User talk:DannyH (WMF)

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

Re: Crosswatch[edit]

Thanks for your notice! Sorry for my misconception.- Earth Saver (talk) at 03:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Numerical sorting[edit]

Please enable it on It had already been requested in [1], and I got a confirmation that since this adds to uca-it, it's indeed desirable. Would have filed a task OC, but Phab's been down for a while now and I didn't want to forget. TY --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! I filed it in T146675. We're going to wait until we have a few wikis, and then do them at once -- I'll let you know when we're going to run the conversion on -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Elitre (WMF), numerical sorting is live now on Here's an example. Let me know if you see any problems. Thanks! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Numerical sorting on pl.wp[edit]

Please enable numerical sorting on the Polish Wikipedia per the discussion: link Matma Rex (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Matma Rex: Thanks! I added Polish WP to the ticket: T146675. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Matma Rex, numerical sorting is now live on plwiki. Here's an example. Let me know if you see any problems. Thanks! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Enabling numerical sorting on vi.wikipedia[edit]

I've followed your instructions and created a discussion on enabling numerical sorting on vi.wikipedia. There have been 18 "support" votes (including mine), with no "oppose" votes. I think that the consensus on my wiki is to enable this feature. —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 07:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Quenhitran:: Great, I'll add you to the ticket: T146675. We're going to get some more wikis on the list, and then we'll do them as a batch. I'll let you know when it's coming up, thanks! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Quenhitran, numerical sorting is now live on viwiki! (Here's an example.) Let me know if you see any problems. Thanks! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you DannyH (WMF), I've seen the changes and it works great! I've also left a notification on the community's talk page so that other users can experience this feature and report the problems. —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 11:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Enable numerical sorting in hu@wikipedia[edit]

Hi DannyH,

We would like to have uca-hu-u-kn in Hungarian Wikipedia. Community support is here: hu:Wikipédia:Kocsmafal (javaslatok)#Kategóriák numerikus rendezése. Thank you! Bináris tell me 06:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bináris, Thanks for the message. I added Hungarian WP to the Phabricator ticket -- we're going to collect some more requests, and then do them as a batch, probably in a few weeks. I'll let you know when it's coming, thanks! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bináris, numerical sorting is now live on huwiki! (Here's an example.) Let me know if you see any problems. Thanks! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Great, thank you very much! Bináris tell me 18:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Enable numeric sorting at no.wikipedia[edit]

Hi Danny, please add nowiki to your list, per community consensus: no:Wikipedia:Tinget#Numerisk_sortering_i_kategorier. Stigmj (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Norwegian use space as thousand separator, it is used inconsistently, and it is not properly tested. In the category system there are also marker strings that switch the direction, which is not properly identified. Yes I wrote the original proposal at nowiki, no I do not think this should be turned on yet. — Jeblad 23:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Your (now suddenly changed) opinion after the fact doesn't change the community decision. If you have any technical issues, please direct them to phabricator as bug reports. The technical implementation of the numeric sorting should take into account the idiosyncracies of the different formatting of numbers, or we will have to adapt to them. There is wide support for enabling the sorting today. Stigmj (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, I have written what is the open problems. When I posted the note on nowiki I asked about opinions whether it should be implemented. No I did not list all the possible problems in the note, that would make it too hard to build consensus. Now go back and ask the community to find the possible problems that will emerge when the categories are sorted numerically. — Jeblad 11:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Stigmj and Jeblad: Thanks for both the consensus discussion and the concern. :) Jeblad, it's true that the numerical sorting collation has a problem with separators -- this is true for a comma separator as well as a space separator. For example, on English WP's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954 film), I added a defaultsort with my volunteer account so that it sorts as 20000 Leagues Under the Sea. As a volunteer, I've done a lot of defaultsort fixing over the years, because it happens to be one of my personal "pet peeves", so I did some cleanup on numerical sorting by adding defaultsorts after we deployed it on English WP.
So you are correct that with the new collation, there still need to be some defaultsorts to make the sorting work properly on numbers with separators. There's not a lot that we can do about that part, and we don't plan on addressing that right now. Unfortunately, that means you may need to change some defaultsort tags. But that's already a problem with the current sorting used on Norwegian WP, so this collation doesn't make that any worse, and it does fix all of the other numerical sorting issues. If it would help, I'd be okay with personally fixing some defaultsorts on Norwegian on my personal volunteer time -- I actually kind of enjoy fixing defaultsorts.
Jeblad, if you think that issue is enough to halt the rollout of numerical sorting, then maybe you could reopen that community discussion, and ask if other people feel the same way. What I see right now is a unanimous agreement that people want numerical sorting. :) Stigmj and Jeblad, let me know how you think we should proceed. Thanks. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
It is a consensus, which is a necessary premise before more time is invested, and now an analysis should be done on necessary changes and especially on the marker terms. It is probably not a lot of work, but it should be done so people know what will break and how they can fix it. That is my opinion. — Jeblad 20:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Jeblad, can you give me an example of the marker terms? I'm not sure that I know what you mean. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I sent you an email earlier today. — Jeblad 21:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Jeblad -- Okay, I just read your email, so I know what you mean. The new numerical sorting does not affect "f.Kr." and "e.Kr." at all, the same as "BC" and "AD" on English WP. It looks like Norwegian WP uses a workaround, putting e.Kr.and f.Kr. dates in separate categories, based on a set of 100 years -- [[Kategori:Årstall på 0-tallet]] from 1 e.Kr. to 99 e.Kr., and [[Kategori:Årstall på 0-tallet f.Kr.]] for 99 f.Kr. to 1 f.Kr. English WP uses a different workaround, using sorts to count backwards from -0001 to -9999, and then forward from 0001 to 9999.
But, the important thing: This will not be impacted in any way by the new numerical sorting collation. There will be no effect at all, and nothing to fix. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
If the described system isn't according to whats described in the ticket, that is the ICU collation, then you should perhaps create a proper help page, where you clearly describe what the implemented system do and don't do. — Jeblad 22:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Jeblad -- Yes, I'm sorry that this was confusing. I'm glad that we cleared it up. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey: NPP & AfC issues[edit]

