Wikimedia Forum

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
← Discussion pages Wikimedia Forums Archives →
QA icon clr.svg

The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions and discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. (For discussion about the Meta wiki, see Meta:Babel.)
This is not the place to make technical queries regarding the MediaWiki software; please ask such questions at the MediaWiki support desk; technical questions about Wikimedia wikis, however, can be placed on Tech page.

You can reply to a topic by clicking the "[edit]" link beside that section, or you can start a new discussion.
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
This box: view · talk · edit
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} and sections whose oldest comment is older than 30 days.

Changes to WMF Non-discrimination policy[edit]

Regarding this edit to WMF's Non-discrimination policy, made in March this year, changing "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of ..." to "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against staff or contractors on the basis of..." (changes emboldened for clarity); does this mean that WMF now allows discrimination against volunteers and readers?

Where was this announced, or discussed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I would welcome some clarification too. --Nemo 15:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi all. I helped work on this policy update and can offer some clarification. The policy was not being applied to users even before the change, and the interpretation had been consistent that it applied only to Wikimedia Foundation staff. When we were going through to update the categories to bring it in line with modern standards, we felt that it should be clarified as a staff-focused policy (again, the way it already had been even before the change) so we updated the wording per the edit you link. Note that this doesn't mean that suddenly wikis are allowed to unfairly discriminate against people. Doing so might constitute a violation of the Terms of Use (such as harassing or abusing others, or violating their privacy in some cases), and there are a number of community policies on different wikis that likely prohibit discriminatory behavior in different contexts. We just clarified that this specific policy is one focused on Foundation staff. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
"modern standards" which standards would these be? "doesn't mean that suddenly wikis are allowed to unfairly discriminate ..." Wikis are inanimate. "community policies" - such policies do not apply to staff, in their off-wiki roles. Frankly, I'm less than reassured by your response. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the Category:Cooler heads, it seems on the surface there is no way to interpret this other than a possible error. I suspect the Board of Trustees was not consulted on this rather small change to a WMF-wide policy, because this edit really does exactly what the template at the top of the page says it must not: It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project, emphasis added. Although this NDP may not appear (to staff) to be in use within the community, it has in fact been cited multiple times in disputes, particularly certain cases where community administrators were acting in concert in opposition to this policy. This policy, like many WMF policies, are used as authority by community internal governance structures, undergirding local implementations and guiding community actions. It is part of our Soft Security - a guide post in that context.

    Saying there is one set of policies for staff and a different set for the community will likely have negative effects. - Amgine/meta wikt 18:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I was surprised to see this here, but I was previously aware of some confusion. Please see the English Wikipedia version of this at [1] which retains the old wording (but seems to interpret it away). BTW, this was created by a then-Arb on EnWiki @Roger Davies:. See my reaction (similar to @Pigsonthewing:) at [2]. The posting there was apparently prompted by this discussion which goes back to the bad old days when it was possible to openly bait women editors with foul language, and a woman proposed a place where only women editors could edit. I've got mixed feelings all around, but

  • It looks like we'll have to modify the EnWiki version somehow, and
  • The WMF board should do something to encourage all projects to come up with an anti-discrimination policy that applies to users.

@Slaporte (WMF), Jrogers (WMF), and EHershenov (WMF):

Smallbones (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jrogers (WMF): Are you willing to revert your edit? If not, what is the path for appealing this within WMF? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jrogers (WMF): hello ??? Are you going to discuss any of this ? I mean the policy is even categorised under "wikimedia wiki policies", if you no longer consider it to be so (which is my current reading), then you should recategorise it. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 17:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Apologies all that I haven't gotten back to this. That is a good catch on the sidebar category, we had missed that and should move it to the board and staff section, so we'll update that accordingly. With regard to the request to change or revert the edit, I'm not able to help with that. This change was reviewed by several WMF staff including the ED and was approved by the board, so although I was asked to make the update, I can't undo it or change it without their permission. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Adjusted in this edit. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
... prohibits discrimination against staff or contractors on the basis of race,... so discrimination of "normal" editors is allowed? Klaas `Z4␟` V:  20:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@KlaasZ4usV: we all wikt:discriminate in actions and thoughts, it is the context and basis of the discrimination that is important. It is legal to discriminate on the basis of work experience and knowledge when you hire someone, but not on the basis of gender, sexuality, ...

