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)

Phabricator[edit]

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)
Its 18:00 UTC or 1 PM EST/10 AM PST. I would have preferred times to be in Canadian Pacific Time, even if that meant the Japanese late comers could've voted until 17:00 Dec 1. —Dispenser (talk) 23:26, 30 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)

Wikidata linking in certain infoboxes on en.WP[edit]

I didn't want to make a big deal of this, since it doesn't affect editors at large; that's why I raise it here, informally.

When Wikidata adds its customised infoboxes (at the moment I find them here and there in certain categories of bio articles on the English WP), that article is added to en.WP's "Pages that link to" lists for the generic items in the infobox. This means that those of us who run human-supervised scripts to remove generic, dictionary-type hyperlinks from article text—in accordance with en.WP's long-held relatively strict policy on rationalised linking—are faced with many false positives on the lists we use.

An example of such a list is this. "Artist" is not normally a link we'd allow on en.WP, and is weeded out systematically (unless, rarely, it really is likely to be useful enough to link for readers). On that example list, you might find just a few recent Wikidata infoboxes at the bottom ... but it's hit and miss the way Wikidata infoboxes are added, so you may not find any at the moment.

My hope is that there's some easy technical way of avoiding these additions on our well-established "links-to" lists, without affecting the utility of Wikidata's hyperlinking system.

Thanks for putting up with my pedantry. Tony (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Asked at w:en:Module talk:WikidataIB. Jc86035 (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

wrong origins[edit]

Dear Wikimedia, there are many people whose mothers are of different races from their Fathers, wikipedia especially Arabic consider such people as of origins of their mothers sides, this is very wrong and misleading as far as Arabic culture and law are concerned. please find an approach to solve this mistake, the article of Al-Ma'mun can illustrate the issue, He was an arab, his mother was of persian origin, that defiantly does not make him among "Iranian people of Iraqi descent" , "Arab people of Iranian descent" or "Iraqi people of Iranian descent" I suggest that the category can be changed into something such as "People whose mothers are Persian" or people whose mothers are Iranian.--Abu aamir (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This sounds like a social problem. You should raise your concerns with the respective communities, or perhaps the talk page for Al-Ma'mun. The Wishlist Survey is specifically about technical changes that the Community Tech team will address over the course of the next calendar year. Hope this helps, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Evaluation process[edit]

  • Problem: Every year, the evaluation process systematically favours the proposals submitted by whoever has the largest and most momentarily irritated contributor bases to canvass, rather than the proposals which would actually have the biggest benefits and proposals which would benefit smaller projects
  • Who would benefit: Everyone else
  • Proposed solution: Change the evaluation process every year, so that (e.g.) in addition to the top n1 proposals overall, for the categories which didn't have any proposals in the top n1, the top n2 proposals (with a maximum of one or two proposals per category) are evaluated, where n1 and n2 are whole numbers between 5 and 10
  • Proposer: Jc86035 (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
That's a valid concern, Jc86035. The team has also been thinking about this problem. The solution you suggest is a good one but for that to work effectively, we need to come up with fair categories based on some fixed criterion. Right now categories are randomly created in order to make the proposals spread out evenly so it's easy for people to peruse through and vote. To make the process fair for smaller projects and groups, we should come up with a set of well defined categories and we could say that we will take the top from each category to make sure everyone gets a fair shot. Thanks for bringing it up. I will surface this to the team when we start planning for the next survey. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Do I have to vote in my own wish?[edit]

Not that my wish has too little support yet, methinks it's more one of those falling in the categorie mentioned in the paragraph above, but the question arose in deWP: Do I have to vote in my own wish, or are the wishers automatically counted as supporter? I've seen in one or two of the wishes, that the wisher supported his own wish, and if that's necessary, I would of course do so myself, otherwise it's just more work for the counters to look for the wisher in the list and don't count them. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 05:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

When we generate the tally report, a support vote is automatically cast for the proposer. If the proposer explicitly adds {{support}} (or similar template), it still only counts as one vote. I have updated the documentation to say this. Best, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Tracking[edit]

Hi Folks!

Is there a tracking page of the most supported ideas? I can't find it. Can you pls help me?

