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
See wmfblog:2013/10/03/the-hidden-wikipedia-a-view-from-2022 for details on the future of Wikimedia. Not sure if it's completely accurate, but it was written by a well-known time traveller. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
This could be an indication that MF-W was true with his assumption that we will need many attempts in 2025 to get at least one steward elected. Vogone talk 18:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Babel/Archives/2013-10&oldid=6521286"