Hi DannyH. Yes, I'm aware of that pre-survey page and while it is nice to know that someone is at least watching it, our entries were made on consensus of the volunteer community team that is working on a highly critical aspect of Wikipedia - a Foundation project - that the Foundation has refused to maintain and complete since 2013 and which most of the new staff are probably not even aware of.

Ideally, we need to bypass your project in order to address these issues in a timely manner (we've been waiting for nearly 5 years) and escalate these needs to a level where it can be understood that our requirements are serious major issues that are not to be confused with the requests for gadgets and gimmicks that are generally submitted by individual users to your project. We have tried engaging Nick Wilson and Ryan Kaldari but we are still without any positive action or in some cases, even response. We are concerned that within the fold of the WMF a lot of buck-passing is going on.

So basically, we are just exploiting every avenue to ensure awareness among the many employees of the WMF which has grown from 7 employees to over 200 in 5 years, whose work overlaps on one one hand, but who are unaware of what each one is doing on the other, in the hope that someone will finally understand the urgency of these issues. They concern the very fabric on which the Wikimedia mission is built. For more information and If you are in any way concerned about the reputation of the encyclopedias owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, please see: en:Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, just to clarify: That wasn't a pre-survey page. It was set up by a volunteer, and was specifically marked as not being connected to the Wishlist Survey. That's why I wanted to give you a heads-up, so that you wouldn't invest too much into that page as a way of getting work done on your proposal. I'm glad that Ajraddatz deleted that page, because this is exactly the kind of confusion that I was worried that page would create.
I think that the Wishlist Survey is probably the best route for you to get development work done. This is specifically what the Community Tech team is designed to support -- an important project that a lot of contributors want to see done, but hasn't been prioritized by any other product team. So far this year, 5 of the top 10 wishes from the last survey have been completed, we're currently working on a 6th, and Wikidata is working on another one. We're also currently working on #25 and #29 on the list.
If you're talking to people at the Foundation -- Nick, Ryan, James, all the way up to Katherine and the board -- then I expect that they'll probably tell you to propose this in the Community Wishlist Survey. It starts in a month -- the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey page has all the details. Let me know what I can do to help. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The difference is, Danny, that these issues are too big for the Wish List. We're not asking for convenience gadgets, we're asking for the completion of some critical core software (or extensions) that the Wikipedia Foundation started and did not complete. You would understand more if Jonathan had properly disseminated the content of the hour-long Skype he had with me. The problem is that he also does not understand. the gravity of the current situation. At he end of the day, the Wish List project is the wrong venue for these pressing issues and they do indeed need a ruling from Katherine if a department does not yet exist to address them. --Kudpung (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I just had a conversation with the team about this. We are concerned about the skyrocketing backlog; Ryan has some thoughts about what we can do. I think some other people are going to be reaching out to you with specifics. I'm glad you brought it up, and I hope we can help. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Enable numerical sorting in ru@wikipedia[edit]

Please, enable numerical sorting on the Russian Wikipedia per the discussion: ru:Википедия:Форум/Предложения#Сортировка чисел в категориях (oldid). Dmitry89 (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dmitry89, thanks for your note. I've added Russian WP to the Phabricator ticket; we'll probably get these done within a few weeks. I'll let you know when it's coming. Thanks! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Dmitry89, numerical sorting is now live on ruwiki! (Here's an example.) Let me know if you see any problems. Thanks! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Enable numerical sorting on hewiki[edit]

Hi. Could you please add us to the list? You can see the discussion (100% for) at w:he:WP:VP#שינוי שיטת המיון קטגוריות עם מספרים בשמות. Thank you. IKhitron (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Great! I added hewiki to the list. I'll let you know when it's coming. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! IKhitron (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi IKhitron, numerical sorting is live on hewiki! Here's an example. Let me know if you see any problems. Thanks! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much! It looks very good, indeed. Yes, there is one problem, as I told you yesterday, but the patch is already done. IKhitron (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Natural number sorting on cswiki[edit]

Hello, could we ask you to enable natural number sorting in category listings on cswiki? Community discussion here: --Dvorapa (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I've put you on the list -- this should be done very soon. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Dvorapa, numerical sorting is now working on cswiki! (Here's an example.) Let me know if you see any problems with it. Thanks! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. We were surprised by the heading a little bit (we thought it will be a blank space, but "0–9" heading is much better). First impressions from users are really positive too. I'll let you know if there will be some problem in the future. --Dvorapa (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Enable numerical sorting on bn@wikipedia and bn@wikisource[edit]

Hi. how are you? Can you please enable numerical sorting on bn@wikipedia and bn@wikisource?

