Talk:Community Wishlist Survey

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

For information about the translations, see Community Wishlist Survey/Help us.

Moving up the opening date[edit]

Hi @MusikAnimal (WMF) and SGrabarczuk (WMF): and all: I suggest changing the opening date for proposals to 1 January. This includes more of the new year vacation period, so this increases the time that volunteers have to propose wishlist items. All of the other milestones could remain the same (in particular: the staff review period should only be when staff are working!). Although, posting results on February 14th does bias things to proposals that are loved - maybe best to move that to a less significant date. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was talk of extending the proposal period to be at least 4 weeks, but we decided against it this year given all the other major changes we're introducing. Even if we wanted to change it, it's too late since staff are on holiday through January 2. We simply do not have enough time to prepare. Sorry! I don't quite understand how posting the results on Valentine's Day could effect anything, but that date is certainly flexible. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MusikAnimal (WMF): That's a shame, and I hope that it's a one-off planning failure. Please consider involving more volunteers in the future, at least so that staff holidays aren't so critical. I don't know how to respond to the disappointing Valentine's day news though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @Mike Peel. I agree with MusikAnimal and I'd like to add one argument. We're still working on the documentation. I haven't asked volunteers to translate it yet. I hope I'll be able to do that my tomorrow (Monday). If we decided to change the timeline and start earlier (which is impossible because we can't meet to make any decisions now) we'd give English speakers an advantage over the rest of the movement. That's off the table in principle. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


CWS is used numerous times on Community Wishlist Survey/FAQ, but it's never stated that CWS actually means Community Wishlist Survey. Generally it should be mentioned somewhere in the lead, and then the abbreviation can be used at will.

Minor issue, but worth fixing for clarity (and ease of translation).

Reedy (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out! Just edited to reflect this feedback, happy new year :) NRodriguez (WMF) (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propagating + refactoring past ideas?[edit]

Ideas from past years are all interesting and past interest is a practical complement to whatever votes are logged during a given year's voting period.


  • How can we compile a more persistent catalog of ideas and their popularity / implementation proposals, separate from the year in which the suggestion was made? For instance: instead of Community_Wishlist_Survey_2020/Wikibooks/Display_popups_across_wikis_(interwiki_popups) being a subpage of CWS_2020/Wikibooks, make it a subpage of a root wiki page like Technical proposals, with categories for CWS2020 and Wikibooks proposals. Then it can be revisited and updated (and used in multiple contexts, not only CWS) with ease.
  • This would also help w/ continuous gathering of ideas. For instance the CWS sandbox could be helpful for this, but explicitly says "Ideas added here do NOT count as wishes for the Survey." If the sandbox led contributors to make a Technical proposal in a canonical format, there would be nothing extra needed for the survey itself (someone would just have to link/transclude it properly).
  • How can we help share the prioritization-brainstorming among different efforts (including CWS, hackathon + internship ideas, &c)? Right now there are CWS proposals here, proposals for WMDE and other wishlists, larger-scope issues filed as tickets, internship/summer-of-code project ideas.

Refactoring + structuring:

  • Is there a way to aggregate priority/interest across categories as well as for individual specific proposals? Realted to how similar ideas are clustered + refactored; again actually using categories rather than subpages would make it easier to have overlapping clusters.
  • Any structured evaluation of scope, impact, ease of implementation, cleanliness of specification of a solution, &c. would be generally useful to all future implementers, and not just for the purposes of the survey; and could improve over time (if ideas are separated from the annual process and appear in multiple contexts as they work their way to realization)

SJ talk  20:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Sj thanks for taking the time to write such structured and constructive interrogations! I am loving the line of thinking here because it resonates deeply with what the Community Tech team has been considering when it comes to improvements on process. We've had conversations on specific details of how complex it would be to do precisely the things you're suggesting -- aka making sandbox translate into wishlist itself, giving places for ideas to "compound" with previous year's problem spaces, allowing people to vote on categories:problems/themes rather than proposed solutions, etc.
Will get back to you with more specific details for the questions on feasibility for refactoring and structuring the aggregate priority interest! And for this year, our plan is to publish more structured and transparent evaluation about how we prioritize wishes by documenting all of our conversations-- with a big intention for doing that being precisely what you're saying-- to have our investigations "be generally useful to all future implementers, and not just for the purposes of the survey." Happy new year! NRodriguez (WMF) (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why make a new edition?[edit]