Thanx, --OrsolyaVirág (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

OrsolyaVirág Hello! We plan to make one available soon. I'll let you know when we have it ready. Thank you! -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@OrsolyaVirág: It is now available on the tracking page. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Voting broken for "Improve graphs and interactive content"[edit]

Votes for the Wish "Improve graphs and interactive content" are not added. I clicked the vote-button several times – my signature it's added! It does work for all other wishes I tried so far. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@MichaelSchoenitzer: Thanks for flagging this issue. I can reproduce the bug. I've flagged it for the engineers and we'll fix it as soon as possible. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
In MediaWiki:Gadget-addMe-WishlistSurvey.js find sectionCount++;, add this line before: if(sections[section].level > 3) continue; --Wargo (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@Wargo: That did it. Thank you! :) The script is a fork of MediaWiki:Gadget-addMe.js. I don't know if the same bug exists there, or if it was just my doing. Probably the latter. Thanks again, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposers voting on their own proposals[edit]

I see proposers voting on their own proposals lately. Are they aware of their votes being automatically counted? Also, what to do with those double votes? George Ho (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

How would they know - the directions don't say anything. — xaosflux Talk 23:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@George Ho and Xaosflux: The documentation has been updated to say this but it's still okay to vote for own proposals - even if as a symbol. Proposer's own votes are not counted again as they are already counted automatically. Each person's vote is only counted once even if they vote twice. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
It's also been in the edit notice all this time, but of course you don't see that if you use the "Support" button. Anyway as Niharika says, it's all automated so it doesn't matter if they knew or not :) Apologies for the confusion. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Should the "Support" dialogue box, the one being open when the "Support" button is clicked, also mention proposers' vote being automatically counted? George Ho (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Watchlist[edit]

I'm not happy with the autosupport script automatically marking the page as watchlist. Is there any compelling reason not to respect my preferences? — regards, Revi 07:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I wish there was a proposal to make significant improvements to the script to vote on the proposals. Besides this, the script always forwards you to the page, which slows things down greatly when you're trying to comment on multiple proposals since you keep having to go back to the list. --Rschen7754 07:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
For reference, this is via a gadget MediaWiki:Gadget-addMe-WishlistSurvey.js. — xaosflux Talk 13:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
It is a fork of the widely-used MediaWiki:Gadget-addMe.js. You're right that it needs significant improvements -- it is very old and hasn't received much attention from developers. I can probably code up an option to watchlist/not-watchlist, but it might take me a while. Easier would be to just disable watchlisting entirely, so maybe I'll start with that. Same for the redirect functionality; I don't think I made it do that. I definitely see the problem with having to go back to the category every time. To make matters worse, though -- the proposals are shuffled every hour. So you might vote, the page refreshes, and the proposals are in a different order. Last year we did "rotation" instead of shuffling, so the bottom proposal is simply moved to the top. Shuffling is better to ensure fair visibility, but if it's too much of a pain we can go back to rotation. @Rschen7754: What do you think? What'd be really cool is to add a "Next proposal" button to the proposal pages, so that you can go through sequentially without worry, and easily watchlist as needed. That doesn't seem feasible at this time, but I'll try to invent a system for next year. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I think the problem is that it sends you to the page automatically when you're done - for example, Commons POTY doesn't do that. --Rschen7754 19:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes of course. Sorry my ping wasn't well-placed; I was more asking about the issue with shuffling proposals. Anyway, I'm going to look into making it stay on the category page. I don't know how I'll do this without refreshing, meaning you the proposals could be reshuffled. Maybe, just maybe, I can make it work. AddMe (the long-standing gadget) needs a rewrite anyway, for all who use it and not just those in the survey. When I have the time I might step up to the plate and try to make it happen, and when I do, I'll be sure to address this issue. For now, I'm hoping we can live with what we have :/ MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The gadget no longer auto-watchlists. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you <3 — regards, Revi 16:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposals having same amount of votes enough to reach the 10th spot[edit]

Can two proposals tie enough to reach #10? Last year's Wishlist survey was so close; the Commons bot notification reached #10, while the 360-degree panoramic feature missed the spot by just one vote. What would happen if two proposals have tallied the same amount of votes and if other nine proposals become the top nine? George Ho (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

We should add this to our documentation but for now here's the response from last year to this question. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Why are we doing this?[edit]

Sorry if this has been asked and answered before, but if only "support" votes are counted, how is this different from a "Russian election?"