so if you think that there are other areas in which discrimination should not occur, then it would be worthwhile to enter a conversation to expand the criteria.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

question on wikinews license compatibility.[edit]

According to Wikinews/License, wikinews switched to cc-by 2.5 license to facilitate one-way compatibility with GFDL and maximize distribution. Does that mean nowadays wikinews content can be reused on wikipedia directly and not the other way round? Would it be possible to import wikipedia content into wikinews via for example saying explicitly it require sharealike? C933103 (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no problem in importing content both ways. See en:License_compatibility#Creative_Commons_license_compatibility. Ruslik (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
That chart seems to be for combining, not for migration, is it not? On some Wikinews content under CC BY-SA is allowed given that it is explicitly marked by a template. Otherwise it is not allowed. --Base (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Correct - someone changed that chart from image-based to table-based, wrongly added "From" and "To" to it in the process (now removed). --Moonian (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Read more: --Moonian (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

So, is it possible to mixing cc-by-sa content into wikinews using methods like declaring the license on the page being different from rest of the content? Or is there any motion to further change wikinews' license? As it seems like one of the reason why wikinews adopted cc-by 2.5 is because of compatbility with wikipedia.C933103 (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@C933103 and Moonian: I am crying (with tears) to request you two: could you please do not do any Transwiki things from any CC BY-SA sites to Wikinews (at least until a legal team member says yes)? By such Transwiki services we can also transwiki them to MediaWiki Help namespace WHICH IS UNDER PUBLIC DOMAIN! --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226:...Where did you see I've done something like that? All I've done was correcting someone's edit in an article... --Moonian (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
And, on the contrary, I was actually discouraging others to do such transwiki stuff... --Moonian (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@Moonian: You restored both zh:Template:移动到维基新闻 and zh:Template:Vmn, which both are aim to transwiki contents to Wikinews. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: Again, where did you see that? I'm not a sysop there (as well as anywhere) and so I don't have the rights to restore those (or any other) pages. Also, I'm not the one who applied to restore those pages; on the contrary, I applied to revoke that decision. --Moonian (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks like the actual sysop that restored both templates is @Techyan:. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: Both of them were restored because of my request for undeletion, based on early respond in this discussion. C933103 (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@C933103: So please, please, and please cancel your past wrong decision. %>_<% --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
How can I "cancel" an undeletion? C933103 (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
You can re-submit deletions for both templates. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@EHershenov (WMF): Since this discussion does affecting legal. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The switch to CC-BY-2.5 happened when Wikipedia was still under GFDL. Since then Wikipedia switched to CC-BY-SA-3.0. So, the some arguments for the Wikinews switch to CC-BY-2.5 does not apply anymore. Ruslik (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Is it possible to ask Wikinews community about would they want to switch the license once again? Since cc-by content can be reused as cc-by-sa content, it would probably only need majority agreement instead of universal agreement? C933103 (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, license discussion has come up in the past year and there was no consensus to change. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@C933103: I Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose using CC BY-SA for Wikinews, since the CC BY license can also allow the terminal users to publish to e.g. MIT, 2-clause or 3-clause BSD (not 4-clause or original BSD, since both are allowing some BY-NC-SA stuffs which can create orphan works), CC BY-NC, CC BY-ND or CC BY-NC-ND, which CC BY-SA can't. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: Could you link me some of these discussions? C933103 (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@C933103: Here are a few discussions where the license was explicitly discussed (if not was the topic of the discussion as such): n:en:Wikinews:Water_cooler/proposals/archives/2017/May, n:en:Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy/archives/2017/September, n:en:Wikinews:Water_cooler/miscellaneous/archives/2017/January#OTRS, n:en:Wikinews:Water_cooler/proposals/archives/2017/January, n:en:Wikinews:Water_cooler/assistance/archives/2017/January, n:en:Wikinews:Water_cooler/miscellaneous/archives/2017/May#Wikitribune_is_launched, n:en:Wikinews:Water_cooler/technical/archives/2017/January. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: As far as I understand,
n:en:Wikinews:Water_cooler/proposals/archives/2017/May and n:en:Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy/archives/2017/September talk about porting content to wikinews is problematic in term of license, and it is not efficient to reuse wikipedia content for wikinews due to the difference between "Encyclopedia" and "News".
n:en:Wikinews:Water_cooler/miscellaneous/archives/2017/January#OTRS is about some templates that apparently doesn't make sense to remain on wikinews due to license different
n:en:Wikinews:Water_cooler/proposals/archives/2017/January is about collaborating with third party content creator
n:en:Wikinews:Water_cooler/assistance/archives/2017/January - which section is supposed to be related?
n:en:Wikinews:Water_cooler/miscellaneous/archives/2017/May#Wikitribune_is_launched is about a wikinews competitor site and subsequent question on the model of wikinews
n:en:Wikinews:Water_cooler/technical/archives/2017/January is about reusing wikinews content in wikinews.
As such, it doesn't seems like the question on what license should wikinews use have really been resurfaced recently at least among these discussions. There are concerns about if that is allowed then there might be a flood of non-news entries in wikinews among the first two linked discussions and that it might be easier to restart from starch, but that is not about the license itself. C933103 (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I understand that there are a number reasons why BY licences are preferable over BY-SA licenses for Wikinews. However the version should be at least updated to 3.0 to harmonize licenses across Wikimedia projects. Ruslik (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@C933103: Correct: changing the license was not proposed but I'm saying that the license was discussed without any proposal to modify it, so it was tacitly accepted. And the section "Using The Independent" discusses licensing. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
A small correction, Wikinews was originally published under Public Domain, which is not internationally compatible. Further, while the topic has come up on the English Wikinews, that is only one of many languages in the project; I do not believe the question has be raised project-wide. - Amgine/meta wikt wnews 16:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Newby question[edit]

