Talk:Community Wishlist Survey

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

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

Moving up the opening date[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

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

Propagating + refactoring past ideas?[edit]

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


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

Refactoring + structuring:

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

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

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

Why make a new edition?[edit]

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

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

Make this a Community wishlist...[edit]

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

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

How do I make a suggestion?[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brief summary of proposal:

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

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

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

Translation administration[edit]


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

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

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

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

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

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

How to propose a wish[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Help creating proposal[edit]

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

Citation subWishlist is not chronological[edit]

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

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

Please unarchive my proposal[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

"Nearby" feature[edit]

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

@Another Believer Have you tried the advanced mobile experience? To do this, use the hamburger menu at the top-left to go to your Settings. Flip the switch for "Advanced mode" and viola, you have Nearby back (and a whole lot more)! Hopefully you'll enjoy the advanced features and its parity with desktop workflows. If you still would rather have Special:Nearby back by default we can explore that further. Best, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For Android phones? Perhaps I'm overlooking, or don't have the most recent version of the app. -Another Believer (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Advanced mobile contributions are available on the mobile browser version. I'm not sure if they are available on the app. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying! I was specifically referring to the app, which I enjoyed using on my phone. -Another Believer (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer Sorry I misread. This feature indeed does not exist on the mobile app. That said, feel free to create a proposal for this Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Mobile and apps, if you would like! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MusikAnimal (WMF) All good! No need to apologize, just wanted to make sure I wasn't overlooking. See Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Mobile and apps/"Nearby" feature. I hope this is an ok submission. -Another Believer (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MusikAnimal (WMF) and Another Believer: I’d also very much like it to come back. However, as this feature was intentionally removed from the app, I fear it may match the exclusion criterion of declined by […] other Wikimedia Foundation teams in the past. By the way, as I explained in the Phabricator ticket, Special:Nearby doesn’t provide feature parity with what was in the app, it’s much more limited. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark policy compliance of the social media images[edit]

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