Of the ten winning 2021 proposals, only one has been completed and two are in progress. This leaves 7 to be completed... So I find it hard to see the point of mobilizing the community once again if it is only to throw away their wishes again. Ayack (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ayack! The entire Community Tech is motivated to grant good wishes. I understand that many people in the community, myself included, have got used to this "top 10 winning proposals" thing.
In 2020, the team decided to honestly and transparently admit that "as much as realistically possible" is not equal to "top 10". Before the 2021 survey started, Community Tech explained why:
Software development teams usually conduct extensive research before committing to a project. This way, they can determine if the project is feasible, understand how long the project may take, and identify potential risks. With the current wishlist process, we don't do that, which often leads to delays, stress, and confusion. We want to fix this.
With the new system, we'll research projects before committing to them. We will evaluate wishes in the order of popularity, going from the top down. During our research phase, we'll analyze the following criteria: popularity (i.e., number of votes), size and scope of the project, level of technical feasibility, risks and dependencies, and potential conflicts with other teams. Once our analysis is complete, we'll share our findings. This means that we'll still work on multiple projects per year. We'll just be more communicative about what we can or cannot take on (and why), and we'll share updates over the course of the year about our roadmap.
In 2021, we developed a method of prioritizing what top wishes are most feasible and impactful. Based on that, having the limits of our capacity in mind, we could pick four, and publicly declined one. We will stick to that method in 2022, too. So it partly depends on the will of the community and the (size and complexity of) proposals how many will be done by the next edition.
What do you think about that? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello SGrabarczuk (WMF) and thanks for replying. Honestly, I don't understand how development priorities are set in the wider Wikimedia environment. The requirements of the users seem to be less and less taken into account in favor of political objectives. The point of this consultation was to bring the users back to the center. I understand that this is no longer the objective today and I deplore it.
Concerning the prioritization method, could you explain me how the InternetArchiveBot for Wikidata, which came in eighth position with 103 votes, is not even in the top 26 of the Prioritized Wishlist? Thanks. Ayack (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Ayack thanks for raising the concerns, as @MusikAnimal (WMF) promised to get back to you with more details on the score for that wish, I went back to our original estimations to see the scores the team gave for InternetArchiveBot for Wikidata and saw that it scored in position number 29 (so almost made it to the top 26) we gave it a Medium complexity for product and design complexity because it would be a new bot and it would require members on the team to get familiar with a structure on that ecosystem to plan strategically, and a Medium Impact for community impact because it would be a project-specific tool and not a cross-project tool. The wish was designated a Low Technical Complexity. We are re-thinking how we think about impact and complexity though, so we understand there are other ways to measure this. The more I see how the art of estimation is prone to some inaccuracy, the more it informs how we re-think our approach! We estimated that when multiple members of the team were new, but as we gain more experience our estimates will get more accurate. I hope that provides more visibility and hope to see you propose wishes on improvements and tools this year. NRodriguez (WMF) (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NRodriguez (WMF) Thank you for you answer, but I still don't understand how a wish ranked 8th by the community can be demoted to 29th place by the Prioritization process. Honestly, I don't see the point of participating in this consultation anymore since once again the users' wishes are not really taken into account... Ayack (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The prioritized wishlist is here. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am also very curious why the community tech teams, doing such excellent work, is so small. Do you know, very roughly, what percentage of the WMF budget it gets? I've not been able to find this going through financial statements. I feel like my volunteer time is not well spent on the wishlist when the Community Tech Team only has the capacity to do 4 proposals. Femke (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I left a very detailed reply on this matter at Special:Diff/21780278 (please reply here and not there), but the short of it is that we were very understaffed in 2021. Two engineers who have been on leave will soon be returning, and we're hoping to hire more in 2022. That aside, we still find it important to conduct a survey every year, as it's not just our team who works off of it (though we can't make any promises on behalf of other teams or developers). More info can be found in the FAQ.
I'm going to have to get back to you about the InternetArchiveBot for Wikidata wish after talking with the team next week, as I don't remember why we scored it like we did. But I am happy to report that at least two of the three wishes that are currently in development from the 2021 survey are close to the finish line, so look forward to more updates on that soon. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SGrabarczuk (WMF): What do you think about that? Well, you asked, so I'll answer, and I have to be blunt. That only one item from 2021 has been completed (and a trivially simple item, at that, something I'd think would take a programmer an afternoon to fix) is shocking. It's a failure. MusikAnimal (WMF)'s comment about understaffing helps contextualize a bit, but even so, this isn't all that different from previous years.
Asking the community to come up with the wishlist is a significant ask. Looking at last year, there were 268 proposals, receiving a median of about 25 !votes. If we assume conservatively that the average proposer spent 15 minutes crafting the proposal and the average !voter 3 minutes reviewing it (and others they didn't end up supporting), that works out to a (very conservative) estimate of 400 hours of community time. It's also clear that the wishlist team spends substantial time collecting and reviewing the survey results, which presumably eats into your time to actually address wishes.
You've pointed to the FAQ, which notes that circumstances change, and yes, there is presumably some benefit to having the most up-to-date possible pulse on what the community wants in this exact moment. But is there enough of a benefit to justify the many hundreds of hours it takes to compile a new survey? I'd say that the community's priorities have not changed all that much, since, well, the main thing that would change our priorities—having the existing ones addressed—has not happened. Running through the top twenty or so proposals from last year, there's nothing about them that I would consider at all dated; the things that led to them being highly ranked still fully apply.
So I have to say no, it's not worth it to run a new survey this year. Just continue to work through the existing list, and come back to us for a new survey only once you've either completed or examined and declined everything in the top half or so of last year's prioritized list. If you run the survey anyways, that would be basically asking for dinner when you've only just begun eating lunch, and I think there would be a lot of justified grumbling from the community that would strain relations. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree this wasn't very different from previous years. 2020-2021 was an unusually slow time for us due to staffing changes, the global pandemic, and a slew of maintenance tasks that got thrown at us, such as the WikiWho migration. I must comment on the copy and paste wish you speak of. Indeed it was fairly trivial to solve from an engineering perspective. However for performance reasons, the WMF cluster uses a different diff engine in production than the one that ships with MediaWiki. This is a C++ program that is part of a PHP extension (not a MediaWiki extension), so every commit required a new release to be cut of the package, which then needed to be deployed to the beta cluster for testing before it could be deployed to production – all separate from the normal, more punctual deployment train and backport windows we're used to. So while the coding (which had to be done and tested twice, both in PHP and C++, in addition to the JS/CSS changes) was very simple, I'd estimate some 90% of the wait was for cutting releases and dependence on release engineering, etc. We apologize this wasn't communicated more clearly.
Beyond that, I do hate to hear you feel another survey isn't helpful, but we've heard from many that it's important to do this regularly. In the future, perhaps that won't mean annually, but we're certainly committed to conducting the 2022 survey, and it's much too late to back out now even if we wanted to. We're excited to see people's ideas, whether they're copy/pastes from the last survey, or the many new ideas we've already seen people brainstorming. Bearing your suggestions in mind for the future, we hope you'll join us this year, too! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are understaffed, perhaps we can run a fundraiser for an organisation willing to support MediaWiki development with substantial amounts of money. There are many people out there who would love to donate to Wikipedia, so it shouldn't be difficult. Kusma (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is an excellent idea. A fund with a fraction of 1% of the WMF's income, but allocated to priorities set by the communities rather than the WMF, could make a huge difference to functionality and usability for readers and editors alike. I think there are still enough people who understand the difference between the WMF and volunteer-run projects such as Wikipedia to make it feasible. Certes (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How such a system would work would have to be decided first, it's very common that how things work in communities can be determined by a small subset of "assertive" users, wouldn't want this to happen to wishlist funding. Supertrinko (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even though most suggestions receive no resources, they can still be useful to the community. For example, Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Watchlists/Default expiry for watchlist entries inspired the very useful w:User:Rummskartoffel/auto-watchlist-expiry. It's not ideal that individual projects have to apply such workarounds, but it's progress of a sort. Certes (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Make this a Community wishlist...[edit]

...not just one for a tiny fraction of the lots of devs paid by our money to serve us.
This is the only real venue,where the community can post it wishes to all those tons of devs employed by our money by the WMF, the central service agency for us communities. But only a tiny fraction of all those devs do really listen to those wishes, or better even: are supposed to listen to the wishes of the highest entity in the Wikiverse, the communities. The outcome of such a wishlist should be the agenda for at least 60% of all devs employed by our money, not just this tiny and really good willing, but overwhelmed group, that serves as a fig leave to pretend care for the community for those, that develop useless junk like FLOW or waste money against the explicit community wishes like the completely detached renaming group. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 20:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sänger: I just wanted to mention that while it's not as direct as you suggest - an idea I absolutely sympathise with - other WMF Product teams are definitely influenced by the wishlist survey, even if they're not building their roadmaps based directly on the wishes. I'm working on research for the Moderator Tools project at the moment and the past wishlist surveys have been super important in getting an understanding of the tools and features the community is looking for so that we can prioritize our work. I've spoken to a few editors who submitted or discussed some wishes and it's directly impacted the direction our team is going to take. Once we've set our roadmap I'll make sure to go back and ping folks who voted on related wishes. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make a suggestion?[edit]

Edit - never mind, I think I found it. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TiggyTheTerrible That was the way to share ideas before the survey started. It's started now, so head on over to Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Proposals to propose your idea. Let us know if you need help! We recommend you read the FAQ first, too. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MusikAnimal (WMF): I'm usually pretty good at noticing where links/buttons are, but I don't see anything there that allows one to propose an idea? I am confused. --Yair rand (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TiggyTheTerrible Well first off, make sure you read my reply on the sandbox page. As for creating proposals, you must first select a category at Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Proposals. Then on the category page you should see a form to enter the title of your proposal. Again, please review the FAQ first if you haven't already. Hope this helps and let us know if you're still confused! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I see what has been proposed already in the 2022 wishlist?[edit]

MargaretRDonald (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MargaretRDonald Click on the "Propose" link, which brings you to Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Proposals. From there you can select a category. There is also Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Tracking which lists all proposals on one page. Best, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, how to easy hide the most important part od survey - untranslat(able), grey, looking as part of above picture... And If I don't want to PROPOSE, but read PROPOSALS - why is not the word CLICK HERE FIRST instead? ;-) JAn Dudík (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. @JAn Dudík:, @MusikAnimal: Regards, MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JAn Dudík Sorry! There was a bug in one of the schedule templates, for one, so now it's hopefully more discoverable. But I think we're going to merge the /Proposals page into the landing page like we did in previous years. Anyway, the "Propose" link in the nav is translatable. It should go by your interface language (since it's also used on pages that don't use the Translate extension). MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, is translantable (I have already translated it), but hidden in some nested template. There might be situation, when on the top is witten that 100% of page is translated, but these links not (see). JAn Dudík (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clear, on-page instructions would definitely help. Great question @MargaretRDonald :-) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of proposal to add a banner and get Wishlist proposals actually implemented[edit]

The proposal "A banner on software-related Wikipedia articles to increase MediaWiki development and get Wishlist proposals implemented" was censored away by the WMF / MusikAnimal for no good reason.