I've been a contributing editor for only 2 months so there's still a whole lot I don't yet know about Wikimedia (meta) and the different projects. I have taken the time to get up to speed with the Strategic Direction 2017 which I fully support. The one advantage of only 2 months experience is that I still have the perspective of an 'outsider looking in'. I have very little history with Wikimedia or any of its projects.

I have two very basic questions: 1. The various Wikimedia projects supply information that people can use to expand their knowledge. My question is how the 'demand' (and the priorities, audiences, etc.) for information is determined across the Wikimedia projects. 2. The second question is related to the first one. There is great wealth of freely accessible and and trustworthy information available via the Internet. How does Wikimedia and its projects decide which gaps it should fill (with 'own content') and to which existing resources it should redirect? 16:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

All contents of the Wikimedia projects have been written by volunteers who write about subjects that they are interested in. So, we do not determine demand and we do not purposefully fill in any knowledge gaps. Ruslik (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Mostly, that's true. But there is List of articles every Wikipedia should have. That page suggests that there is a kernel of information we'd like to encourage people to create. But ultimately each project, and each volunteer, decides what to create. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

My thanks to @Ruslik0: and @StevenJ81: for your helpful replies!

New print to pdf feature for mobile web readers[edit]

Just curious (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Activating Wikimedians on net neutrality in the U.S.[edit]

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai just announced that he will gut net neutrality in a December 14th vote, with the draft order expected to be circulated on November 22nd. In terms of what to expect, people inside the FCC (speaking on condition of anonymity to reporters) have confirmed our worst fears: this is a full-throated repeal of the rules. The no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization provisions are expected to be toast, as is as the general conduct standard. If the FCC is not stopped, every website and Internet user could be vulnerable to the new gatekeeper powers gifted to Internet service providers like Comcast and AT&T.