  • Community notification for bn@wikipedia is here with 100% consensus.
  • Community notification for bn@wikisource is here with 100% consensus. Thanks. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Bodhisattwa -- I'll put these on the list, and I'll let you know when it's done. Thanks! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bodhisattwa, both wikis have numerical sorting now. Let me know if you see a problem. Thanks! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Danny, I am keeping track on this category in Bengali Wikipedia and this category in Bengali Wikisource. The category in Bengali Wikipedia category is acting weird, may be its due to the transition phase and I have to wait for few more hours, right? Also, I noticed, The category in Bengali Wikisource now have a 0-9 segment, but, its in English, it needs to be changed into Bengali numerical ০-৯. Thanks. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bodhisattwa, thanks for reporting these. I created a bug ticket, and included you on it: phab:T148873. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, is there any update regarding this issue? -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Enable numerical sorting on ukwiki[edit]

Hi! Please add ukwiki to the list. The discussion was here: uk:Вікіпедія:Кнайпа (пропозиції)#Голосування за увімкнення числового сортування в категоріях. Thanks!--Piramidion 07:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Great, thank you! I've put your request on this ticket: T148682. We'll gather a few more requests, and then run the script on your wiki. I'll let you know when it's done. Thanks! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Piramidion, numerical sorting is now live on ukwiki. Here's an example. Let me know if you see any problems. Thank you! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks!--Piramidion 08:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Numerical sorting – hr.wp[edit]

Please enable numerical sorting on the Croatian Wikipedia per this discussion. – Srdjan m (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Srdjan m, I'll put your wiki in the next batch to be done. I'll let you know once it's finished. Thanks! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Srdjan m, numerical sorting is live on Croatian too! Here's an example. Let me know if you see any problems. Thanks! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Numerical sorting – bs.wp[edit]

Hey there (again)! Please enable numerical sorting on the Bosnian Wikipedia per this RfC. – Srdjan m (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Great, that's on the list too. I'll let you know when it's done. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Srdjan m, numerical sorting is now live on Bosnian Wikipedia. Here's an example. Let me know if you see any problems. Thanks! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Numerical sorting –[edit]

Please enable numerical sorting on the German Wikisource per this RfC. --THE IT (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I've put on the list for the next batch. I'll let you know when it's done! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Category collation change and numerical sorting - ilo.wp[edit]

Request category collation change and enable numerical sorting for Ilokano Wikipedia (uca-fil-u-knrecently added) per local RfC. Thanks. --Lam-ang (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've put you on the ticket for the next batch. I'll let you know when it's done. Thanks! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Enable numerical sorting and UCA in Galician wikipedia - gl.wp[edit]

Hi DannyH. We've held a discussion at Galician (gl) Wikipedia and agreed on enabling both numerical sorting and collation algorithm for categories on our wiki. Thank you! Banjo (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've put you on the ticket for the next batch. I'll let you know when it's done. Thanks! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Numerical sorting – sh.wp[edit]

Please enable numerical sorting on the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia per this discussion. – Srdjan m (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Numerical sorting – sr.wp[edit]

Please enable numerical sorting on the Serbian Wikipedia per this discussion. – Srdjan m (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Srdjan m! I've got Serbo-Croatian and Serbian on the list for the next batch to deploy. I'll let you know when it's done. Thanks! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Numerical sorting – ptwiki[edit]


Could you please enable numerical sorting on the Portuguese Wikipedia? See this discussion. Helder 15:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Helder, I've put your request in the next batch for deployment. I'll let you know when it's done. Thanks! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

A place for more feedback on "code in your own language"[edit]

Hi Danny. While I understand the necessity of cleaning proposal, could you also provide a move to some relevant places to continue to talk on subject archived? I do appreciate the feedback on the subject, even if it won't be a validated proposal in the Community Wishlist. :) -- Psychoslave 13:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Psychoslave, I think one place you could go is the Wikitech-L mailing list, which is for technical discussions about Wikimedia projects. I hope that helps... -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Numerical sorting and UCA collation in es.wikiversity[edit]


Could you please request the conversion of es.wikiversity to numerical sorting and the UCA collation for Spanish?

The proposal was posted in the local Village Pump 3 weeks ago and there have been no opostion to the proposal since then.

Regards, Lsanabria (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lsanabria, I've put you on the list for the next batch. I'll let you know when it's done. Thanks! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

hi Danny Horn , I know i'm late & Voting phase will begins November 28th .can i request for adding my proposal.plz.THANKS.

Complete Reliability/Factual Accuracy Solution[edit]

  • Problem: Wikipedia acknowledges that the encyclopedia should not be used as a primary source for research, either academic or informational. According to Academics [2][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] & Harvard [9] ,Carleton [10],livescience [11] ,forbos [12],guardian [13] ,nature [14] wikipedia articles are "not enough RELIABLE" for academic research/study.some educational institutions have banned it as a primary source while others have limited its use to only a pointer to external sources. [15] [16] [17]. And there is "Lack of methodical fact-checking "...Inaccurate information that is not obviously false may persist in Wikipedia for a long time before it is challenged. [18] .. For a list of hoaxes that have occurred on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia .
  1. Accuracy is the biggest problem about Wikipedia . Anyone can add subtle nonsense  or erroneous information to articles that can take weeks, months or years to be detected and removed (which has been happening since at least 2002). Deliberate hoaxes can also be perpetrated.
  2. Even unregistered users are capable of this. For example, some one can just come and edit this very page and put in "khats r four doughs onlee" or add mention of some unrelated topic: ===like how great pineapple pizza is===
  3. Dross can proliferate, rather than become refined, as rhapsodic authors have their articles revised by ignorant editors.
  • Who would benefit: all wiki reader & editor . 18 billion user every month . pageview 18 billion every month.[19][20][21]
  • Proposed solution:I have a five step solution .