Brief summary of proposal:

We're having these surveys every year but only a very small fraction gets implemented. There's also a large backlog of code issues on phabricator, and many, even very basic, features haven't been implemented so far.
To solve this, add a banner facilitating volunteer developers to help with MediaWiki development. The banner would be displayed at the top of all software-development-related articles. There could also be rankinglists and more.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As described in the proposal by myself and others, it required no engineering resources to implement, which is what the survey is for. We are not trying to censor anything, there's just nothing we (Community Tech) can do to help you with this. Thanks for your understanding, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would that simple to implement that it doesn't really require any engineering work of significance, so it's really just the decision(-making / willingness) of the WMF that causes this to not get implemented. However, it still requires a relatively small effort of engineering:
  • how to identify said pages so the banner is shown only on select pages.
  • Moreover, if a rankinglist and things like that are added (badges for example) these would also require engineering work if that's a requirement for 'The Community Wishlist'.
Please unarchive the proposal, it can be edited further if changes are required, but I don't think any additional ones are.
--Prototyperspective (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll unarchive but add some details on badges (on the page the banner would link to + developers could use these badges on their pages and elsewhere) albeit engineering would be required for this platform improvement proposal even without such (this talk page post could get archived once the proposal is unarchived later). --Prototyperspective (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Translation administration[edit]


Currently, the “Most important messages” is pretty poorly translated. Actually, it is huge (431 messages!): I think you should consider to remove FAQ page from PRIORITY aggregate group and adding it to “Supplementary messages” instead.

Also, I just see that proposals will be marked for translation. As an experienced translation admin, can/should I mark them for translation, or you would rather mark them by yourselves? -- Pols12 (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pols12 We consider the FAQ to be priority messages. And as much as we appreciate the help, please do not mark any proposals for translation. This will happen during the "review" phase by us. There is a specific system we must use that if done incorrectly could cause the bots to wreck havoc. After we mark proposals for translation, however, you are most certainly free to make any adjustments you feel are necessary (such as use of <tvar>...</tvar>, etc.). Thanks, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for your answer. 🙂 -- Pols12 (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing for translators to keep in mind: the messages in the priority aggregate group are all supposed to be future-proof. There may be a few tweaks here and there, but for the most part we intend to keep it the same for years to come. So while 400+ messages sounds like a lot, it's hopefully worth your time :) MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MusikAnimal (WMF) And what about these previous year FAQ sections: new-survey, declined, proposal-phase, resubmit, smaller-projects, survey-explained, voting-phase, along with heading-categories-desc and heading-proposal-phase-desc,? They don’t seem to be used in 2022 pages: should they be kept in Priority group? -- Pols12 (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Well, for some of them. I removed most but we have to be careful; for instance heading-categories-desc is used on Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Proposals, but it interestingly isn't recorded as being transcluded, I guess because that only happens when you change the interface language. I'll try to go through others and clean them up too. Thanks for pointing this out! I do not think 2021 and earlier messages that aren't being used anymore should be considered priority. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pols12 All of the translatable proposals (which are just subpages) can be found at Category:Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Proposals/Translatable. We have to wait and make sure a proposal is stable and approved by our team to go into voting, then make it translatable. Hence, why there are so few right now. By February 11, there will be hundreds! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see tons of useless whitespace...[edit]

...why is the page in the other side so suboptimal layouted? It uses only a tiny fraction of my screen in the middle, that's very bar, methinks. Not here in the talk page, btw, this is very normal. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 16:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this useless code snippet in the header: <div class="community-wishlist-narrow-page">, if I delete this unwanted junk, will I get problems?
Or asked in a different way: How can this be made voluntary? Perhaps some strange people like this stuff, but making it mandatory is just utter b*s*. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 16:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to propose a wish[edit]

When I read "Community Wishlist Survey 2022", I assume that proposals, or "wishes", are being invited. This is confirmed when I read "How to create a good proposal". But I can't find any way to submit a proposal. Maproom (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link "Propose" that leads to Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Proposals. Stryn (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To submit a proposal, you should find a category which the proposal is within, and submit it in the "Submit" checkbox. (Remember to include the titles) Thingofme (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Send an 'improve your proposal" notification before end of proposal phase[edit]

Something I remember from previous editions is that many people often post something and then never get back to improve their proposal before review starts. Maybe it's an idea to send each proposal author a talk page notification inviting them to review the discussion on their wishlist item and to improve the proposal just a few days before review starts ? I think that would help a lot of wishlist items. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 13:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ping @MusikAnimal (WMF)TheDJ (talkcontribs) 13:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We always ping but yes we can send a user talk page notification, too. Thanks for the suggestion, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that there is an expectation that proposers be responsive to feedback leading up to the voting phase. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I doubt most people read that. They see a banner and click and post. Hopefully by pointing it out once more, we end up with more good proposals which are setup for success. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 12:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help creating proposal[edit]

@আফতাবুজ্জামান: Please make a proposal concerning this discussion: Greatder (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation subWishlist is not chronological[edit]

Users are rearranging proposals, making access difficult. ....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The bot shuffles the ordering of the proposals every few hours, but this is intentional to ensure fair visibility. I guess it goes both ways -- shuffling ensures all proposals get equal attention, but it makes it difficult for those who are going through each proposal sequentially. I can disabling shuffling for now, if there's enough demand for it; but during voting phase certainly we'll want to do that, otherwise proposals towards the bottom get fewer votes solely because they're never seen. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MusikAnimal (WMF): a hatnote about shuffling would be nice. ...0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why we need to shuffle randomly? It's hard to read and search; so we would have a note about this. I agree with 0mtwb9gd5wx, again. Thingofme (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just turn off shuffling for now :) But during the voting phase we'll need to bring it back. I'll add a hatnote or something as well. Best, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, we shuffle it in the voting phase because to avoid proposals being failed because of no visibility? It's better to have everyone reading the proposals, but there are about >200 of them. Thingofme (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe shuffling could be done with gadget that do this visually? Without editing page and with possibility to disable by reader. Wargo (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please unarchive my proposal[edit]

I've created, which tries to amend a real problem we have at Wikipedia. Somebody lamented that this would be a "social change", but I can attest to the fact that social change has been tried (time and again), and that a technical solution to this problem could be implemented much easier and much faster.--Keimzelle (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Keimzelle, let's talk on that page to keep the discussion in one place. Would that work for you? SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SGrabarczuk (WMF):, yes, that would work. See you there & thank you.--Keimzelle (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have a 'MediaWiki' category?[edit]

I'm not sure where else to file Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Miscellaneous/Check if a page exists without populating WhatLinksHere except in Miscellaneous - even thought its' a core mediawiki issue. Not many voters will look at that category, though, is there any way to have a general 'MediaWiki' or 'Technical' category that might get a bit more attention? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel I'd say that that lives in the rather broad 'editing' category in the absence of a more appropriate smaller-category. (I'm not in the CWS team, just hoping to help.) Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the categories proposals are the most frequently used problems and mostly contained with editing. Some of the small problems are too small to get a page, and it's hard to get all in the Miscellaneous section. If a category is frequently proposed, it would become a separate page. Thingofme (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel During the voting phase of the last survey, Miscellaneous was the third most popular category by pageviews, so I don't think it's fair to say it won't get attention :) A "MediaWiki" category could conceivably encompass many other wishes. And all proposals should be "Technical". It's a little late to be adding a new category but if we come up with something fitting, and there are enough other proposals to go in it, our team can discuss it on Monday. Frankly though I don't think moving to another category, even Editing, will have that much effect on voting.
At any rate, please do not move the page without talking to us or a translationadmin first. I'm not sure how the Translate extension will react if you attempt to move the pages and subpages (something I don't think it's supposed to let you do). I think you may first need a translationadmin to move the /Proposal subpage and then move the parent page, and in quick succession, otherwise the display will be broken. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies @Jdforrester (WMF), Thingofme, and MusikAnimal (WMF):. I'm not sure that this proposal falls under 'editing' since it's not really about an editing activity, more about how MediaWiki works. I've posted all of my proposals now, I'll leave them to be handled by the Wishlist team as they want to, I won't try moving them between categories. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Nearby" feature[edit]