In response, Fight for the Future, Demand Progress, Free Press and others have announced a nationwide protest on December 7th, with in-person demonstrations at Verizon stores, and an online campaign to drive calls and emails to Congress through the campaign – which has seen a huge explosion of traffic today following Pai's announcement. The day of action will take place one week before the vote, with a simple message: Tell Congress to stop the FCC's plan to end net neutrality.

The question I find myself asking is: How can Wikimedians and the broader Wikimedia community get involved in the fight to save net neutrality? We know there's major energy for saving the open Internet, and we could really need your help to direct it as productively as possible. We have a clear goal: convince Congress to stop the FCC. But it's going to take everything we've got to stop this before the 14th of December.

Thanks, and I look forward to hearing what you think and, specifically, how the Wikimedia community can help stop the FCC from destroying net neutrality.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2017

We are doing everything we can to make sure Wikipedia and her sister projects reach as many people as possible. This includes partnerships with ISPs to be included in all package levels. Additionally, we have incredible support from launching and running the zero rated Wikipedia Zero initiative from users. In many places where Wikipedia Zero operates Internet access is expensive, generally costing in PPP$ 50% of an equivalent US plan. (ITU 2015)

We are looking forward to bringing Wikipedia to more people in the coming years. Cheers, Dispenser (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Visual Editor on projectpages[edit]

Does someone know why the Visual Editor doesn't work on projectpages with prefixs, like this example. Livenws (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Because it is not enabled on Wikipedia namespace. Stryn (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

And is it possible to enable it? Livenws (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Technically yes, but it needs local community approval. We asked to enable it on the Finnish Wikipedia (see phab:T154678) but we discussed more about it and then decided not to enable it as project namespace has many pages meant for discussion (like village pumps), so VE is not working so well there. Stryn (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is Dutch considered a European language?[edit]

For some reason if you select languages and look for “Dutch” it's listed under “Europe 🌍”. In reality the only European country where Dutch is spoken is the Kingdom of Belgium, Dutch is also spoken in the Netherlands (transcontinental Europe, North America, and South America), Sint Maarten (North America), Aruba (disputed between North America and South America), Curaçao (disputed between North America and South America), and Suriname (South America), there also exists a minority of Dutch speakers (Belgophones?) in the country of France which is a part of every continent including Antarctica but excluding Asia. I have the same complaint about German which sure is mostly spoken in European countries (Austria, Germany, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein) but is also spoken in Africa (Namibia). One could make an argument that the majority of the Dutch speakers live in Europe but over 60% of all French speakers (Francophones) live in Africa but we don't list French as “an African language”, so why isn't Dutch among the “International” languages? I am talking about when you select “Switch languages” in an article and it then presents you with a list of languages organised by region. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 🔒) (My global unlock 🔓) 11:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Also note that Dutch is spoken in the sovereign micronation of Paraduin (more information on it here). --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 🔒) (My global unlock 🔓) 11:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I personally do not know to what merit was that categorisation made at all. For me when I try to find some language, and doing Translation and CN administration occasionally I experience selecting languages more than others, is much easier to follow an alphabetical list rather than guess where the heck is a language in question placed by someone. --Base (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  1. Dutch is listed under Europe AND America.
  2. Afrikaans has it's own entry as it is a recognised separate language, there are also separate entries for Frysk, Limburgish and Low Saxon etc etc.
  3. It's not as if you can't select a language if it is not within your current area (it's just a helping navigational hand).
  4. Suggestions for adding languages in continent sections can be filed in phabricator.
  5. The search entry knows about all languages and translations of language names.
  6. Perfection is the enemy of good
  7. Next to speakers, lets not forget about all the immigrants everywhere speaking every language in any and all country. But you have to draw a line somewhere.
TheDJ (talkcontribs) 12:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Note that for the particular language picker you are indicating, the results are filtered on there actually being a variant of the page in a the searched for language being available of course. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 12:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The premise of this discussion is incorrect. Our code currently considers Dutch a language for both continents Europe and America.[3] If you have additional data to provide, e.g. about the distribution of speakers across countries, please see mw:ULS/FAQ#language-territory on how to contribute to CLDR. Nemo 16:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the Media Viewer thing?[edit]

