Talk:Community Wishlist Survey 2019

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

Newspaper Cover2.svg
Join the Community Tech team newsletter to get periodic notifications about the team's projects and the wishlist survey.

Odd seeming organizational structure[edit]

@TBolliger (WMF): I wanted to signal what seems like wiki-strangeness in case this is an oversight.

I could be missing details but I think it was an error to name this page 2018 Community Wishlist Survey instead of Community Wishlist Survey/2018. Here are some problems:

  1. Divergence from wiki norms
  2. Loss of the ability to navigate the main page / sub page trees which MediaWiki software automatically generates
  3. Challenges in doing search on all past discussions because they are segregated
  4. Challenges in condensing talk pages - many talk pages on small topics need to be redirected to a central main talk page

If someone consciously chose the current structure for a reason then that is great. If someone made the current structure without understanding what commonly happens then I propose to correct the 2018 structure before the discussion starts, which will sort out all future wishlist surveys, and leave it open for anyone to do moves on past years.

I came here because I wanted to quickly link to the past years' discussions and saw that this would be problematic. I think this is the single most discussed page from the past - Talk:2017 Community Wishlist Survey and even this is not such a developed discussion. It would seem natural to merge more of this.

Or I could be mistaken! Thoughts? I could organize community participation in a discussion with a merge but before I did I wondered if there were any WMF staff who had strong feelings or a master plan. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Bluerasberry We talked about this in our team meeting and realized it would be a chunk of work to make changes to the bots which maintain the survey pages. Hence we are continuing with the current hierarchy but with an important change - the survey title is now changed to reflect the year in which we will be working on the wishes (the following year) and not the year in which the survey is being held (the current year). Hence I have redirected this page to Community Wishlist Survey 2019. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@NKohli (WMF):As a translator, it bothers me that page title is inconsistent with past report pages; please use the old pattern as “2015” Community Wishlist Survey Report and so forth. Or otherwise, for the sake of translators, kindly consider renaming all the past pages, both survey itself and its report in line with the system you have mentioned above. Because our ratio of speed/accuracy/consistency largely depend on translation extension.
I am afraid no auto suggestions the translation extension usually provides is available. Is it related to this thread? Very stressful to manually go back and forth on tabs to find translation only to copy-paste from past year’s page. Also, let me remind that those who work on double byte languages as zh and ja, which share similar writing systems, we help each other to find better localized term in many cases by looking at the others’ work via translation extension. --typo corrected 17:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC) Omotecho (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
We are working to rename all the old pages to the new format (with the year at the end of the title). I am also attempting to refactor the messages that are identical year-to-year, so that you don't have to re-translate. I'll post back here when everything is complete MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Everything has been refactored, and where possible historical translations have been migrated to the new message templates. This template-based system is a little confusing but the payoff is big, as we won't need to re-translate everything next year. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help further. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Transaltion missing[edit]

I have already translated part of text, but after move and structure change all transaltions vanished. Big part of page is not marked for translation. JAn Dudík (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Find Community Wishlist Survey/ groups on Special:LanguageStats. Probably you can restore from translation memory. I think templatize editions of survey is good idea so do not need to copy the same texts every year. --Wargo (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey! I've been working to refactor all the messages that are identical year-to-year. Indeed they are all subpages of Community Wishlist Survey. I have a script I'm writing to copy over old translations, so no worries about losing anything. They'll be restored as the messages are the same from previous years. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@JAn Dudík: Same problem with Japanese. I expect when re-naming pages finish, translation database will show my sentences on the right field, which I have translated before the disappear. Need to go back and check. --Omotecho (talk) typo fixed 07:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC) 07:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Sections mismatch between pages en-ja[edit]

@MusikAnimal (WMF): thanks a bunch to taking care of tidying up the tree. I work on ja translation and found the sections don’t match with en, resulting to show translation is finished 100% but actually not. Any chance to fix? I suspect that some section titles have “Translate” button on the colored bar, in ja but not in en, and that causes computing the ratio of filled translation show “errors” (while logically no mistake).

I work on mobile and intentionally use Desktop view so that I can work around Section bounderies.

  • I need to go back to previous section which is in defferent page: For example, the sentebce includes links to another section inside a single page, but there are multiple pages bundled in the composition.