Wikipedia's mobile app used to have a feature where you could select the "Nearby" map to show the locations of topics discussed on Wikipedia, such as historic buildings, monuments and memorials, geographic structures, etc. I'm not exactly sure when, but this feature has disappeared, and I miss the function greatly. Especially when traveling, I loved being able to open the map and make my way to notable places in the area. Is restoring this function the sort of thing I could submit here? -Another Believer (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer Have you tried the advanced mobile experience? To do this, use the hamburger menu at the top-left to go to your Settings. Flip the switch for "Advanced mode" and viola, you have Nearby back (and a whole lot more)! Hopefully you'll enjoy the advanced features and its parity with desktop workflows. If you still would rather have Special:Nearby back by default we can explore that further. Best, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For Android phones? Perhaps I'm overlooking, or don't have the most recent version of the app. -Another Believer (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Advanced mobile contributions are available on the mobile browser version. I'm not sure if they are available on the app. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying! I was specifically referring to the app, which I enjoyed using on my phone. -Another Believer (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer Sorry I misread. This feature indeed does not exist on the mobile app. That said, feel free to create a proposal for this Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Mobile and apps, if you would like! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MusikAnimal (WMF) All good! No need to apologize, just wanted to make sure I wasn't overlooking. See Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Mobile and apps/"Nearby" feature. I hope this is an ok submission. -Another Believer (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MusikAnimal (WMF) and Another Believer: I’d also very much like it to come back. However, as this feature was intentionally removed from the app, I fear it may match the exclusion criterion of declined by […] other Wikimedia Foundation teams in the past. By the way, as I explained in the Phabricator ticket, Special:Nearby doesn’t provide feature parity with what was in the app, it’s much more limited. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eek, indeed we were not aware of this was intentionally removed. I'm going to comment on the proposal itself. Let's continue our discussion there. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, interesting that this was removed. Last time I tried the Android app (a few years ago), the Nearby feature wasn't something I was particularly interested in, but it was literally the only thing in the app that made it potentially worth having on my phone (my phone has a working browser that I use for all other interactions with Wikipedia). Kusma (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Try — I assume it is a standard feature of all of the wikis — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 21:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that’s exactly what MusikAnimal proposed above (it’s in the hamburger menu on mobile), and the one that’s limited to the point that it’s almost useless. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark policy compliance of the social media images[edit]

On Community Wishlist Survey/Help us, there are Social media images that include the WMF logo (bottom left corner). I believe that stating that they are "social media images" might imply that it's okay to use them as backgrounds, headers, etc in social media. However, per foundation:Policy:Trademark policy, To avoid confusion, do not use the Wikimedia logos in the background, as your profile image, or in the header of your blog, in the name of your blog, or in your social media username. Does the Community Tech team have an exemption for this from a team like WMF Legal, or should the wording on the page be changed? EpicPupper (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The FAQ says "you can download and share these images", which I hope isn't misunderstood as it's okay to make your social media account appear as though it is an official or endorsed WMF account, which is what the legal wording is guarding against. We can tweak our wording if we feel it's necessary, yes. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification! I would tweak the wording, but it's ultimately up to the team Face-smile.svg EpicPupper (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Not done" not translated[edit]

In the page, "Not done" is not translated.

I created a template Template:WMDE Technical Wishes/not done similar to the existing Template:WMDE Technical Wishes/done, but it doesn't work.

Is there some special page for sysop to declare a page as translatable ?

-- ◄ David L • talk ► 14:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should edit Community_Wishlist_Survey/Editions_and_projects and make it to use the newly created template instead of plain text that says "not done". Stryn (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the problem:
Cross CSS Red.svg  Not done
Wiki source is similar, but some hidden declaration need to be done to have same effect as
Complete from the Noun Project (3557299).png  Done
-- ◄ David L • talk ► 16:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:WMDE Technical Wishes/not done hadn't been marked for translation, is why. But I don't think we need to create more templates under WMDE Technical Wishes, so I've moved it to Template:Community Wishlist Survey/not done. You can now add translations there. When I get a chance I'll copy over the other WMDE templates and styles, too. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help.
-- ◄ David L • talk ► 22:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Before I bother poking anyone else, is there going to be any actual enforcement of the 5-wishes-per-user limit? — xaosflux Talk 00:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! We already discussed this with the team. This rule only ever existed because we need proposers to be responsive to inquiries. The few people who have exceed five proposals (in previous surveys the limit was actually three!) have been responsive, so we decided to turn a blind eye. Enforcing the rule actually costs us more time and it makes it difficult for those who already exceeded the limit, since they have to find someone to adopt it, etc. So I'm being bold and have just bumped the written limit to 10, which should mean everyone (so far) is in the clear. For those of you who have held themselves back because of the rule, feel free to proceed with proposing more ideas, just please be responsive if pinged :) MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Can proposals be transcluded into two categories if applicable to both? (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not currently. I personally like the concept, but I worry it could be abused. That aside, technically it's still a problem right now since the bots look for subpages of a category and assume they are proposals. If you were to transclude it in multiple categories, it would eventually get removed since the list of transclusions is re-built by the bot on each run. We're keeping notes of ways to improve the survey and I'll make sure this is included. Thanks, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Random page[edit]

Is there any way to use the random page search for one country in particular ? If not, I would like that to be added to the offered possibilities. How do I proceed to present my wish to the Wikipedia reform list (an option that is offered to me today as appears on my screen in Wiktionnaire) ? DenisdeShawi

Withdrawing a proposal[edit]

I'd like to withdraw my proposal Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Notifications/Disruptive_edit_notification_watchdog due to it being largely based on a mistaken assumption of mine, in order for reviewers and voters not to waste time on it; how do I do that? I might have written a proposal for the Wikidata category instead, but I don't have the time to do that now, maybe next year instead. --SM5POR (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for the teams to archive, I think... Thingofme (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why the translation group Community Wishlist Survey lacks translation groups?[edit]

I think we should group all the proposals into one group for easier translation. Thingofme (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're going to do this using in one go using automation when the Proposal phase ends Sunday. Stay tuned! In the meantime, browse to any category such as Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Admins and patrollers and look for the "Translate" links (which will be shown in your native tongue). These are the proposals that are ready for translation. They're also categorized at Category:Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Proposals/Translatable if that helps. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MusikAnimal (WMF) But you should go in one group to easier translation, thanks... Thingofme (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thingofme Direct link for translation. Sorry for the delay. They'll be more proposals added to it as we continue reviewing. Thanks for helping with translation! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I just want more facilities to search books, articles and newspapers (in english and also, also in french). Indispensable for editing. Thanks, Mike Coppolano (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Language bar location[edit]

Hello @SGrabarczuk,

I don’t understand why you have moved the language bar to the bottom: if someone can’t read English, they probably won’t scroll a page which is fully written in English, and will exit instead. Other Meta-Wiki page keep the language bar to the top. -- Pols12 (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's because of the design of the page. As much content should be visible as possible. This is a team's decision that was put on hold because we didn't have enough translations - now, we do. We're inspired by the main page. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pages to translate[edit]

Please You check and mark the page to translate. Example:

✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Resolved.
✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


У меня есть предложение. Бюрократы могут присваивать флаг «Администратор интерфейса», требующий двухфакторную аутентификацию, но бюрократы не могут удостовериться в том, использует ли кандидат двухфакторную аутентификацию и предлагаю дать нестюардам доступ к этой странице.--Блинов Рюрик Петрович (talk + contributions) 12:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lost header[edit]

One proposal, Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Watchlists/Grouping watched pages, has lost its Problem/Who would benefit/Proposed solution/More comments/Phabricator tickets/Proposer header, because Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Watchlists/Grouping watched pages/Proposal was mistakenly deleted twice. So, please recreate or undelete the "/Proposal" subpage ASAP. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, sorry about that! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote button[edit]

The vote button leads to a non-existent page. Are we supposed to create a page? What are the things we are voting on? SpinningSpark 18:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It broke :( I disabled it for now. Will bring back after I figure this out. Sorry MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, you meant the Vote button on the main page. Thanks for pointing that out, it is now fixed. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, you were right the first time. I meant the vote buttons on the individual items. SpinningSpark 09:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Is it too early to ask for Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Results to exist as a draft? ;-) Or at least some automated list of the currently most-supported tasks? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel It's at Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Tracking and will be moved to /Results when it's final. Best, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's what I was looking for. :-) Mike Peel (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support button working again[edit]