I just found out how to do this and happily followed instruction. Why was the tool being introduced? In my opinion, I cannot see the tool being helpful because,

  1. Originally, users would only need to click once and go through one page before they can view the image in their browser. Now they have to click two different buttons and go through two different pages
  2. The Media Viewer is time consuming and resource intensive to load on slow computer with slow connection thus making it really painful to use
  3. It seems to have some buttons on the side of it which are probably supposed to help users to complete different tasks quicker, but the shape of those icons does not really convey what those buttons supposed to do, and tips would only show up when you move the mouse over them so it is not helpful to those who would like to complete the task quickly, and as a result it would only increase the amount of time needed for users trying to complete their task.
  4. While it has a button that would allow users to enlarge the picture, it does not allow users to freely zoom into and out of the picture which would still require so many clicks for users to click into after layers of pages before they can be able to access detailed information in a large embedded image?

If the tool was indeed made to help people instead of forcing people to spend more time waiting for wikimedia server response to their request, could the viewer be improved regarding the above aspects? And could the viewer be globally disabled before these improvements were made? It seems like there was a survey on user satisfaction on the Media Viewer thing and there are more people who don't favor the tool than those who are for the tool, so wouldn't it make sense to first disable the tool?C933103 (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This issue has a long history. You can read more at Media_Viewer or mw:Reading/Multimedia/Media_Viewer or en:Wikipedia:Media_Viewer. Ruslik (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I see that consensuses have been made on numerous communities but seems like those consensuses did not result in changes in term of how the software would function. And apparently the reason being cited for this is that the media viewer would be an important part of the software that should not be disabled locally. But I thought the development of software for the use of wikis are supposed to cater users need rather than the other way around. C933103 (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Yet another newby question[edit]

To be honest, I don't know where else to post this question. My apologies (as a newby) if it's in the wrong place, but I've not been able to find a better one.

Based on my previous work experience in IT, organizational change management, communications, on-line community management, 'application portfolio management', 'Audience Analytics' and website design, my feeling is that I could perhaps contribute more to the movement in these areas than just by editing/translating individual 'content' pages. I could be completely wrong about this

I've posted some responses on relevant 'talk/discussion' pages. I understand the need to 'time-box' discussions on strategy, annual plans, projects, etc. As far as I can see there is no way that I can now contribute to 'time-boxed' discussions for which the 2017 deadlines have already passed. Most 'policy' or 'annual plan' pages that I've read don't have a discussion page. So as a newby, there doesn't seem to be an easy way of volunteering my contribution other than through 'content'. There are specific projects that I'm interested in contributing to, but many of these seem to have become inactive, abandoned or are focused on local geographies.

I'm happy to help out as best I can. I welcome any suggestions/comments as to how I can best use my experience and talents to support the movement. Either here or on my talk page. Mike (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Confirming users[edit]


I need to set up OAuth consumers for some bot accounts that I manage:

However when I log in as one of these accounts and try to propose a consumer, I receive the message:

   You do not have permission to propose new OAuth consumers, for the following reason:
   The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Autoconfirmed users, Confirmed users.

Is it possible for an administrator to confirm these users so that I can propose the OAuth consumers, please? Thanks. Smith609 (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The first four accounts are already autoconfirmed. The last two will be by 7 December. Ruslik (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Closed/Locked wiki[edit]