—moved sentence Omotecho (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC) --Omotecho (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Omotecho: Yes, to allow us to use the same translations in future surveys, the messages have been moved to templates. This is why the main survey page says it's been translated 100%, because the untranslated parts are actually on a separate page. For links, just use the variables provided. Indeed they may not work on the message page itself but they will on the page where it is transcluded. My apologies for inventing this confusing system! I can't think of a better way to do it that would allow us to re-use the translations every year. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, as far as translation database/memory works, I am quite happy as a translator. I understand the idea you have come up with, and that is the option I could think of, too. The part we discuss here is a "permanent" part of the page, or what we will see very few changes, I guess we could forget about the completion per cent... :) Case closed for me, thank you for your hard work ! --Omotecho (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposals that benefit smaller wikis[edit]

The section headed What about smaller projects and user groups? doesn't provide any commitment by Community Tech to take on proposals that benefit smaller wikis in spite of not making the top 10. Indeed, looking at last year's results page, there is no sign that any work at all has been done on most of the tasks below the top 10. Would Community Tech consider committing to at least investigate the top-ranked task outside the top 10 that relates to a non-Wikipedia, non-Commons, non-Wikidata project (most probably Wikisource, if past years are anything to go by)? Otherwise there is a real risk that the software ecosystem that these smaller wikis depend on will stagnate. This, that and the other (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello This, that and the other. Thanks for asking this. The original idea (as I recall) when we put that text in two years ago was that when Community Tech is done with the top 10, we will spend the rest of our year working on wishes which are specifically for smaller groups. Work on IA Upload tool was completed for Wikisource in late 2016/early 2017 despite not being in the top 10 in the wishlist. Another similar project we did was to implement Google OCR for Wikisource wikis. That was also not on the top 10. Lately our work on the Grant metrics tool which has been ongoing for more than a year was a request from Event organizers channelled to our team through the Community Engagement department at WMF.
However to be completely honest, we have been getting bigger and bigger projects in the recent wishlists making it impossible for us to explore anything beyond the top projects. Global Preferences for example, took almost two years to complete and we're still fixing bugs in it. I believe the number "10" was picked in a time when we were overcome by enthusiasm. :)
At this time, I would prefer to keep the text and clarify the wording after the wishlist (to avoid affecting translations during the survey) to make it clear that when we mean projects for smaller groups, they don't necessarily come from the wishlist. We're also thinking about ways we can allocate resources every year for doing work for smaller projects - this may mean reducing the number 10 to something lower or something else perhaps. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Niharika, thanks for your detailed reply. I understand where you are coming from in terms of big projects taking up most of your time, and if this year's survey is anything like last year's, it may prove necessary to reduce the number of projects you take on in 2020's survey. (Hopefully there aren't too many more big gaps left in the Wikimedia technical ecosystem, but who knows what community members will come up with this time!) It would be great to clarify the wording for smaller projects; shame it is too late for this year. Best of luck with the survey! This, that and the other (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@NKohli (WMF): Is the scale of Community Tech's work going to increase in the future, or will it remain largely the same? I think it's a bit of a shame that Community Tech only has the time to complete or even evaluate less than 10% of the proposals supported by dozens of editors (10 of 111 proposals in 2017). Jc86035 (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedia Maps Improvements[edit]

The development of the Wikimedia Maps should be continued. Main wishes are migration to vector tile structure and fix the international borders.--naveenpf (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Naveenpf: You can propose it tomorrow evening. This talk page is not for project proposals, but for meta discussion about the survey itself. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Sure -- naveenpf (talk) 03:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Request categories[edit]

Was there a process for establishing categories? Some categories seem very limited in scope, while others are very generic. For example, what category should be used for improving Wiki content -- this includes both the ability to show that content (reading?), and creating that content (...?). --Yurik (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Yurik: There is no process for establishing categories, you just ask here :) I think it might be too late to change the categories this year, given we have but just a few hours before we begin and new categories will need to be translated. If the discrete and well-defined proposal conceivably falls into multiple categories, that's okay -- though you can only pick one. "Improving wiki content" to me sounds like Editing, as I assume if it's something entirely new you'd need to first edit in order to show it. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

2020 and beyond[edit]

So, next year, the Community Wishlist Survey will be at Community Wishlist Survey 2020, right? And Community Wishlist Survey 2021 in 2020, etc.? If a proposal fails to be implemented in 2019, it might still be implemented in 2020 or 2021. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Everyyear foundation works on top ten items -- naveenpf (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

tvar dates[edit]

Why date is tvar'ed if contains words? --Wargo (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wargo: Hey, I wasn't sure if I was doing that correctly. We're using the same dates in two places on the survey page, so it was my understanding using tvar would help translators see that it is already being used and doesn't need re-translation? I'm not sure why containing words is a problem, though. I see other uses of tvar also contain words. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it is for placing text not for translation into paragraphs for translation, for example link targets, so text in translating form is for example: normal text here. It is not possible to translate months then. Extension:Translate doesn't support copying :(. --Wargo (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
@Wargo: Darn. How about transcluding the existing translation, as with Special:Diff/18530806? MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Better --Wargo (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I've gone with this solution. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Any discussion to skipping 2018?[edit]