1.(Easy reporting): by Making it much easier for people to report "factual accuracy", misinformation faster. google,google news,facebook [22] ,twitter,bing everyone have a interactive reporting & feedback system .We can have a interactive reporting in wikipedia similar to google feedback [23] (with screenshot ; highlight issue in "yellow" & Black out private information private information) for highlighting a specific block/line . In wikipedia articles , we can have a [Report] link in every section ,beside [Edit] link . In reporting , there should have features for adding ,section dispute template & inline dispute template with Citation needed template & Accuracy disputes category., There are several noticeboards (for  inaccurate content  &  factual inaccuracy) at which accuracy disputes may be listed to gain the views of other editors, particularly the Dispute resolution , Fringe theoriesreliable sourcesno original researchneutral point-of-view, Conflict of Interest and biographies of living persons noticeboards.All report should go there or open a request for mediation (RFM) & Requests for Comment . some report should go here and here.In this way, we have a possibility  to get 18 billion "factual accuracy" report in every month :) . [24][25][26]

2.(Algorithm): Leverage algorithms and artificial intelligence.Stronger detection Algorithm .Facebook already using machine learning—different algorithms than the ones that drive the Trending section—to try and catch misinformation on the platform . We can have a Algorithm similar to google,facebook [27] [28][29] [30] [31] [32] & twitter  [33] fake news algorithm .When a user create a article with Factual Accuracy/misinformation,claim,Fringe theories , original research ; without proper citation ; then the Algorithm should automatically add section dispute template & inline dispute template with Citation needed template & Accuracy disputes category. ...from reliable sources guideline , we can create a algorithm for "cross check ". when a editor insert a citation then it & will automatically start cross-checking the content with other similar reliable source & will create a " reliability meter ".

3.(Third party verification): Over the last several years, fact checking has come into its own. Led by many respected fact checking organizations like the International Fact-Checking Network, rigorous fact checks are now conducted by more than 100 active sites, according to the Duke University Reporter’s Lab. They collectively produce many thousands of fact-checks a year, examining claims around urban legends, politics, health, and the media itself. Google added a fact check tag on Google News in order to display articles that contain factual information next to trending news items.[34].Facebook using snopes [35] is a well-known resource for validating and debunking such stories in American popular culture, receiving 300,000 visits a day. [36] The Reporters’ Lab at Duke University maintains a database managed by Mark Stencel and Bill Adair of fact checking organizations. The database tracks more than 100 non-partisan organizations around the world. Articles are also examined based upon whether the site examines transparency of sources and methods, tracks political promises, examines all parties and sides, and examines discreet claims and reaches conclusions.

4.(User Right): We can have a user right group "Fact Checker". This user group will have some expertise & tools .Or, this right can be added to Admin group. they will get notified , when point 1.(Easy reporting) will happen , mainly for goodA ,GA &  B  articles. They will try to solve Factual Accuracy from these category as much as they can .

5.(reliability meter): in visual editor cite templates , we can add reliability meter . from the help of point 2.(Algorithm) ; every reader will see "reliability meter " , when they click in the "citation " & in "REFERENCES" .there is third party databases [37] [38] [39] [40] or we can create our own . when Reliability/Accuracy 100-81% ; we will see Red dot . when Reliability/Accuracy 80-61% ; we will see Red dot . when Reliability/Accuracy 60-50% ; we will see Red dot .

  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer:--- md masum (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
    Community discussion:
Hi - as MusikAnimal said on his page, it's too late to post a new proposal now. But your proposal about 360 photos is there, and we'll start getting votes in a couple days. Thanks! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Moving proposals[edit]

I'm puzzled by this change. There is no trace of the "moved" element on (I checked your contributions over there), so where did it go? And why was no link left behind? I guess I'm wondering about the policy governing the collection of proposals. Urhixidur (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Urhixidur, I moved your proposal to the Wiktionary page of the Wishlist Survey. When I moved it, I left a message under your proposal with a ping so that you would know where it went. Maybe your notification got lost somewhere along the way, I'm sorry about that! Your proposal is there, and open for voting. Thanks for posting a proposal, and sorry for the mixup. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Archived copy of discussion[edit]

On 22 November 2016 vide this edit you archived a discussion. Could you please let me know where the discussion lies archived? DiptanshuTalk 20:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diptanshu.D, the archive page is here: 2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Archive. Let me know if I can help with anything. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


…but, but, but, you reverted me!! [41] He he — Jeblad 18:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, your revision is out of date now. :) -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Strange, lately it seems like it has become more common to not be logged in on all projects. — Jeblad 18:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Is that a bug you're seeing? I'm not sure who to direct that to, but I can find out... -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't logged in on this tab when I wrote the note, even if I was logged in on other tabs. It happens all the time now. It seems like existing tabs does not get the correct events. Perhaps I should write a proper bug report. — Jeblad 02:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be good. I'm not the right person to diagnose that, sorry. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion pages[edit]

Hello Danny, any place is good for me, where I can get answer to my question ([42],[43]). :) Thank you in advance. Samat (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Samat: I'm sorry, I missed your question! User:Jdforrester (WMF) will know what the current plans are. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Danny; Samat, I'm not sure there's any current conversation about user-user discussion, but a good place for such a discussion would be somewhere on, maybe mw:Talk:Global Collaboration (as they're the team responsible for such features). Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

"Support" vote broken after moved[edit]

See the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Watchlists/Automatic notication of new links to a page should be able to be activated/deactivated on a per page basis's history--YFdyh000 (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Fixed I think. But someone should move the votes from the redirect page. Stryn (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
YFdyh000, thanks for flagging this, and Stryn, thanks for fixing it. :) I guess the bot that we used to add the header didn't keep up with the spelling fix for "notification". YFdyh000, I moved your vote and Jenks24's to the correct page. Sorry for the mixup. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Where did it go?[edit]