G41rn8 (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@G41rn8: Pardon me, but I don't understand the reference to Russian election. The reason we only count Support votes is to prevent people from going to other proposals and adding "Oppose" votes so their preferred proposal ranks higher. However, "Oppose" votes are taken very seriously and when we work on the project (if it is in top 10), we make sure to alleviate concerns that people raise when putting in "Oppose" votes. We have in the past declined a project that was in the top 10 because the "Oppose" voters raised concerns about the feature being used for harassment and bullying. We read each and every comment before starting work on the project - so please don't feel like oppose votes are not important. They are very useful for the team to know and understand the different viewpoints. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@NKohli (WMF): Thanks NKohli, I appreciate your response. As for me personally, my mind is unchanged, that if only "for" votes are counted then it is not a real vote.
FYI: The reference to Russian election was "always 100% support". IKhitron (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Even Stalin sacrificed 0.2% to democracy and was winning with 99.8% support :) MaxSem (WMF) (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
It's in the elections day evening. I'm talking about the next morning. IKhitron (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
@G41rn8: you do realise that this is not a real vote nor an election, not for individual wishes at least. The goal is to rank the wishes to find the most wanted. So it's not 100 % for wish X and 100 % for wish Y, it's #1 for wish X and #6 for wish Y. If you want to compare to an election, it's like saying 100% of people who voted for candidate X voted for candidate X and 100 % who voted for candidate Y voted for candidate Y; which no one cares about, what is important is which candidate has the more votes, same applies here. That said, you can still oppose a specific wish if you want (but truthfully that not really important except if the wish is in the top 10). Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 16:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Just a question: If you do decline a proposal in top 10, does this mean you will implement only 9, or you'll take the 11th one instead? Thank you. IKhitron (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@IKhitron: Depends on the time we have remainng in the year. :) -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for the answer. IKhitron (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Sprachhürde[edit]

Hat sich schonmal jemand die Mühe gemacht zu gucken ob es einen Bias in der Beteiligung von nicht-englisch-sprechenden gibt. Immerhin sind die Punkte übersetzt, aber wenn man die einzelnen vorschläge nicht versteht, dann hilft das kein Stück weiter. die abstimmung wäre dann noch mehr scheindemokratie als sie es so schon ist. ...Sicherlich Post 20:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC) nein, ich glaube nicht, dass das jmd. interessiert selbst wenn es einen großen Unterschied gibt. aber ich wollte mal gefragt haben :)