I believe I've finally fixed the "Support" button. I'm writing here to instruct anyone who sees any weirdness to please ping me ASAP. But hopefully, all is well now :) Thanks, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A minor complaint: when you use this from the list of proposals, you end up at the page for the individual proposal, rather than back at the list so you can easily go on to read the next proposal. Not a big issue (just needs you to click on the back link a few times), but it's a bit odd. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, what we need is to do it like Discussion Tools where it shows your comment in the thread without reloading the page. The voting gadget as it is now is based off of Meta:AddMe which is ancient. I may be able to hack something together for this survey, but we're planning to rewrite the gadget from scratch for next time, and the new version will certainly function as you describe. Sorry for the inconvenience. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks! (and I'm already done voting for this year, so seeing this next year would be great.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Xn00bit Could you explain exactly the steps you took that led to your accidental vote at Special:Diff/22698891? Did it work okay on your second try? MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may be that I misclicked, but I was pretty sure I was viewing the right content and clicking on the right button; then I added a little bit of comment, and clicked Support. Suddenly the support tool added my support to another proposal. Worked on the second try.
Got redirected to the proposal's own page, returned to the proposal category page at the top (which is bad UX, should scroll automatically to where I was reading), tried to support another proposal, nothing showed up. Refreshed the page, scrolled back down, clicked it again, works this time. Xn00bit (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MusikAnimal (WMF) The support button does not work for me when my UI language selected is Spanish. The menu appears but clicking the "Support" button that actually adds the support does nothing. Lectrician1 (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How to have the support button? Thingofme (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lectrician1 This should be fixed now. Sorry about that!
@Thingofme Are you saying you don't see the Support button? You should, as it is a default-on gadget. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I can see now. I think I didn't know where it is. Thingofme (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option to not watching supported proposals[edit]

Can a check box for watching or not watching be added to the support pop on proposal pages? I have my preferences set up to get an email whenever a page I watch is edited and would prefer not to be inadvertently spammed as the result of my participation in the Community Wishlist Survey or have to manually unwatch each proposal I support. Thanks and take care. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Editor's Apprentice It shouldn't be auto-watching, per MediaWiki:Gadget-addMe-WishlistSurvey.js#L-280. I just tested it now and it did not watch the page after I voted. Anyways, yes, there should still be a checkbox to watch for those who do, but there isn't. Add that to the list of features to include in our new voting gadget to be used in the next survey :) MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MusikAnimal I see the line that you linked to and don't see anything else in the code that looks like it auto-watches the page when using the support button. It is interesting that we are having different experiences. Here is a screen capture video of me voting for a proposal, the watched page star turning blue, and then me unwatching the page: Thanks for the quick response. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Editor's Apprentice Do you have the "Add pages and files I edit to my watchlist" preference set at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist? MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do indeed. I guess that would override any setting made in the gadget. I'll go ahead and disable that when I vote on proposals from now on. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supports "as proposer" redundant?[edit]

Is it necessary for a proposer to explicitly support their own proposal, or is it enough that Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Tracking assumes an initial count of 1 to indicate the proposer's initial support? Mahir256 (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahir256: per Community Wishlist Survey/FAQ, "If you are the proposer, a support vote is automatically counted for your proposal.". Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The proposer's vote is automatically included. If they still vote as @Xaosflux did, it is still only counted once. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MusikAnimal (WMF): Is something wrong with the count, then? (The tracking page says that "Enhanced Move Logs" has 10 votes but if you strike the self-support there should be only 9.) Mahir256 (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahir256 Noting here I didn't forget about this! Indeed, you found a bug :) This was a regression that happened as a result of the localization changes we made for this survey, so I can say with assurance this bug did not exist in previous surveys. Anyways, it has been fixed. Thanks for bringing this to our attention! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two similar proposals[edit]

Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Larger suggestions/Editing Wikidata from Wikipedia and Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Editing/Tool to add Wikidata to an article are basically the same. They should probably be merged somehow. Lectrician1 (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Random proposal leads to non-proposals[edit]

@MusikAnimal (WMF) The Random proposal button has lead me twice to non-proposal pages. For example, Category:Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Proposals/Translatable/ko. This needs to be fixed. Lectrician1 (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! Thanks for pointing this out. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense images meant for social media?[edit]

If you want to make it easy for people to use the images on social media, you should consider relicensing them as CC 0. CC BY-SA is a hassle on most platforms. Ainali talkcontributions 08:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least, you could add to the message templates how to make the attribution so not everyone has to look up on Commons who made the images. Ainali talkcontributions 08:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I especially don't want my pictures misused by those privacy defiling data krakens at all, they should bring their ToU up to some decent state and adhere with common decency, not the rest of the world kowtow to their greed. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 10:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting script[edit]

The voting script does not work if an interface language other than English is selected. It probably uses the English name of the voting section somewhere, and for all other languages, it is trying to add a vote to the non-existent section number 3. — putnik 11:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1 (#Support button working again). --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I fixed it myself, and button should work for all languages now. Interface translation should be good too. @Matěj Suchánek, @Lectrician1, could you check that everything works for you? — putnik 17:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now it does! --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, thank you @Putnik! I was sure I tested this. Sorry about that, everyone! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The voting script could really use improvements for the next round:

  • It navigates away, which is slow and made extra annoying by the page being randomly re-sorted periodically, so there's a good chance you'll loose track of which proposals you have read already when you return. The edit is made via the API, there is zero reason to navigate away. The page contents could be refreshed via JS, but even not refreshing them and just telling the user the vote was successful would be an improvement.
  • There is no normal link to the vote page, if I want to get there (because of the previous issue) I need to open it for editing and then exit edit mode.
  • The highlighting of the comment happens on some arbitrary browser tab, not the one I actually voted on. It should use sessionStorage, not a cookie.
  • The form controls in the vote dialog should be set to disabled while the API call is in progress.

--Tgr (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We used to have a "View proposal" button but it was removed because some people thought it was redundant. We can easily add that back. All the other points, which are very good (thank you!), are caveats with Meta:AddMe. It is a personal goal of mine to rewrite that gadget from scratch and address all of these issues, along with a UI overhaul. If we're going to build it for the next Survey, I figure we might as well make something more generic that can fulfill other uses of AddMe, too. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

making proposals, and voting on it is inaccessible[edit]

the current way of making proposals, and voting on it is quite inaccessible to "standard young internet users", or, even standard wikipedia editors. would it be possible to have a simpler way of voting, by showing 2 or more proposals and let peeople drag them up or down? i created a phabricator task to get the discussion better tracked: . --ThurnerRupert (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting should have a button for oppose and I think we don't need to leave the main page. It is easier to open a new tab, and vote in a traditional way. Thingofme (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the gadget is a pain. It will be rewritten for the next survey and we promise it will be much better :) We don't add buttons for oppose/neutral because we don't count those votes (though we do still find them helpful in gauging consensus, etc.). I'm not against showing them, and in fact we used to.
Please keep the feedback coming! This time around I'm afraid we're stuck with what we have, but we'll keeping notes on how to improve for the next survey. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should count the oppose and neutral votes to count the consensus, I think... Thingofme (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Leider werden mal wieder alle diejenigen deren Muttersprache nicht Englisch ist ausgeschlossen.ClausNe (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ClausNe Es tut mir leid, das zu hören! Alle Vorschläge können übersetzt werden, wenn Sie sich darauf beziehen, aber wir haben leider nicht die Zeit oder die Ressourcen, um sie alle zu übersetzen, und verlassen uns auf die Hilfe der Community (wie es bei Übersetzungen üblich ist). Alles andere, mit Ausnahme des Abstimmungs-Gadgets, sollte in Ihrer Sprache sein. Ich habe versucht, das Abstimmungs-Gadget übersetzbar zu machen, aber es hat nicht funktioniert ... aber wir schreiben es für die nächste Umfrage sowieso von Grund auf neu.
Wenn Sie daran interessiert sind, bei der Übersetzung zu helfen, lesen Sie bitte Community Wishlist Survey/Help us#proposals. Danke schön! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danke für die Antwort, aber leider habe ich nur Grundkenntnisse in Englisch, und die reichen für eine gute Übersetzung nicht aus. Viel Spaß weiterhin. ClausNe (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Empty title[edit]