Concerning this move: where was the proposal moved, exactly? Urhixidur (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Found it at 2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Categories/Wiktionary. Urhixidur (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Undelete improvements[edit]

Hi, Danny,

Since, you had once commented over this thread, was this issue any dealt with? I'm struggling to find the phab tickets:-)Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Winged Blades of Godric, that proposal got 48 votes in last year's Wishlist Survey, which put it at #41 in the final results. There are five related tickets: T9996, T110989, T30821, T30819 and T62736. They're all currently listed as open. The new Community Wishlist Survey 2019 starts tomorrow, if you want to give that proposal another shot. DannyH (WMF) (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks:-) Mer-C had already proposed it and I have !voted.Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The Community Wishlist Survey[edit]


You get this message because you’ve previously participated in the Community Wishlist Survey. I just wanted to let you know that this year’s survey is now open for proposals. You can suggest technical changes until 11 November: Community Wishlist Survey 2019.

You can vote from November 16 to November 30. To keep the number of messages at a reasonable level, I won’t send out a separate reminder to you about that. /Johan (WMF) 11:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Depending on the editorial board's publishing decisions, The Signpost is intending to run an article about the wishlist in the next issue. If you have any concerns regarding the factual accuracy of this piece, please let us know on the Newsroom talk page. The article draft is at here. Kudpung (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Kudpung, thanks for letting me know. I made corrections and updates on some slightly outdated info in the article -- the name of the Community Wishlist Survey, who's working on the Community Tech team, my brief as Director. Your article reminded me that my user page and the Community Tech page both needed updating :) -- so I corrected them, and made the Mediawiki version of the Community Tech page into a redirect to the Meta page. I took out the clause in the article that referred to there being two different Community Tech pages. I hope all of that is helpful; I tried not to alter anything that would affect your intentions as the writer. Let me know if you have any questions, or if I did anything wrong that I should fix. Thanks! -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Wishlist Survey tracking[edit]

Hello Danny, can you make sure this list is also updated Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Tracking -- naveenpf (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Naveenpf, that page should update automatically when the Community Tech bot picks up the changes. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Entschuldigung, aber[edit]

Deine Verschiebung meines Wunsches ins Archiv erachte ich als grobe Missachtung. Es mag "euch" Entwicklern unverständlich sein, doch wir "Autoren" wünschen uns vernünftige, stabile Werkzeuge, die wir problemlos nutzen können, um gute Artikel zu schreiben. Dazu benötigt es auch Sonderzeichen, die gerade für unterschiedliche Schriften und Sprachen enorm wichtig sind. Ich fühle mich gerade richtig missachtet und danke dafür. Dann bastelt mal an Entwicklerspielzeug, welches euch mehr Spaß macht. Mit extremer Verärgerung und großem Unverständnis. --Itti (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Während die Verschiebung ins Archiv aus rein technischer Sicht vielleicht OK sein mag, das Ansinnen war i.d.T. nichts für die Wishlist, so hätte ich doch ein Verschieben an einen angemessenen Ort vorgezogen. Wo wäre denn dieser angemessene Ort, an dem sich über ein die Community betreffendes Tech-Teil beschweren kann, wenn die Devs mal wieder ohne ausreichende Konsultationen und Folgenabschätzungen irgendwas vermeintlich notwendiges durchziehen, was einen großen Kollateralschaden anrichtet?
<Translation> While the move in the archive may have been something correct in a pure technical way, the topic really was nothin for the wish list, a move towards an appropriate place would have been favourable. Where would have been the place, where the community can complain about such tech-stuff, once the devs have again not asked enough editors and have not thought about the consequences, before they push through some alleged necessary change, that wreaks havoc?</Translation>
Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 08:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
P.S.: Don't bother to mention Phabricator or other nerdy venues, we need a place for editors, that just want to write an encyclopedia and don't have a degree in informatics.
The Forum seems to be a correct place, at least TheDJ moved it there. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 08:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

No answer for me? --Itti (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Itti: I archived the proposal because I didn't know where the discussion should go; TheDJ moved it to Wikimedia Forum#mw.toolbar back or global gadget as a replacement. I understand that you feel affronted because I'm following the rules of the Wishlist Survey, but the Wishlist Survey is very important to all of the other contributors who are submitting proposals and voting on them. We can't allow the survey process to be disrupted by a protest, even if the people who are protesting feel very strongly about it. It wouldn't be fair. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I think you don´t understand me. It is not a kind of protest or what ever. It is a problem. In the past a lot of times funktions of "private" skipts didn´t work after a change of media-Wiki. (sorry, I don´t know the right word). Then the answer was: Its a private skipt, change it. Lot of editors are not able to "change it". So I thing it is important that some very rural funktions are given by the WMF. So for example the signature and the special signs of languages. It is not easy to write an article without this. Sorry for my english. But it is not so easy, you think. It is not only de-wiki dealing with this problems, other too. Regards --Itti (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
But it was fine to allow some devs to steal much needed tools from the editors without proper consultation and former warning? If you create such a havoc, don't cry foul if those you slapped in the face come here to your place and use the best current venue to protest this anti-editor behaviour. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 22:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah yeah, some mentioning of nerdy stuff like commons.js or such are no valid solution, they are just workaround tactics for technical affine people, and those, that go to meta venues, not normal editors that just want to write articles in plain prose. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 22:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Sänger, thanks for putting together the proposal: Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Editing/Keep the lightweight text editor. That's exactly what we needed; now people can vote on the proposal. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

