Talk:Facebook pages

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

Google Plus[edit]

Should probably be generalised to include Google Plus, as microblogging handles was made more general some time ago. --Nemo 08:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just want freebasicks app to log in2 free facebook Papbab2627 (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Czech GLAM[edit]

The link does not appear to work. --Another Believer (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments[edit]

This page is SO helpful. Thank you. There appear to be many Wiki Loves Monuments pages at Facebook. It would be nice to have a list of official ones to support. --Another Believer (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia user groups?[edit]

Perhaps a separate section for Wikimedia user groups and/or groups in discussion? Wikimedia LGBT, for example. --Another Believer (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I created a section for User groups and added the Cascadia and LGBT user groups. Feel free to edit. -Another Believer (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikidata Facebook ID (P2013)[edit]

Hi! Please see the links at d:user:I18n/sandbox#qP2013

  1. WMF projects without property P2013: Wikimedia database name AND NO Facebook ID (P2013) : claim[1800] AND noclaim[2013]
  2. WMF projects with property P2013: &props=2013

Please help adding the Facebook ID property. Contributors (not all) to the this page/talk page: Another Believer, Nemo bis, Kippelboy, Holder, Psubhashish, Сергій Липко, Moheen Reeyad, Spiritia, Tarawneh, NahidSultan, KuboF, Teles, Davidpar, Krinkle, Matthew, Tbayer, , GoEThe, Érico, Nicole Ebber, Wiki13, Chmee2, Fajro, Bennylin, Dgultekin.
I want to attract your attention on two pages: d:Wikidata:Database reports/WMF projects and d:Wikidata:Database reports/Wikipedia versions. The number of items listed at the first has increased to more then 409. For some languages friends have started to add Wikidata labels and descriptions in their languages: ANBI for ps, ‎EileenSanda for fo, ‎ThomasPusch for eo and de, Oriciu for ast, रोहित रावत for hi, सरोज कुमार ढकाल for ne, Venca24 for sk, and many others. Special thanks to Jura, Ivan, Srittau‎ and all other past, present and future contributors
Please note that the main discussion about the usage of some of the properties is located at d:property talk:P218. Feel free and comment there.
d:user:I18n/sandbox#property_Wikimedia_database_name contains many quieries similar to the Facebook Id. Whatever help is welcome. Thanks in advance for your time. Best regards Gangleri also aka I18n (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC) / I18n (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

please continue below[edit]

The second query returns today 29 items. Regards I18n (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please note that will redirect to the proper FB url for Chinese Wikipedia (Q30239) / Classical Chinese Wikipedia (Q1378484). Same does for Danish Wikipedia (Q181163). The last parameter value is linkified at reasonator and looks good.
VinirWikipediu is the parameter for is.wikipedia.
X mark.svg none of the three values have been added to Facebook pages
Regards I18n (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Facebook/Telegram groups[edit]

I think these belong here too...[1] If/when there are more, we can rename the page. There is quite a proliferation of such private chat rooms, but most seem to be kept hidden/secret. Nemo 14:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WMF Facebook page reactivation[edit]

WMF's Facebook page can be re-activated? ‍‍‍‍~ Moheen (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Social sites other than Facebook[edit]

I see there are entries in tables that link to accounts at social websites other than Facebook. I feel there is a need in a separate table column for that. --Ssr (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal request[edit]

Please remove "Wikipédia em Português" from language specific list. It's not a community page.

  • There was never any discussion or consensus at our community to make this a community page.
  • The only administrator is user Teles.
  • Our community has no control over it; user Teles picks, removes or refuses access at his own discretion.
  • People listed here as "administrators" are just contributors, hand picked by Teles. Half of them are members from his own user group. The other half is retired from Wikipedia.
  • Content feed is mostly related with his user group.