The title of the section header at Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Miscellaneous/Poll Yes and No (on talk pages) does not match the title of the proposal itself and was previously empty. The changes at Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Miscellaneous/Poll Yes and No (on talk pages)/Proposal should be marked for translation so that Special:Diff/22722874 could be reverted without causing an empty title again. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing this! I've marked it for translation. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But you should group all of the translation proposals into all the same translation groups. It's easier to find large translation groups. Another idea is to sort the group in the priority ones (most people translated) Thingofme (talk) 13:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we want to cherry pick any "favorite" proposals and disproportionately give some more attention, but all proposals are grouped together. Here is a direct link for translation. If other translationadmins want to make a "priority" proposals aggregate group, feel free, but it should not be Community Tech picking the favorites. Best, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting button only for support[edit]

Why is there a "support" button on each proposal, but not an "oppose" button? That is kind of a biased structure, making it easier for participants to support than to oppose. SpinningSpark 12:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We only count support votes, is the reason, but we do still read and appreciate neutral/oppose votes, too. Next year we'll have a shiny new gadget (hopefully for general use and not just for our Survey) and for that we can add options for oppose/neutral. Thanks for your feedback, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grey-out support button if already voted[edit]

As I'm going through proposals using the "Random proposal" button, I would like to know if I have already voted for one without requiring me to scroll down and look for my vote. Lectrician1 (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We will keep this in mind for the rewrite of the gadget to be used in future surveys. Thanks for the suggestion, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also for opposes, as each user are supposed to vote once only. Also about diving the voting sections into the Support, Oppose and Neutral subsection Thingofme (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MusikAnimal (WMF) I have made a fork of the gadget that disables the button when a user has voted. Let me know if this can be implemented now or not. Lectrician1 (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been using it and I also notice that it does not scroll down to your vote like the original gadget does after you vote. This is likely because the changing of the CSS on the button interrupts it. It should be fixable though. Lectrician1 (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lectrician1 Thanks, but I think it's too risky to make any further changes to the gadget at this point. I'll also note many of your votes have the same inaccurate timestamp: [1][2][3] etc. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Why was my suggestion removed? [4]. Mohmad Abdul sahib 17:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohmad Abdul sahib Sorry, the proposal phase ended on January 23. We are now in the Voting phase. When you attempted to create your proposal, you should have seen a notice telling you not to, but since you're editing on mobile it wasn't visible to you :( Thus, you may want to vote on Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Mobile and apps/Show editnotices on mobile which is about fixing that problem!
Apologies for the confusion. To prevent similar mistakes, I'm going to semi-protect all the category pages (only the bot is supposed to edit them, anyway). MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Protect by the abuse-filters (anyone can't edit, except for the bot) Thingofme (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Larger suggestions divide by topic[edit]

In the future surveys, can you divide the topic of Larger suggestions page? Putting all in one page can be extremely long, so we can divide by topic and group all in one page is the list of topics. Thingofme (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also for the /Archive page, as sometimes it can exceed the limit. Thingofme (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we will keep this in mind for the next survey. The solution may be that we allow larger suggestions to be categorized like normal proposals, but they explicitly and clearly state they are out of scope for transparency. This was actually what we originally wanted to do, but I don't think any of us realized there were going to be so many larger suggestions. The archive page is of less concern as those are not meant to be revisited, but maybe next time we'll make a second archive page or something if we need to. Thanks for the suggestions, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MusikAnimal (WMF) The archives can also be divided, because it would be too long or can reach template limit (like Larger suggestions), but they have smaller discussions and no voting (because it can't pass into the voting phase) Thingofme (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another proposal for the next years wishlist[edit]

Several templates in Commons need that a user declares himself as the author; the prominentest template of these is Information, with parameters for date and author.
The proposed value for date is yyyy-mm-dd (also yyyy-mm or only yyyy); when users try it with ~~~~~ a completely otherwise formatted date is the result, which is not at all desired.
The proposed value for author will for most cases be a link to the userpage; when users try it with ~~~ something is generated depending on their preferences, often a formatted construct with user name and talk page. This is not desired.
These troubles can be avoided when something exists that can be used to generate the correct format of the date-today, and something that becomes replaced by the plain user id; no problem to complete it to a valid link (when a user has not created his user page, it will be a redlink, but nevertheless the correct link). IMHO there is no other possibility to get these values than with something working like the ~~~~ for signature and timestamp, but instead of that with the requested format:

date is the date and not date and time; author is the user and not the user and his talk page.

When such a help exists it will open new possibilities for automated and always correct parameter values.
Keys to get that can be e.g. ~~~d and ~~~u, or something else whose meaning can be well understood. -- sarang사랑 14:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the "sandbox" for early wishes or in Meta userspace, in 2023 you can move to the main one (or create in conjunction with the surveys) Thingofme (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wishlist Gadget translations[edit]

@MusikAnimal (WMF) shouldn't Community Wishlist Survey/AddMe/InterfaceText be part of the priority message translation group? Lectrician1 (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See my other reply below, but the answer is no, because it is not actually localizable. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wishlist Gadget InterfaceText missing localization field[edit]

@MusikAnimal (WMF) sorry for the other ping but I noticed that the Wishlist Gadget was missing the "placeholder-comment" localization field and therefore the "Add your comment" text in the support dialog the gadget creates wasn't available for translating. So, I added it but it looks like you're going to have to remark the page for translation and do your "workaround" thing in order for it to show up as a translatable message. Lectrician1 (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lectrician1 Thanks for the help. Unfortunately the gadget is not localizable (though it is supposed to be). The diff you linked to was me giving up on that effort. I'm not against another interface-admin fixing it, if they really want to, but only if they can do so seamlessly without disrupting voting while the survey is still open. The survey is almost over, so I don't think it's worth it. Additionally, we'll be rewriting the gadget from scratch for the next survey, so whatever translations that get added may get lost. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongly inserted signatures on some pages[edit]

I don’t know the exact cause, but @Vulphere inserted their support votes into random places on 11 pages, according to their latest contributions (look for edits with 609 bytes as opposed to 305). I fixed it on one page, but I don’t really want to go through all 11, so I would appreciate someone looking into it and fixing the pages. stjn[ru] 18:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I believe I have fixed all of them. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is some type of error when he do not delete the wrong signature. Thingofme (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list of all vote drafts[edit]

User:Dušan Kreheľ/Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Unofficial vote result

✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what this is supposed to be, but it's pretty far from the actual ranking of proposals. I have moved it to your userspace. Note there are up-to-date tracking pages for each category available now. At the top of a category page, click on the proposal count to see the respective tracking page, for instance Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Tracking/Admins and patrollers. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MusikAnimal (WMF):

Table of proposals[edit]

It seems sneaky to me (to be gentle and not get my comment deleted) to hide and keep out all larger suggestions from Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Tracking, like if they didn't even exist nor summed up supports and opinions. Currently diminished to a simple and discrete link at the bottom of the page. There are many ways to still make them visible in the table and highlight or specify in them (in a different color, with a warning or a remark) that they are too large to consider but still open to discussion. But what's now going on only reinforces the idea of a process that tries to keep out general readers and wikipedians to find other proposals that need to be tackled somewhere, somehow, somewhat. Xavier Dengra (MESSAGES) 08:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is to not mislead people into thinking it's in our scope. If a larger suggestion ends up at the top of the list, some might think we'll be working on it. Using a different color or something for those items seems like a good idea, and we can consider that for next time, but I don't think it's worth coding it into the bot at this point (~24 hours before the survey ends). The tracking page is for the curious to monitor the ranking of proposals. It was not meant for discoverability (it is not localized, for instance, though it could and probably should be). All the "Vote" links and other pages aimed at participants go to Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Proposals where Larger suggestions clearly stands out. And the Larger suggestions page itself – like the other category pages – has a link to its own dedicated tracking page sorted by vote count.
What we can do is include the sorted list of larger suggestions below the CommTech list, on the same page, when we publish the results on February 14. Perhaps that would help? Either way, our commitment was to share the larger suggestions with management and/or the respective teams, and we can assure you that will happen. Kind regards, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for next year[edit]

i just had an idea. writing here for next year in case i forget.

floating section headers.