??? Why was my wish not correct?????? --Itti (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Is ist possible to have a "wrong wish?" --Itti (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Itti, is the change that you want described in Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Editing/Keep the lightweight text editor? -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry Itti, falls ich Dir ins Wort falle.
Ich denke nicht, Itti ging wohl davon aus, dass der Texteditor sowieso bleibt und wollte primär die Tools wiederhaben. Ich habe das grundsätzlicher, aber nicht so speziell gefordert. Angesichts des völlig absurden, aber wohl ernst gemeinten, Vorschlags den 2017er Editor als Alternative zu nutzen hielt ich mein grundsätzliches Anliegen für wichtig. Das von Itti ist allerdings ebenso wichtig, die willkürliche Kastration des Texteditors sollte auch zurückgenommen werden, das habe ich nur weiter unten auch erwähnt.
I don't think so, Itti seemed to work on the pretext, the the old text editor will stay in any case and wanted to have the Tools back. I asked more fundamental, not just for that tools. In the light of some complete absurd, but probably serious meant, proposal to use the 2017 "text" editor as an alternative I thought my basic proposal was needed. But the proposal by Itty is as much needed, the arbitrary castration of the text editor should be taken back, something I mentioned as well further down my proposal.
Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 22:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Auf Deutsch: Ich habe die Anfrage, den Wunsch eingestellt, weil ich die dringende Notwendigkeit sah. Wenn ihr, die "Wünscheerfüller" nicht versteht, worum es geht, dann solltet ihr FRAGEN. Nicht den Wunsch ins Archiv verschieben, oder in den Sumpf, oder wohin auch immer. Ihr habt mit eurer Änderung viele aktive Autoren, global, massiv behindert. Sie können nicht mehr signieren, sie haben keinen Zugriff mehr auf Sonderzeichen und vieles mehr. Das sollte euch schon etwas mehr wert sein, als ein "Sänger hat es nun besser formuliert". Sorry, aber ich bin seit 2004 aktiv, habe mich sehr eingesetzt und dafür auch viel abbekommen. Nun ist ein guter Punkt, um zu überdenken, ob es das wert ist. Danke dafür! --Itti (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Itti: Does this work for you? Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Editing/Put mw.toolbar back -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi DannyH, Thank you very much for your efforts. I think everything just went wrong. I tried to represent my request. I consider it is extremely important that the authors have at their disposal reasonable tools to work with. Something can change, no issue, but the shutdown was not good. This caused two problems in my eyes and I´m probably not happy with them. One problem was the emergency relief, but the second and much more important is that authors must be given what they need for their work. This in a stable form that does not dissolve with every change of the Mediawiki software like dust in the air. Recently, there were serious problems with the old Monobook scripts. Answers are always: These are private scripts, you have to adjust them yourself. But many pople are not able to do that and they are very helpless. Here, in this case I want to avoid this implication and my wish is that such important tools are maintained and kept by you professionals. Whether this is the result of the request of Sänger, I hope it is enough then and it is not necessary to have a second request. Meanwhile, the handling of my wish annoys me no more longer, because I think it was not evil intention. But my request was no joke or what ever. Regards --Itti (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, DannyH_(WMF),

thank you for adding the wish back to the list.

I still do not understand how exactly my Overview contribution that retraces

  • the origin of this wish (even though I do understand that you might want to exclude even the slightest trace of criticism concerning the widely perceived communication-failure as the origin),
  • adds information on recent developments that might spare developper-effort as well as possible enhancements and
  • clarifies common misunderstandings in both the first and second thread

does anything but further the debate and subsequently an informed vote on the wish. The subtitles I used, which might have felt a bit over the top, are entirely optional and were just meant to properly structure my contribution, they may very well be reduced to simple text.

It seems that at least the official remark about the end of the proposal phase and the desire to continue a lively discussion until the voting phase, previously present, was also caught in the crossfire. Also, at least a note with a link to the archived proposal, that would allow users unaware of the previous debate to read, should they desire to do so, quite a bit of substantial information including the numerous projects concerned, seems appropriate.

I'd be most grateful, if you could give that a careful second thought and kindly reconsider to add back at least the parts which do nothing but clarify misunderstandings and add value to the debate by updating recent developments. There is no particular urge and it is perfectly fine to sleep over it, if you don't perceive an immediate need to take my wish into consideration ;-) .