Ja, das ist ein generelles Problem mit diesem anglozentristischen Projekt, dass zwar immer was von international faselt, aber es trotz überquellender Geldspeicher nicht mal schafft, die Massenbenachrichtigungen in den 30-40 größten Projekten in deren Muttersprache zu bewerkstelligen. Dabei haben die afaik sogar z.B. DeutschmuttersprachlerInnen als Angestellte, und auch andere Sprachen im Personaltableau. Aber für echte Communityarbeit war sich der Elfenbeinturm schon immer zu schade. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 13:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I got here with more or less the same remark. Since there is some time between the proposition and the votes, can't it be used next year to encourage translations? Cheers, VIGNERON * discut. 16:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem is the Translate extension doesn't play nicely with our survey structure (templates, subpages, etc.). The voting for instance must be on the same page. With some hacks I think it is possible to get it all working correctly, but time and technical challenges got the best of us this year and it didn't happen :( If you want, please feel free to translate proposals directly on the proposal page, with a format similar to Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Admins and patrollers/Filter user contributions as patrolled or unpatrolled (each translation on a new line, with the language as the label). Last year we had a similar system where you could manually enter translations on a subpage, e.g. see the "Translations" item at this proposal. This system was very much subpar and unsuccessful, so we didn't attempt it again. Anyway, I am going to put proper translatability on the very top of the list of to-dos for next year. Apologies to all the non-English speakers! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry User:MusikAnimal (WMF) aber die Ausrede ist lahm und hat schon einen Bart. Seit wieviel Jahren exisitiert WMF und behauptet eine internationale Organisation zu sein? Sprich englisch oder Pech gehabt. AN mangelndem Geld kann es nicht liegen. Im Sinne von AGF gehe ich mal davon aus, dass es für WMD zu komplex ist zu begreifen, dass die Muttersprache der meisten Menschen nicht englisch ist und das ignorieren des Fakten eine menge input einfach übersieht. ... Die einzig andere Möglichkeit wäre nicht AGF konform und würde Überheblichkeit heißen. ... Und ja ich weiß: "Danke für Deinen Input den wir sehr schätzen. Ich werde diesen in die internen Diskussion einbringen und wir werden prüfen welche Möglichkeiten ..." - so oder so ähnlich. ist mir schon klar. Ist auch nur die nette Art von "mir und WMF völlig gleichgültig". Erspar mir solch Unglaubwürdiges und Inhaltloses. ...Sicherlich Post 12:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Und selbstverständlich sollte dieser Abschnitt hier keinerlei Englisch enthalten. Ich erwarte von der WMF in der Lage zu sein, in jeder Sprache der größten 20 Non-Bot-Projekte gut zu kommunzieren, dazu sollten die Abermillionen an Budget lang und schmutzig ausreichen. Imho sollte die WMF mal für ein paar Wochen jeglichen Gebrauch von Englisch untersagen, damit die anglozentristischen Autisten mal einen kleinen Blick auf die echte Welt bekommen. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 15:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Hallo, ich werde auf Deutsch mit maschineller Übersetzung antworten. Ich entschuldige mich, wenn es nicht klar ist. Community Tech ist ein kleines Team. Wir sprechen fließend Hebräisch, Russisch, Spanisch, Hindi, etwas Französisch und natürlich Englisch. Es tut mir leid, dass keiner von uns Deutsch kann :( Oben habe ich auf den Kommentar auf Englisch geantwortet. Es tut mir leid, dass die Umfrage eher auf Englisch ausgerichtet ist. Wir haben es auch nicht-englischsprachigen Mitgliedern möglich gemacht, Vorschläge zu erstellen Anweisungen in ihrer Muttersprache. Es ist uns nicht gelungen, jeden Vorschlag lokalisierbar zu machen. Dies liegt an einer technischen Einschränkung bei der Translate-Erweiterung. Wie ich bereits sagte, habe ich dieses Thema zu einer Priorität für die Umfrage im nächsten Jahr gemacht. Wir werden es tun alles, was wir können, um das Problem zu beheben, und es tut mir leid, dass es dieses Jahr nicht passiert ist. Vielen Dank für Ihr Verständnis. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Das ist nicht speziell an das Community Tech Team gerichtet, die gesamte WMF sollte ein einziges Community Team sein, und sämtliche Tech gehört zusammen mit und für die und in der Community entwickelt zu werden. Eine solche Umfrage sollte bindend für alle Techs sein, die sind schließlich primär und zu allervorderst für die Community und der Erfüllung von deren Wünschen da, das ist es, wofür sie Geld bekommen sollten, für sonst eher nichts. Dass Community Tech nur ein kleines Team ist, sagt schon sehr viel über die Verachtung der Community seitens der Elfenbeiturmbewohner aus, die statt ordentliche Arbeit abzuliefern, regelmäßig mit Schrott um die Ecke kommen, wie dem damals völlig unbrauchbaren VE bei der Ersteinführung, wie dem unnützen MV, der mit brutaler Macht gegen die Communities von ein paar egomanischen, abgehobenen Leuten per Putsch durchgesetzt wurde, wie das nächste sich anbahnende Desaster mit Flow, wo auch einen Sch***dreck auf die Community gehört wird, solange diese nicht laut jubelt, und mit solchem communityverachtenden Verhalten wie dem penetranten anglozentrischen Autismus, der schon seit Jahen bemängelt wird, wo immer wieder billige Ausreden gefaselt werden, wo aber von Anfang an klar ist, das bei der WMF niemand daran denkt, irgendetwas zu ändern. Das sind billige Lippenbekenntnisse ohne jede Substanz, um zu beschwichtigen. Ob etwas auch auf Englisch veröffentlicht wird, ist mir egal, fangt doch mal damit an, Veröfentlichungen erst auf §Englisch zu machen, wenn sie schon in mindestens einem Dutzend anderen Sprachen vorliegt. Dann müssen zur Abwechlungh die monolingualen Aglophonen mal warten, ich denke, das täte ihnen mal ganz gut. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 17:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@User:MusikAnimal (WMF): "liegt an einer technischen Einschränkung" - ich glaube nicht, dass dies wirklich das eigentliche Problem ist. Das Problem ist das ihr (WMF) glaubt die Community könnte die Übersetzungsarbeiten machen. Das kann sie nur sehr eingeschränkt. Wenn WMF etwas verkündet, plant macht wird es auf englisch gemacht. Damit erreicht ihr ganz klar viele Benutzer nicht. Weil sie Euch nicht verstehen oder sich nicht trauen zu antworten. Lustiger Weise hat bspw. User:Johan (WMF) auf de:WD:Kurier geschrieben, dass er Massennachrichten nutzt, da viele nicht so gut englisch können wie die in der deutschen Wikipedia. Richtig! Und diese Gruppen sprecht ihr (WMF) englisch an? Really? You can see that this does not make sense do you? ... Und bitte; ich glaube nicht an "dieses Thema zu einer Priorität" - solche Sachen wurden von WMF schon so oft gesagt, viele Jahre. Vielleicht glaubst Du ja selbst daran, ich bin schon lange genug dabei um zu Wissen: Bullshit. und ich rede nicht von jeder Kleinsprache. Aber Spanisch und Französisch wären IMO mindestens von der WMF zu nutzen. Damit wäre ein Anfang gemacht. Aber selbst das passiert wohl nicht. von anderen Sprachen (russisch, deutsch ...) ganz zu schweigen. Auch wären "Botschafter" sinnvoll, denn die Sprache ist nicht alles. Auch Kulturen sind sehr unterschiedlich. Die Idee gab es ja; aber dank dem völlig dämlichen und überheblichen Superprotect war das ja ein Schuss in den Ofen. ...Sicherlich Post 21:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC) and yes, sure I could write in English. but its not about me.
PS: und ja mir ist klar, dass Du MusikAnimal darauf wenig Einfluss hast. Dazu wäre eine ernsthafte strategische Entscheidung nötig die da heißt "Die Communitys sind uns wichtig" verbunden mit der Erkenntnis "Die Communitys haben wertvolles Wissen für WMF". Das wird nicht passieren. Ist auch nicht überraschend. Viele Konzerne haben Schwierigkeiten soetwas zu erkennen und umzusetzen ...Sicherlich Post 21:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