kinda similar to Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Reading/floating table headers, but not just for tables but for sections, at least very long sections should have this. i was looking for names in c:Commons:Database reports/Users by log action. i found a name by ctrl+f, but it's troublesome to carefully scroll up to the section header to understand what i have found. RZuo (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RZuo: You might be interested in mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Features/Sticky Header. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial vote result and statistics[edit]

User:Dušan Kreheľ/Unofficial vote result

✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We appreciate the help but kindly ask you do not create more subpages under Community Wishlist Survey 2022. Thanks, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MusikAnimal (WMF) Why? What is the problem? Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply. The hesitation was advertising unofficial and premature results under Community Wishlist Survey 2022. Your original counts didn't include the proposer, for instance, and was done before we removed sock votes, etc., so we just didn't want to mislead anyone. Of course, as you graciously discovered, there was a bug in our own vote counter as well! We appreciate your efforts, and now that all the votes are final, please feel free to slice and dice the results however you see fit (on a separate page). Kind regards, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My results were unofficial, as seen by the user when looking at the individual design pages. Show the reality as he is there now.
The contribution of such a contribution is a trend rather than exact data. Who is 100% quality, will definitely wait for the official results. It can also get values from individual sites.
The page is on Wikipedia, so it can be updated later based on input changes.
Why not allow those who are interested in trends or are very impatient to see the results immediately? The site has been flagged for not official results. Alternatively, it could be written that why take the result with a grain of salt.

How have the results changed? (Results -02-11 18:01 UTC versus Results -02-15 22:48 UTC)

Count drafts Change rank position Count drafts [%]
4 -2 1,48%
62 -1 22,96%
184 0 68,15%
6 1 2,22%
3 2 1,11 %
3 3 1,11 %
2 4 0,74 %
1 6 0,37 %
2 9 0,74 %
2 11 0,74 %
✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does this vote count?[edit]

Is voted his vote or no? ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Dušan Kreheľ. I think this does count as support. There's the {{Support}} template and a signature, everything a proper vote should contain. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Community Wishlist Survey 2022 - Results[edit]

Where can you see the results? Kurono (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Official / Final version – Here.
  • Draft / development version – Here.
  • The development works on the result of Community Wishlist Survey 2022 – Here.
✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Phase 4 February 15, 2022 Results posted"

"All phases of the survey begin and end at 18:00 UTC."

And it's 20:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC) now.

Conclusion: They failed to be on time. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually originally scheduled for the 14th. If it means anything, we've worked very hard through the weekend in order to get the results prepared for you :) This time around it wasn't as simple as moving a page. We faced several setbacks and a few technical problems, but the results are here, finally. Thank you for participation and patience! Warm regards, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting the results, although a bit late. Kudos to you and the team for working through the weekend. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I join in the congratulations to the Community Tech team for running this incredibly well-organised and well-supported Wishlist 2022 process! I had a couple of observations about the results:
  • Was there a reason why dense ranking was chosen for the results? It's a slightly confusing ranking scheme, because it makes it hard to see which are the "top ten", "top twenty" etc. items.
  • I must say that some of the prioritisation ranks are a little perplexing. "Allow filtering of WhatLinksHere..." was leapfrogged to second place, despite this being a technically challenging task that may require deep restructuring of the MediaWiki parser. As for its impact, it can hardly be different to the two other WhatLinksHere proposals, yet those proposals fell in ranking! On the other hand, the Wikisource search-replace tool bug fell quite significantly in ranking despite honestly appearing at first glance to be a straightforward, easy win. I don't presume to know better than the Community Tech team when it comes to prioritisation, but perhaps some additional detail around how each proposal's ranked score was arrived at may assist to understand these decisions - at least in cases where the prioritized rank is quite different from popularity rank.
Thanks again for your work. This, that and the other (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks for writing! These were really well-articulated questions and they made me catch my mistake.
  • The dense ranking is due to a tie in votes. The wishes with the same popularity ranking had the same amount of votes, but thanks to the handy link you sent I now think the standard competition ranking is the better choice. I suggested we used dense ranking cause I thought it’d be confusing for people seeing the results to see a skip in the numbers, but you’re totally right to point out it makes it hard to see which are the true “Top X” so I matched the one showing inside of /Results which is technically not standard competition ranking but more intuitive nonetheless.
  • As for pointing out the perplexing nature of the results, I have to own the mistake publicly here. I have updated the leaderboard to reflect the right scores just now. To give more transparency and visibility, I have also added the scores that bubble up to the final score as well as a spreadsheet to the one in my updated edit. Feel free to check out what the individual numbers that bubble up to the final score mean here if you’re curious! I went back and forth on how much importance the popularity should carry, and while estimation is an imperfect art, I believe we landed in a place that gives it important weight but still takes into account all the other factors that go into building tools.
This update will reflect precisely what you’re pointing out, a large and complex wish like Allow filtering of WhatLinksHere to remove links from templates should not overshadow Fix search and replace in the Page namespace editor. It was never intended to do that in our estimations! And for that, I am grateful to you for pointing out our mistake. Hope looking at the more granular numbers helps inform our thinking! NRodriguez (WMF) (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. The ordering is very very different now! I agree that it better reflects the reality of the different tasks, their complexity and their impact. The deviation from the popularity ranking is quite substantial, and there may be some blowback on this front ("why vote at all if it ends up being overridden anyway?").
Those spreadsheets are great; that was exactly what I had in mind. I really appreciate your team being open and releasing them! That's the spirit of the Wikimedia movement right there. This, that and the other (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NRodriguez (WMF) in addition to my comment above, I think there is an off-by-one error in the number of votes column in your leaderboard. The number of votes listed for each proposal is actually the number of votes the next most popular proposal received. This, that and the other (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed! Thank you :) And yes, I hear you on the potential first glance response of some folks potentially being "why vote at all if it ends up being overriden anyway?" but I think that even the 29th wish is still wanted by many users, and still 29 out of 240. I really hope we will be able to grant way more wishes in terms of headcount, it's the whole reason we are doing this! The plan is that we will still get to popular wishes but maybe not in the immediate sequential order people hoped. Staying optimistic and working for that vision, thanks for the encouragement :D NRodriguez (WMF) (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing about "dense ranking", now I should confess I'm confused. Are you going to work on "Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Multimedia and Commons/Improve SVG rendering" or not? That was the 5th popular proposal, but ended up 9th (actually 11th if you use standard ranking) in the prioritized ranking. I believe you should stick to the first 10 popular proposals determined by the community. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think CommTech promises to work on a specific number of wishes, which is pretty reasonable IMHO. To take examples from this year's top proposals, the Commons copyright detection tool is a giant piece of work asking them to build a whole new tool from scratch, while the enhanced move logs is a small enhancement to an existing MediaWiki feature. No-one can predict whether the top 10 will be filled with large or small tasks. This, that and the other (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Was this communicated properly before? They used to set the goal for 10 wishes each year except the last year or the year before that when they set the goal for 5 wishes and excluded any big projects such as Commons. When they had a clear goal, they could not deliver it. Now what will happen if they don't set their goals from the very beginning? I don't find it reasonable at all honestly. They can complete just one wish and say that's all they can deliver! If I knew this from the very beginning, I probably wouldn't take the time reading all the submitted proposals and voting for them. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that clear goals should be set, but they need to be achievable, realistic goals too. It doesn't sound like the CommTech team has the power to hire additional developers according to the Wishlist outcome, which would be necessary if the top ten was filled with complex development projects. So the goal-setting logically takes place after the Wishlist process, not before it. This was all explained at the FAQ page. This, that and the other (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about this myself. On the one hand, the community tech getting the most done with a set amount of resources makes sense. And their prioritization method is reasonable. Though it's hard to know exactly how reasonable since we don't get the formula just a description. I'm not sure why the pseudopercise final value needs to be produced by a black box formula - we are are not Google. But anyhow I want the team to do as much as possible that will have the biggest impact as possible and being transparent about how the community tech team does this is a step in a positive direction. But I am concerned that we see the 5th ranked proposal drop so far as it did because it seems like one reason that it dropped is because the team doesn't have internal expertise in this area, where as they do have internal expertise in other areas. But of course if they de-prioritize this kind of request they will never get internal expertise and so it seems to be stuck in a loop that I don't see how it escapes despite clear community support for the concept. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, thanks so much for writing! We just updated the leaderboard numbers to reflect more details and link to the granular sub-components. I am also pasting the formula here, which is linked to in the spreadsheets we made visible with the Community Impact (go to the first tab)
Notice that we subtract the complexity from a value of 1 because it being "complex" is a bad thing, so we need to invert it!
(1 - (technical complexity score / max technical score)) + (1 - (product & design complexity score / max product & design technical score)) + community score/max possible community score + vote count / max vote count
Thanks again for caring to understand the formula and encouraging us to be transparent NRodriguez (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Natalia. I appreciate your having done that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Love your efforts, and love Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Results#Gratitude even more. That's it, that's the comment. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This is the scheme that I think is best to follow. Community Tech team wants some leverage in working on wishes and that is okay, I think. But that leverage should not be so vast for them to prioritize wishes that the community does not consider that important. After all, this is the Community Wishlist Survey. In the current leaderboard, a wish which ended up 29th by popularity vote turned into the first priority by the team. The second priority is the wish which ended 23th in popularity ranking (I can't believe people voted for making a list just alphabetical). This is not fair, I believe. You can divide the list of 30 wishes into 5 blocks, each of which containing 6 wishes. You can change the order of wishes in one block according to your formulas, but you cannot leapfrog less-wanted wishes to the top of the table. The team should always focus on the 1st block (containing the the topmost 6 wishes), then on the 2nd block, and so on. You may change the number of blocks to whatever fits you, say 2 (each containing 15 wishes), but the blocks should exist. You really shouldn't focus your energy and WMF money on the 29th wish just because that is easier to fulfill. Let me remind you that you are not volunteers, but paid staff. So I think it's fair to expect you deal with difficult tasks too. Thanks for reading this. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Example: 3 blocks/leagues[edit]