I was a little bit surprised, where exactly was a discussion held about skipping one year? --Dvorapa (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello! 2018 wasn't skipped, we just went with a new naming system :) See Community Wishlist Survey 2019#What happened to the 2018 wishlist survey?. Regards, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I understand, but I'm looking for any discussion where this solution came up from. --Dvorapa (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Dvorapa. We did not do a community consultation before changing the naming scheme. This change does not impact the wishlist in any way - it's only for our sanity, as people working on the wishes from the survey. It'll help us improve our process and make it less confusing when we report on things internally - to other teams and managers. I hope that is okay. :) Thanks. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
User:MusikAnimal (WMF): Please fix the header of the subpages. They still link to the 2017 survey. --Achim (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh dear!!! I messed up one of the bots. Hopefully we don't have proposals in the wrong place... going to fix everything now. Thank you for the ping!! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't look any proposals were misplaced (phew!). If you notice anything off though, please let me know :) Thanks again, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

correct date[edit]

Adopting proposals[edit]

If anyone is interested in adopting proposals, here are things that I couldn't submit because I already have three proposals:

  • Targeted advertising outside the Wikimedia projects to recruit new editors, and analysis to improve that process (part of this)
  • Allow users to post and reply to tweets with the WMF-owned Twitter accounts through a consensus mechanism (also part of this, sort of)
  • Editor retention: notifications for new users, asking them to come back and make more edits (if they're inactive), and suggesting new ways to edit (also part of this)

I hope others could adopt these ideas into their own proposals. Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Someone should start an adoption list ;) —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 08:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Jc86035 I like all three of these proposals. The first two are somewhat outside our team's scope and in the Communications department's scope. These aren't technical changes to any of our own products and hence this team will probably not be able to work on it but I will most definitely flag these for the Communications department so they can be aware of this. For the third proposed wish above about Editor retention, the Growth team is beginning to work on some related things to experiment with similar notifications/emails to see if these can increase editor retention. I am not completely informed on their plans but you should take a look at their Updates page to get more information. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should scrap the categories?[edit]

I'm not sure that dividing proposals between different categories actually helps. 'Miscellaneous' currently has the most proposals (including all of mine). Why not have a single channel for all proposals - is there a reason why we need to prioritise one category over another? Would someone looking for Wikipedia-related proposals even look at the 'Wikidata'/'Wikisource'/'Wiktionary' proposals? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Last question is answer. --Wargo (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
There are a few Wikipedia-interested ones on Wikidata, but not so much the other two. --Izno (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Having it all on one page would certainly be too large, but you can see an index of all proposals at Category:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Proposals. The proposal categories are meant only to find proposals you're interested in. Wikidata naturally may involve other projects since it is integrated into them. You're right though that the catch-all Miscellaneous is growing to be too large. We'll give some thought about introducing other, more fine-grained categories to help mitigate this. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I've been using Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Tracking to watch for proposals with interesting-sounding titles. BTW, thanks for fixing the bot to keep the ordering there stable. Anomie (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I came here to say the same thing. The tracking page is certainly easier to use than Category:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Proposals :) I'm going to add link to it on the main survey page. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
The link to /Tracking doesn't work for languages beside English. -- Reise Reise (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Fixed! Sorry about that. The tracking page is not set up for translation, by the way, since we are still in the proposals phase and things might get renamed.

Also, you all might also be interested in using Special:RecentChangesLinked to keep track of new proposals as they're added. I've got it with the "Live updates" option turned on, and it's working wonderfully. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Article reminders[edit]

I very much like the "Article reminders" idea. Currently, I watch the page to start out, and then I hope to notice it later.

Pardon my ignorance, I do not see how I add this comment to the discussion. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dthomsen8! If you want to comment on the proposal, you can do so directly on the proposal page at Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Editing/Article reminders#Discussion. Regards, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Result of Task to be done should not done by whole community wishlisht , set the task must be by Project Wise.[edit]

This request to WFM, please Result of Task to be done should not done by whole community wishlisht , set the task must be, by Project Wise. There are lost of Wishlist in Wikisource relates wishlist, that hadn't been taken care. Please publish the result by category wise by project. Because project have a unique issue. It can not be judged on whole Wikimedia Project basis. Jayantanth (talk) 08:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


A lot of people seem to have no idea what Phabricator is. I've added a hidden comment about it to the English version of the proposal template, since there doesn't seem to be an appropriate place on the landing page. Jc86035 (talk) 08:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks! I've trimmed down the comment some, since those unfamiliar with Phabricator probably won't go searching for the appropriate tickets. Amazingly we are able to make the comment localizable, so I've marked it for translation as well. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion not shown[edit]