What is included in "bots and gadgets"?[edit]

I don't know the conventions that prevail in this survey. Obviously our way of rendering mathematical notation has flaws. (Detailed specifics will wait until somebody answers this or until further information is otherwise forthcoming.) Switching to something more like MathJax would be an improvement, but there's more to the situation than that. Is that something that should be under "bots and gadgets"? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Michael Hardy: I think the proposal is where it belongs (under Readng). Bots and gadgets category is generally meant to capture fixes needed to existing bots and gadgets. Sometimes someone might propose a new bot or a gadget for a specific purpose and that's fine too. Ultimately better math notation rendering would improve the Reading experience for everyone on all devices. So I think it's categorised perfectly. Please ping me if you have a follow up question. Thank you. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

strong category benefit still missing: find the right article[edit]

Quite often I'm looking for an article but all my guesses don't match a lemma. In my opinion one of the most important functions of categories is to give as much categories as one can think of until the number of matches is so small that you find the/a lemma with the information you were searching for. Allthough this should be quite easy to add (only "global" code necessary) this feature ist still missing (...in German WP, I rarely use other language versions). --Zopp (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zopp: Hello. I understand the problem you state but I don't think it's easy to add because categories are under the control of indivisual wikis. Categories are not automatically created and thus there is no "global" code that can solve this issue for you. This page is also unfortunately the wrong venue to discuss this. It should have been proposed in the Community Wishlist Survey 2019 which is now in its final few voting days. I encourage you to discuss this problem with fellow experienced Wikipedians on German WP and come up with a proposed solution to solve this problem. You can submit it in for the next wishlist survey if it gets voted up. Thank you for your understanding. :) -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Copying-and-pasting votes from another board[edit]

I saw copying-and-pasting votes from one page to another. Is that acceptable? George Ho (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