     League A      League B      League C

Wish Popularity Rank Votes Engineering Score Product and Design Score Community Impact Score Ranked Scores
Improve SVG rendering 5 106 4.0 0.8 3 2.617990168
Notifications for user page edits 2 120 1.3 1.7 1 2.57134619
Tool that reviews new uploads for potential copyright violations 4 108 4.3 2.7 4 2.391227075
IPA audio renderer 9 96 3.0 2.7 3 2.310332766
Select preview image 8 97 3.0 2.0 2 2.223501607
Better diff handling of paragraph splits 1 123 3.3 2.3 1 2.040697674
Enhanced Move Logs 10 93 2.7 2.3 1 1.930128569
Show recent block history for IPs and ranges 3 109 4.0 3.7 2 1.733465683
Allow filtering of WhatLinksHere to remove links from templates 5 106 5.0 3.3 2 1.586594819
Automatic duplicate citation finder 7 100 3.0 4.2 1 1.494015882

Fix search and replace in the Page namespace editor 11 92 2.3 0.7 2 2.626262053
Check if a page exists without populating WhatLinksHere 14 85 2.7 0.7 2 2.502684818
Formatting columns in table 19 75 4.0 0.3 2 2.232236718
Change default number of search results displayed 11 92 2.0 1.7 1 2.21037058
Table sorting on mobile 17 80 2.3 1.7 1 2.046142938
Reminders or edit notifications after block expiration 19 75 3.3 3.2 2 1.706655322
Autosuggest linking Wikidata item after creating an article 13 89 3.3 3.8 2 1.665437701

Autosave edited or new unpublished article 29 67 1.0 0.3 2 2.767196067
Get WhatLinksHere's lists in alphabetical order 23 73 1.3 0.3 2 2.749309888
Enable negation for tag filters 27 70 2.0 0.3 2 2.591586311
floating table headers 24 72 1.0 2.7 2 2.265210815
Mass-delete to offer drop-down of standard reasons, or templated reasons. 25 71 1.0 2.7 2 2.257080734
Add DeepL as a machine translation option in ContentTranslation 21 74 3.3 0.0 1 2.18495935
Gadget: Who is active 25 71 1.3 4.0 2 1.880336548
Full page editing 30 62 2.0 3.7 1 1.501351862
VisualEditor should use human-like names for references 21 74 3.3 4.0 1 1.254726791

This is an example of the table with 3 blocks/leagues. Community Tech team can reorder wishes in each league within the same league however they would like according to their formulas, but they can't transfer wishes from one league to another one. They should focus their time and energy on the wishes in the league A, then in the league B, if possible, and rarely, if ever, in the league C. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tool that reviews new uploads for potential copyright violations[edit]

Hi there, I saw that there was a wish for a Tool that reviews new uploads for potential copyright violations. I actually started working on this before the Survey; it's currently half-finished but I'm continuing to work on it and refine rapidly. Would it be fine if I could tackle this one? I'd be happy to accept community feedback or consultation on the tool. I saw that in previous years historically community members have taken on some of the wishes as well. Just wanted to make sure I'm not stepping on anyone's toes! EpicPupper (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you so much for reaching out, we love to hear about this! We encourage and empower volunteers to grant wishes. Let us know how we can support you in the development and please keep up us updated! We're working on making a second table with wishes that other teams or volunteers granted so that we can give credit where credit is due and inform participants of all wishes being worked on. Mind linking us to any documentation or anything else you think we could link to for those curious about this wish? Thanks so much, it's so cool that you're doing this! :) NRodriguez (WMF) (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! User:EpicPupper/Fortuna has a write-up. EpicPupper (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Priority score equation?[edit]

Hi, I read through Community Wishlist Survey/Prioritization but couldn't spot it, which formula do you use to calculate the prioritization? I assume it's some sort of combination of the inverses of the different ratings, since otherwise lower scores would have had highest priority? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel: Read there. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I missed @NRodriguez (WMF):'s post. Could have been a bit simpler: I think
(max technical score/technical complexity score) + (max product & design technical score/ product & design complexity score) + (community score/max possible community score) + (vote count / max vote count)
would have done the same thing. I think the votes should have also been weighted higher (multiply by at least 2), but I shouldn't complain too much - happy to see the "Check if a page exists without populating WhatLinksHere" project featuring higher than expected! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals with changes pending translation[edit]

Could someone please look at Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Editing/Formatting columns in table/Proposal, Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Editing/Native support for alternative section anchors/Proposal, Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Larger suggestions/Chat client/Proposal, Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Larger suggestions/Dark mode/Proposal, and Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Wikidata/Custom edit summaries/Proposal, and Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Wiktionary/Encourage translations by easier/automatic adding of translation boxes/Proposal, where edits were made to the /Proposal page after it was marked for translation, and handle them properly please? I'm inclined to say that the post-translation edits should be reverted since they didn't actually show up when the proposal was voted on (because translation-aware transclusion only transcluded marked changes), but I would appreciate the opinion of someone more involved with administration of the survey. * Pppery * it has begun 02:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Only one of them seemed to have any meaningful changes, which I reverted. The rest have been re-marked for translation. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why weren't votes weighted higher?[edit]

While there obviously needs to be some scope for the CW team to prioritise, the system used this year seems to massively underweight votes. The most popular fell 16 places. Assuming it is in scope at all, the most popular choice (at least when a clear leader, like here) should always be done, and then, beyond that, the weighting of votes needs to be doubled. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Planning doc for next year?[edit]

Is there a planning doc for how the survey will be improved and conducted next year?

I have various ideas like:

  • Page/option to show all translated proposals for a language
  • Updated voting gadget and its features
  • Period to translate proposals before voting
  • Multi-categorize proposals
  • Add images to proposals
  • Support multiple proposers
  • Use Page Forms to create proposals?

Lectrician1 (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missing result Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Larger suggestions/1%[edit]

By my count, this has 136 supports, making it the #2 proposal. Yet, it is not featured in the 2022 table. What gives? Headbomb (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @MusikAnimal (WMF): who setup the page. I see the explanation, but having a second table to keep track of the larger suggestions would be useful. Headbomb (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

update svg task status[edit]

Thought you wanted to know that the Improve SVG rendering task will be tackled by the PET team, see the latest comments on phab:T294484. Just relaying information.--Snævar (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's great to know, thanks for informing us! @Snævar KSiebert (WMF) (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]