Best regards --Eloquenzministerium (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Eloquenzministerium: for the purposes of the Wishlist Survey, I'm happy to have the two proposals up, as long as there isn't ongoing, disruptive drama around them that overshadows the other proposals on the page. The problem that you're talking about has absolutely nothing to do with the Community Tech team, and it doesn't need to be documented on Wishlist Survey pages.
In addition to those two proposals and your lengthy historical context post, Sänger also posted a separate protest-focused proposal, "Communication platform between devs and editors is needed". I understand the desire to protest an action that you feel was unfair. The Community Wishlist Survey is not the place to fight about it. Right now, the only thing you're accomplishing is making me feel tired, which doesn't help your cause in any way. Can I ask you to please just let these proposals go through without any more trouble? -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
<squeeze>The action by the WMF against very productive parts of the community is just another sign of their detachment from the core of the wikiverse, the authors that provide the bulk of content. The whole wikiverse is about the content, and as it grew so big, that only volunteers couldn't manage any longer, some service entities were founded, that should do the menial work, the communities were no longer able to do good enough on a voluntary base. Programmers for software maintenance according to community wishes, accountants to properly manage the communities money, lawyers, that protect the communities from judicial harm, event organizers, that organise the community gatherings etc. Here it's about the software maintenance department, and how they manage to implement the community wishes, i,e, do their core work. How this could be organised and how the superiors, the content providers, can get their needs heard, understand and acted upon.
The trouble started, when you ditched some much needed part of the tools, the content providers build the content providing on, without asking them about it in a proper way. You simply ditched essential tools without proper notice, and obviously even didn't get it, that there was no proper notice, as all was in the open in som phab, but Phabricator is no open communication with content providers, that's the communication platform for the software maintainers, no normal author will ever go there. The software maintainers have the duty to get consent for their maintenance work, if they make such far reaching decisions about their work surroundings. It's quite telling, that obviously you didn't even get it, that this decision was something very disruptive, that your assessments were quite wrong.
You are the Community Tech department, and with this name obviously the one, that should have the duty to get the consent about tech decision from the communities before any action (except emergency cases, which was needed but not given by the WMF after the disruptive change was introduced. You should be the community voice, i.e. a kind of veto voice, for decisions like this. Or do you think of your department as the one, that should sugarcoat unwanted WMF-decisions and sell them to the communities?
I know, it's not exactly a technical wish, but it's about the core of the problems with the dealing with the technical wishes of the communities, that should be paramount to any decision taken for the wikiverse. So if there is another prominent venue, where it's not just shoved in the shades and be happily ignored by the WMF like tons of other community wishes before, put it there, but not again hostile archiving of unwanted wishes, like in the past. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 05:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Whatever problem there might be with whatever Sänger is doing, should best be discussed with him. I perfectly see your point of view, even though I think that the origin of the problem should not be obscured, but am reluctantly willing to go along with it in order to avoid any further trouble.

However, the general annoyance you might feel about the Germans and their, at times, and myself included, contributions which might lack the diplomatically reserved tone desired here, should not tire you to the point, where you throw out clearly value-adding parts of the debate, which should, even in your very own opinion, be only in part of doubtful interest.

As I suggested, let's see, if a good nights sleep won't help to clear this up and make us feel like we found a modus vivendi acceptable to all stakeholders.

As we finally strive both for the same goal, an ongoing amelioration of the usability, could you kindly, being far more experienced in those matters, point me in the right direction, where there are the best chances to implement a policy which would avoid such problems altogether by obligating a discussion at large, beyond the nerdy backroom-exchanges completely out of sight for normal authors?

I think such a debate, leaving time to consider all the options, is owed to the authors by the devs whenever such drastic changes are planned. In this case, it was very obviously much to the surprise of lots of high-value editors across many WP-projects and the force of the opposition that annoyed you, would certainly best be avoided altogether in the future.

A sensible policy change in this direction would probably be something you could get behind as well, as it would very much contribute to improve a clearly lacking communication between those who should be in charge of improving the software, and do a great job at it most of the time, and the users, who rightly expect these evolutions, even though they might not praise clear progress in a certainly merited way, to be to their benefit and the overall goal to improve Wikipedia.

Being already more than a little late in my timezone, I will now go to bed and sincerely wish, that our exchange will, in spite of our partial differences in opinion, take a turn to friendlier dialogues in the future. Hopefully, we can strive together to change this conversation, that started out in an unfortunate way, into a search for solutions towards the goals we seem to have in common.

Best regards --Eloquenzministerium (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Eloquenzministerium and Sänger: The best person to talk to about sunsetting the 2006 editor is Whatamidoing (WMF). She managed the project, and the communication around it. The way it was done is not actually what I would consider the best way to handle it, and I don't want to have user-facing changes released in that way again. That being said, Whatamidoing believes that the problem you're experiencing is not directly related to sunsetting the 2006 editor. You should all talk about this together, but not on the Wishlist Survey. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
So where is the official venue for such far reaching changes and the consultation of the most affected users? It can't be some random users talk page, even if they have (WMF) behind their user name. As the name suggests, Community Tech should be just the place for such things. To complain at Whatamidoing (WMF) talk page is not something I consider even remotely productive, not because of Whatamidoing (WMF) but more because of general considerations. I don't have the impression, that complaints by the community are really taken serious by those, who hold some stake in a a particular software development. The misguiding menues in the MV, that keep sending users instead of to the picture pages to some useless MV-Feedback page (phab:T133899, in combination with mw:Extension_talk:Media_Viewer/About) is open since 2.5 years, and nobody gives a flying f*** about it. The shiny new bling forced on the communities against their will with pure might and use of ruthless force is now running, so nobody has to care about its maintenance any longer. That's the general impression the WMF is giving with most of their actions. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 08:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The official venue is the project page, which you can read at mw:Contributors/Projects/Removal of the 2006 wikitext editor. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


Hello, DannyH,

would you like to clarifiy

  • why a couple of days ago, you insisted to remove my complete contribution, including parts which were not remotely inappropriate even by your standards then, from the Sänger-version of the wish before moving it back from the archive?
  • why you now declare Ittis duplicate as a legit entry, an entry heavily insisting on the very point you previously declared to be out of scope during the discussion phase and archived it for that reason only days ago?
  • whether you plan to disqualify the wish later, should it make it into the top ten?

Even though I try really hard to be understanding, as of today, I am completely and utterly confused by your inconsistent behaviour and would be really grateful for an explication I can wrap my head around.