I tried to correct the page Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Mobile and apps/Show categories in the app copying it in Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Mobile and apps/Show categories in the Wikipedia app (that is the correct title), but did not work. Please check it. Thanks. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this edit messed everything up and made the links go to the wrong place. It has been fixed. I'm going to set up an AbuseFilter to prevent this from happening again. Regards, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Time zone of the voting schedule[edit]

I assume the scheduled dates are strictly UTC? This would mean that in American time zones, voting ends some time in the afternoon or evening of November 30, rather than at midnight. If this is the case, it should be noted, and dates should at least be marked with "(UTC)". --Pipetricker (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pipetricker. Thanks for bringing this up. I will rectify this. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but[edit]

The way you handle Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Archive/mw.toolbar zurück my Wish is frustrating. A lot of Editors on de-wiki, bg-wiki and smaler wikis aks you to help. Your answer is to get it into the Archiv. Why are you asking for wishes, when your answer is to archive the wish. I hope, you will get a lot of wishes, witch make you more fun. by --Itti (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Three proposals limitations[edit]

When reading Community_Wishlist_Survey_2019/Archive, i found some good proposals, which were archived only because the limit for one editor. I understand, that there is need for some limit because of some graphomans, but this also means some good proposals should be lost. I personally have one more proposal, I have person, who will propose it instead of me (I hope he will write it in time). One solution should be, if proposals archived because of limit will be stored separately and there will be visdible link - and every contributor will be encouraged to adopt some of them. Currently there is 43 archived proposals, 15 of them are too many proposals and next 6 are from anonymous users - this is almost one half of them.

Or Community tech team can select the best of them and give them to coting phase. JAn Dudík (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi JAn Dudík: Discussion is a big part of the survey process. As everyone knows when you work on a wiki, things aren't always perfect. It's part of wiki culture to talk about ideas, ask tough questions, and make improvements.
We want the people who write proposals to be available to answer questions and improve their proposals over time. We need them to be logged-in, so that people can ping them with questions and ideas, and they can keep track of replies on their watchlists. We limit the proposals that a single person can vote because if someone posts ten proposals, that's a lot of discussions to be responsible for participating in. Just keeping up with the discussion on three proposals can be a lot sometimes, so we limit the number to three per person. If someone posts ten proposals, we ask them to pick the most important three, and they get to decide which ones to keep.
Sometimes, that means good proposals get archived, but there are lots and lots of proposals -- right now, there's more than 275 submitted, and there's still a couple more days to go. If you see any in the archive that you'd like to sponsor, you can repost it with your name associated with it. That means you'll be responsible for participating in those discussions. Let me know if you have any more questions! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking for Community Wishlist Survey 2019 rules[edit]

Hi everybody, somebody pointed out that there are Community Wishlist Survey 2019 rules. I got curious but was not able to find them. Can anybody provide me with a link to those rules? Thank you in advance Sargoth (talk) 10:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sargoth, the rules for the survey are on the main survey page. Scroll down a little, and you'll see the sections "What happens during the proposal phase", "Can I resubmit a proposal from previous surveys", "What happens during the voting phase" and "Why are some proposals denied". Please ping me if you have any questions about specific rules or practices of the survey process. Thanks! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you DannyH (WMF), after posting this questions I began reading through the main survey page and found a pack of rules like „only registered users can make proposals“, the 3-wishes-limit and a few more, which are not really hidden, but also not easy to pick. I did not delete my question because I was wondering if there was another, more condensed page, which I now know is not the case. So thank you again for answering. Cheers Sargoth (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Great! Thanks for participating in the survey. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Add "Policy" category[edit]

Can we add a category? Im thinking of a policy category, and in particular doing a site-wide policy audit, administered by the Trustees and Arbcom. Inowen (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Inowen: I think this would be useful, but the survey is mainly for Community Tech to work on (so if a proposal isn't about software it gets rejected because it's not within the scope). A community wishlist for non-technical things would be great, but right now I think that's unlikely to happen. Jc86035 (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Inowen: To clarify Jc86035's comment, the survey is entirely for technical features and fixes that the Community Tech team can work on. Policy changes need to be discussed in the appropriate forums on each wiki project. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Its not policy changes, its suggestions in the area of policy. Why keep it narrow and exclude non-technical ideas? Doing so assumes technical fixes are the solution, when the solution might just be fixing WP:AFI. -Inowen (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Inowen: The survey was set up by the Community Tech team as the means for determining the technical work that the team does each year, so that's the focus. A site-wide policy audit is a good idea, but this survey isn't the place for it. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Please return a proposal from the archive[edit]

Hi. Sorry for asking here, but I did not get an answer in proper place (User talk:IKhitron#Community Wishlist Survey: Maximum 3 proposals per user), and the clock is ticking. Please return my fourth proposal, Keep inclusion history, from the archive, as promissed. Thanks a lot in advance. IKhitron (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)