George Ho: That was a group of people who voted during the proposal phase, because they were very upset about a technical change. The discussion got very heated very quickly, and turned into something that was more of a protest against the WMF, rather than participation in the survey. You can read a summary of the events on my talk page. I moved the early-voting and discussion to a Forum page. What you saw was Winged Blades of Godric copying the votes from the early voting. It is very important for everyone who participates in the Wishlist Survey to respect the process, and not act in a disruptive way that damages the survey. This is the only mechanism that we have that allows a Wikimedia Foundation product team to work on projects that the community really wants. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay. I'll accept that, and thanks. George Ho (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@DannyH (WMF): IMO, those votes should not be accepted. Voting period started 16 November. Early votes are invalid. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Now I'm torn. George Ho (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: and George Ho: Yeah, I'm kind of torn myself. Every year, we have a handful of individuals who try to vote early, and we usually remove those votes and tell them to come back during the voting phase. What happened this year was unusual -- we've never had a large group of people show up during the proposal phase and post +1s, partly as votes and partly as a protest about an unrelated config change. It was a confusing situation, and as an added difficulty, some of the people we were talking to didn't speak the same language that we did. I think that some of the people who showed up saw that other people had posted +1s, and voted entirely in good faith, thinking that was the voting period, and possibly not reading all of the instructions because a lot of it was in English. I think the decision to count or not count those votes is a tough judgment call, and could go either way. In the end, we decided it was more respectful to accept those good-faith votes. We try to be as fair as we can to everyone, because it's important that people trust (or at least grudgingly respect) the process. If this situation comes up again in future surveys we'll know how to deal with it, but I'm sure there's a hundred other ways to disrupt the survey process, and we'll probably discover a new one next year. I'm interested to know what you think. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi there. Here are my two cents. I don't think these voices can be accepted. There are rules, and thay can't be broken. You do not have to drop this proposal. If you think it's not fear to early voters, you can decide to implement this proposal outside the competition. Or you can decide to merge this proposal with its real votes and the "keep lightweight text editor" proposal, which is very close, removing the double votes so everyone can vote once. But if you use these voices as a part of the survey, you can't say anything to proposer on 80th or 100th places if they ask to implement their proposals instead of 5th or 6th, because there are no rules any more. I don't even think you can implement this year 11 proposals, so the 11th will not loose because of this - it isn't enough. It's just does not look right and shows to the communities that the rules are not kept any more. Matter of justice. IKhitron (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I would like Winged Blades of Godric to comment on this please. George Ho (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
A WMF employee (MusicAnimal) promised that the votes will be pasted, once the survey starts with and that put partial lids on a boiling situation.I merely executed that and FWIW, MA has thanked me for the edit.IMO, they shall be accepted.Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that Winged Blades of Godric was acting in good faith, carrying out the promise that MusikAnimal made in an edit summary. I was referring to the protest votes and arguments around those proposals as disruptive. As I said, we think the early +1 voting was (probably, mostly) in good faith. We will be counting those votes. This makes an awkward conclusion to an awkward situation, but either way, somebody would feel cheated. It's the best we can do. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
And here are my two cents: Most of these careless voters came from German Wikipedia, and they have another community wishlist survey through WMDE especial for themselves. If they really care about this proposal, they can push it up in their own survey. If they really cared about this proposal, they should have followed up on it to see what has happened (to cast a valid vote themselves). But they didn't, and they probably would not come back here to check the results either. Most of them have just showed up to write a "+1" without bothering to read other proposals or even the rules. This clearly shows they have been canvassed. They most probably do not care about this survey. I have participated in this survey in a responsible manner since its inception in 2015 and I have read every single proposal and every single discussion on its talk page too, and we together discussed voting system back in 2015. I feel really disgusted that an "angry mob" can change the results in the last days. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is a misunderstanding. It is not necessary to have a special wish on dewiki, because in the meantime there are some patches working, to fix the problem as good as it can be. But, and that is the point of my first proposal, I think it is an ordinary part of the tech team of WMF to allow every contributor in every project to have the tools this person needs. The removal caused a global problem and it is important to fix this global. And please don´t talk about this serious wish like "angry mob". Thank you. Regards --Itti (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC) minor spelling fixes -- Reise Reise (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
No, I am not angry, and I did not talk like an angry person. I am just being blunt. I have nothing at stake here, as I (unlike you) have submitted no proposals, nor do I have any pet proposals to canvass for. I am just appalled that the rules of the survey have been violated in the light of day. Nevertheless, the blame lies solely with the Community Tech Team. Regards. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The official results will be announced the next day; probably they are discussing this off-wiki. Maybe the results will be changed... or maybe not. George Ho (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Safety proposal[edit]

Hello, I was very disappointed to miss the proposal phase, not realizing it was only two weeks and spanning two local holidays. I would like to post a request here nonetheless in hopes of getting some feedback, and because safety issues are often viewed as a priority. This may not be the appropriate venue anyhow since it is not strictly a community request but one that would need to span both the community and Trust and Safety.