Best regards --Eloquenzministerium (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Eloquenzministerium: I am also very confused by this situation, so it's regrettable but not surprising that my actions have been inconsistent. I know that there were discussions on German Wikipedia in late October about mw.toolbar, and ways to fix the gadgets that depended on it. As far as I know, there are several different approaches to that problem, and right now, I don't know which is the correct one. I know that some people are also angry about the way that the change was announced and discussed.
In that situation, I think it's absolutely appropriate for someone to write a Community Wishlist Survey proposal asking the Community Tech team to investigate the problem, so the team can work with the community to figure out the best solution. I'm glad that we have at least one proposal on the Survey that can address that issue.
However, I also want to make sure that the Survey process is not disrupted by long, angry disputes about issues that have nothing to do with the Wishlist Survey. There are a lot of people who depend on this process to bring attention to the features and fixes that they want to see. The Survey should stay focused on making those proposals, and voting on them. There is no room on the Survey for protests about WMF policy.
When these issues came up on the Survey, I tried to figure out what the actual technical proposal was, so that we could focus on that. I was given several answers. I archived the original proposal because the discussion was angry and not relevant to the Survey. At that time, I offered to take the technical proposal back into the Survey, as long as it could be treated like a Survey proposal and not a protest against the WMF. Sänger wrote a proposal which I thought addressed the concerns, so that was fine. Then Itti told me that they were very upset, because Sänger's proposal didn't satisfy their concerns. I decided -- for the sake of peace and quiet, so that the Survey wouldn't be disrupted -- that we could re-post Itti's proposal as well. My main concern has been to allow the Wishlist Survey to proceed, peacefully.
If either proposal (or both proposals) end up in the top 10 at the end of the voting period, then the Community Tech team will investigate the situation, taking all of the previous discussion into account. The team will ask questions and discuss the problem with the German WP community. Through that discussion, they'll arrive at a solution to the problem that I hope will fit everyone's needs. That is the same way that the Community Tech team addresses every Wishlist proposal in the top 10.
I hope that answers your questions about the Wishlist Survey, and the status of the proposals. If you want to talk more about the toolbar and the gadgets, the appropriate place is the project page, here: mw:Contributors/Projects/Removal of the 2006 wikitext editor. Let me know if I can help with anything else. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Why did you move Talk pages consultation 2019 from the community project to the software project?[edit]

You recently moved Talk pages consultation 2019 away from her, the meta project for the communities, to mw:Talk pages consultation 2019, the pure technical software project. Communication about content, that's what talk pages are good for, is a matter for the community, the software has to strictly follow the community wishes, not the other way around, and the discussion should take place in a community environment, not a technical environment. So why did you move the page away from the community towards the software? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 21:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Sänger: The talk page project is a software development project. I was asked by a couple of collaborators to move the discussion to Mediawiki, and I didn't see a reason not to. I think there are lots of people on both sites. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Talk pages are for the community, the software just has to follow the needs of the community, not the other way around. To invent the next LQT/FLOW-disaster in some community-detached backroom and present it afterwards to the community is just the way to create the next disaster. Meta is the venue for the communities, to quote the front page: Welcome to Meta-Wiki, the global community site for the Wikimedia Foundation's projects and related projects, from coordination and documentation to planning and analysis. MW is just for the technical nerds, not the whole community. How to improve articles and other content best on talk pages is for the community to decide, not some software developers. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 22:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
As we say on that page, the consultation will involve lots of conversations, held on lots of different wikis. There will be lots of opportunities for people to participate, and obviously you're welcome to participate on that page on Mediawiki. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
No, I'm not, because I insisted too hard on the proven possibility, that VE is possible on talk pages against the wishes of the devs, that wanted to hide that fact to push FLOW, I got blocked in this shady backroom kangaroo court called CoC. One other reason to not go there for community issues, as banning/blocking is not done in an open process, but on the whim of some kangaroo court without any real possibility to have input as a dissident. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 05:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I've been lurking a bit in Phab, and came around this one, where I read between the lines a lot about installation of the software anywhere, for example here: [44]. But that's not the problem, outside projects, that use the software as well, are not deciding on Wikiversum solutions. This is about the Wikiversum, not rechenkraft or such, they have to use what's given to them, the Wikiversum ist the place for decisions on our software. MW is far too much as well about completely uninteresting third-party uses, I couldn't care less about them. That's the reason why such inner-Wikiversum consultation processes should take place in a community venue, i.e. here, not there. All this is mostly about existing and well established projects, and how they want their project to look and behave like. If the Wikiversum projects want article talk pages, and that's the core use of talk pages, the rest is just nice to have, in a certain way, then that's the way they have to look like, bugger rechenkraft or anyone else outside this here (and I'm a paying member of rechenkraft;). Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 17:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sänger: Like I said, there will be lots of conversations on lots of different wikis as part of the consultation. The home base for the project will be, but there will probably be some conversations here on Meta, and definitely on German Wikipedia. I don't agree that having the project hosted on wikimedia creates any philosophical barriers to community participation. I'm sorry to hear that you can't contribute there. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not hosted on wikimedia, that's here, it's hosted on MediaWiki, the pure software part, not the community part. So by this decision of removing from the community venue to the pure technical software venue you made a clear statement: the community must not have too much input here, it's an ivory tower decision, that the community has to swallow, and be it with superprotect. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 19:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Vote counts[edit]

Can you program the bot to update the vote counts for each proposal at Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Tracking? Thanks! Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Winged Blades of Godric: We're going to start publicly posting the vote counts after a week has gone by, so it doesn't prejudice the early voting. But I can tell you that so far, the Page Curation proposal is #1 by far. If you all keep it up, the proposal should do very well. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, that sounds fine:-)Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric: The tracking page is live now. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


implication that I was acting in a disruptive way that damages the survey is noted. You need to assume good faith of others, read edit-summaries of diff(s) and above all, ask your fellow-employees to be damn certain about what they speak.Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric: I meant to refer to the protest votes and ensuing arguments as disruptive, not your copy-paste, which I agree was just following that earlier promise. I clarified in a further message in that conversation; I apologize for being unclear about that. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 06:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)