JMagalhães (talk) 10:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is not true and nothing but a persistent wikihounding. For instance, the user Chronus is not from my user group and is the most active user on the page. Actually, any post done by me that has any relation with my user group is extremely rare. Most of them was posted by Chronus with no request from me.
The decision of who can be a member of the group is probably the one with more open participation. Users can propose membership here and I comment there as any other user as I believe I have the right to have an opinion too. Those comments above are far from the reality. You are all invited to check the posts and see by yourselves. Regards.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 14:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, please do not use aggressive language. Second, it's irrelevant if there's a place where people can ask you membership. In fact, that just proves it's a privately run page, not a community page. Third, and most important, can you point any community discussion or consensus about turning your page a "community page"? JMagalhães (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can’t recall being aggressive. Read again and don’t take it personally. Why would I bother to use my time to respond to this wikihounding? You know how to use search page. Start looking on our Village Pump where many users approved this page to be shown on sitenotice more than twice. You can do it yourself. If anyone else is interested on any information, I will try to answer, but I’d rather to discuss this with somebody neutral or have no discussion.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 17:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please, moderate your tone and aggressiveness. Can you please point any community discussion or consensus about turning your page a "community page"? I don't recall any. JMagalhães (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are probably joking about tone and agressiveness. I thought you were serious. I repeat that if anyone else wants to talk about it in a neutral way, please let me know. Regards.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 22:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please answer the question and point any community discussion or consensus regarding turning your page a "community page"? JMagalhães (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will be waiting for the requests of neutral users and answer what they believe to be necessary. I hope you are not offended with that too.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 13:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being listed in this page is not a certification or anything. This is just an inventory to understand what's going on. It's ok to add more information, e.g. links to recent discussions on about it. Nemo 14:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, inventory is wrong. This is a personal page. Not a community page. Our community has no control over this page and there has never been any discussion or consensus to make it a community page. So, it should either be removed to moved to user group's section, as it seems to be the case. JMagalhães (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recently I requested permission to create and publish content for this page and Teles started a very long and disruptive discussion, denied the access unilaterally and revoked all my access to this page. There is no official discussion regarding the creation of this page and no one from our community is really involved or have access to it, only people that Teles want to give access is listed there. I was helping the Fundraising team with social network campaigns in Brasil and that is the only reason that I request access to it, but after a very unfruitful discussion I noted that this is a page controlled only by Teles, using the Wikipedia official logo without an official permission, passing by an official page, that it is not really is. So I recommend WMF to request its control or request Teles to remove the Wikipedia logo from it since nobody can have access to it without Tele's permission Rodrigo Padula (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, Padula requested access to the page and I didn’t support with my reasons. I can’t understand why I don’t have the right to comment on that public request with my opinion. I understand that you are not happy about my opinion, but what should I do? Should I be forced not to participate? Why so? Are you going to behave that way every time somebody votes against you? The page has many other volunteers that can post on your behalf. If you ask them and if it is related with Wikipedia, I would never prevent them to post. When I do that you can start complaining about it.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 18:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This nothing more than a mixture of forum shopping and sealioning(explanation). This page has been thoroughly debated in the community1, 2, 3,4, 5 heck there is even an Wikimedia-l thread about it. Chico Venancio (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • First link: just a request by Teles to add his page to Sitenotice. Nothing about turning Tele's page a "community page". Also, despite no consensus, he did a site notice anyway.
  • Second link: are you claiming this is a consensus?
  • Third link: a Tele's user subpage where he picks who joins or not. That just proves the point.
  • Fourth link: where's the proposal, discussion or consensus to make Tele's page a community page?
  • Fifth link: a new user asking why aren't we using more social networking.
Are you serious? Are these pages supposed to be the discussion and consensus? JMagalhães (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I am serious, dear Galápagos sea lion (4229094052).jpg,
As you are undoubtedly aware the page was only moved to Teles subpage at your behest by your buddy. Yesterday. Before that it was in the Wikipédia domain since July of last year, moved following several discussions about where it should move to. See the talk page in question for an example from 2013.
You are knowingly and willingly misrepresenting facts to create unnecessary drama. All the while you insist that Teles was overly aggressive to point out your lies.
The Facebook page has been maintained by volunteers from the community since it was created back in 2012. It has been a great tool for outreach and should be strengthened not be a pawn in your community power play. Chico Venancio (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not a community page. Portuguese community has no control over it neither there is any discussion or consensus. At most, it's your group's page. Be also warned about aggressive language and tone. JMagalhães (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Galápagos sea lion (4229094052).jpg, I am sorry if my language and tone seem aggressive to you. It was not my wish, I only employed this verbiage to show the falsehoods contained in your words.
You say it is not a community page but offer no evidence on why that is so.
Sure, in the narrowest of meanings the Facebook page is not part of the Mediawiki software and is not controlled through it. Neither are the programing artifacts we call "accounts" in Facebook and in Mediawiki congruent. If your definition of community follows from one of these definitions than your words might not be wrong.
However, the page was established by people from the community to serve the community and divulge its goals and content. Teles was, in fact, the user who spearheaded this process of bringing rules and community input into the decision process for the Facebook page. Part of this history can be seen in the links I brought previously.
I have no doubt that if you can gather consensus in ptwiki to change the rules for posts, for private message responses, for promoted content, or even for who should have access to post in the Facebook page the admins in Facebook will gladly enforce whatever decisions are made in ptwiki.
There is in fact no example of that or even an attempt by the community to change any aspect of the Facebook page that was met with opposition from the page admins. Volunteers have dedicated their time and some money to build a great online outreach tool that you have decided to get angry about only because it is not under your control. And up to that point, it is entirely your choice what you desire to get angry about, it is fine. The point that is troublesome is that you are here spouting falsehoods in an attempt to sway the opinion of other people in our movement against the hard work of a few volunteers.
That you, this time, have decided to leave a thin varnish of politeness in these attacks does not matter. Your intentions to disparage the work made by volunteers in favor of our community and our movement solely due to your dislike of Teles is completely absurd. That the method chosen is to disregard the truth is unacceptable. Chico Venancio (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Facebook implementation on Maithili Wikipedia[edit]

I just noticed the buttons for social media's on the mai-wp home page. Facebook and twitter in the left side bar, and also on the right, and a banner flashing on and off in the top, with links to FB and Twitter. The hoover-function says FB can only follow your behavior from the moment you'll click the link, but I am really not sure if this is appropriate - I do assume this is done with the best intentions, but... ?? Ciell (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whom are you hoping to engage in discussion about this? The Maithili Wikipedia folks (a tiny group) are unlikely to notice this here. Ijon (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This page was mentioned to me on IRC as a place where to keep track of instances like this happening on local projects? I'm open for directions if you know of a better place... I'm not sure if it is against any regulation, but thought it was worth a mention. Ciell (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I see. If the goal is just to document the practice here, that makes sense.
I am not aware of binding global policy against it. They would certainly not be the first community to link to their Facebook presence from the homepage. For example, some years ago, the Macedonian community used CentralNotice to encourage readers of Wikipedia to Like the community's Facebook presence, gaining about 20 thousand followers on Facebook that way. It is easy to see how that's a valuable tactic for smaller communities, despite the privacy concerns. Ijon (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]