The requested improvement is a notification button similar to the thank and revert buttons. The buttons would be used for requesting evaluation of possible medical situations and for requesting removal of Personally Identifying Information. Unlike the current thank button, which can be viewed publicly, this would be private for confidentiality and only available to WMF staff. The medical evaluation button might have an option for contact information and connect to a third party medical service, the dox button would have a description field with the reason for revdelete or oversight, with the option to redelete quickly then to pass revdeleted material on for later oversight. The reason for this is that there are more individuals available with revdelete tools than with oversight, and it is easier to oversight if the information has already been removed from public view. This would facilitate quick removal from public view in case of stalking. Other options might include the capability to generate a report number for tracking, along with the name of the person closing the report and the disposition or outcome, also the capability ability to edit out specific words or phrases or to restore the deleted material in case of a dispute.

Thank you for your consideration. —Neotarf (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Where Are The Results?[edit]

Please provide the results. --FF-11 (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I posted the link on the main page now - Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Results. Thanks! -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposals[edit]

If it is found that some of the proposals in the top 10 cannot be actioned by Community Tech (in particular number 6), will more proposals be evaluated by default (starting with number 11 and continuing down the list)? Jc86035 (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The team is going to address that wish, the way that we usually do -- look at the problem that people are having, and figure out the best solution to that problem. We'll take a look, and talk with folks about what they need. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what the team might do for #6, but one possibility would be to assist/promote the gadget (extra-toolbar-buttons + extra-toolbar-buttons-core) that a volunteer has developed on enwiki. Anomie (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Update?[edit]

I notice by this time last year that there had been updates on several of the items while this year they all show as pending investigation. Is there a timeline for an update? Barkeep49 (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Unfortunately we are still wrapping up wishes from the previous wishlist. We will be picking up projects from this year starting April. I will keep the page updated as things progress. You should watchlist the project pages for updates too. Thank you. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
June now, any update? — regards, Revi 18:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Hey, c'mon, this is community wishes, something very low on the agenda of the ivory tower called WMF. They prefer pushing pet-projects of their own ilk over community service. Maintenance is such dull stuff, why should they bother? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 17:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Maybe because one of the project managers left eaerlier this year... @NKohli (WMF): in case you not following. Stryn (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2019 UTC)
@Stryn: Thanks for the ping! I was not following this conversation. @-revi and Sänger:, sorry about not updating this page. Two product managers left in the last few months and I am bogged down with a lot of work lately. I have updated the page now to reflect the current status. We are working as hard as we can to complete them all. Thank you for your understanding. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I came here to check for an update before the August Wikimania conference. We are 7 months into the year and of the 10 wishes, 7 are "pending investigation", 2 are "in progress", and 1 is "ready for development". The mw:Newsletter:The Community Tech Newsletter has not given an update since January 2019.
I trust the team to do what is necessary but if there are challenges then direct and advance community notice is the best way forward. I expect that all developers know that thousands of wiki community members watch and have faith in this process. I know that wiki community volunteers support this team in being sufficiently resourced and staffed to accomplish this important and beloved participatory program.
May I request an issue of the newsletter go out? If you can put out an update, then I can cross post it into The Signpost in English Wikipedia and also get people ready for the next wishlist which begins in about 3 months. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
It's the end of September, and still (almost) nothing changed. An explanation would be nice. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The next issue of English Wikipedia Signpost comes out in a week; the following issue comes out in 5 weeks. That issue in 5 weeks is the one that will have the report on the community wishlist survey in this draft WHERE ANYONE CAN CONTRIBUTE. If anyone wants to review any one of the 10 projects in 3-5 sentences then please do. It would be nice to have a program update from the team but the newsletter will report in any case. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bluerasberry and Barkeep49: The page for the 2020 survey has been posted, with a one-time modified format: Apparently they're going to address a shorter list of five sister-project-focused requests, while continuing to work on the remaining 2019 wishes through 2020. --Yair rand (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the update Yair rand. I am unsurprised to see a format change this year. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)