Is it just me or is it even harder for a closed/locked wiki to gain contributor than a wiki than a placed in incubator? As in, in incubator, at least every user can be able to help out and contribute freely, while it is not possible to do so in a closed/locked wiki where the user must be part of a special user group in order to do so? In this case it would make those project even harder to find new contributor and return to an open status. Is it possible to make some changes to how wiki are locked in order to foster the possibility that new contributors are recruited into those projects? C933103 (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Please, see Incubator:Incubator:Coordination_for_importing_closed_projects. Ruslik (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
@C933103: When wikis are actually closed and locked, by intention they are not to be rebuilt from scratch where they are. Assuming there is some content of value, that content is moved to Incubator. Then if the test project on Incubator becomes active enough and has enough content, it is reopened in place of the closed and locked project.
Understand, though, that it has been three years since a project has been closed (see PCP). I expect new project closures to be rare—almost nonexistent—in the future. There are reasons that there were more closures in the past, and why there will be fewer going forward.
  • Early in the history of Wikimedia, it was pretty easy to start projects, and a number of projects were started that never developed much content. (As somewhat of an analogy, of the approximately 1,000 tests currently in Incubator, 400 of those have fewer than 25 mainspace pages and no mainspace page creation since 1/1/2016.) It was felt better to have such projects developed at Incubator, where there was more oversight.
Current practice requires projects to reach a certain critical mass before they are moved to their own subdomains in the first place, making them much less likely to be tiny and neglected. Essentially, most projects currently that "tiny and neglected" are in Incubator, where they remain open.
  • In a related way, spambots riddled those small, sparsely edited projects with all kinds of junk. Project closures were intended in great measure to protect against that.
Currently, automatic protection against spambots is far more robust than it used to be, and that is backed up by the SWMT. So even wikis that are pretty small are no longer likely to need closure as protection against spambots and vandalism.
  • On the whole, the Language Committee's preference is to leave existing projects open, to make it easier to restore them to activity, for all the reasons you said above.
A possibility exists for a "soft closure"—see the recent Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Norwegian Wikinews 3. I expect that use of this outside Wikinews will be unusual; the reason to do something like this for Wikinews is that to have the front page of a news site have only old content is a bit embarrassing. But LangCom still prefers that to closure and locking.
To summarize, I really doubt there are closed and locked projects still out there with much content worth saving. If there are, let us know, and we will import that content to Incubator (or Old Wikisource or Beta Wikiversity), and the projects can be revived there. And at the same time, unless a currently existing project is subject to vandalism that cannot be prevented or reversed, you won't find many new project closures facing you. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @StevenJ81: What I mean is, for example, if a user was looking for wikiproject of a language in Incubator with some amount of activity, then the user typed for example Pu Xian Wikipedia or Manchu Wikipedia in search engines would get directed to the language opening proposal somewhere on the Google front page, which would have link to their incubator site that could allow users to contribute. However, if you search e.g. marshallese language wikipedia insearch engine, then the first most relevant result that come up after a few pages of english wikipedia articles, would be a link to the project closure/deletion proposal discussion. On these discussion pages, there are some links to the original wikipedia site, however there are no direct mention to readers about the existence of an incubator wiki in either those proposals or on the locked w:mh site itself either. There are passing mention in both discussions about how it could/would/had work in incubator, and there is also a non-human-readable link to list of all pages for its test project in incubator, however readers will no be able to get the information that "it is possible for us to contribute to the development of the language's wikiproject by going to the incubator" by just reading these pages.
  • (Conclusion and tldr:) As such, I think, there could at least have some form of global notice, homepage banner announcement, and such, to tell readers of the closed site the message that they can contribute to the wiki by going to the incubator. C933103 (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah. I take your point, C933103. The two closed sites themselves (mh: and wikt:mh:) both have links to their incubator projects in the notice at the top of the respective pages. But the PCP pages don't. So I will take the opportunity to fix those. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @C933103: Odd. I see them. Check each and every one of the following: mh:, wikt:mh:, b:ie:, b:ang:, q:tt:. I see notices on all. If you don't, check and make sure you haven't done something to suppress the display of banners, because I think these have been set up as banners to display on any page you open. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @StevenJ81: I can see the banner on wikt:mh:, b:ie:, b:ang:, and q:tt:, however I can't see the banner on mh: in my current setting on the browser I am using. Not sure why is that, that is not blocked by adblocker as indicated in the display and that is not affected by any personal setting as I did not log in to the wiki (indicated by existence of the login button on the top right hand corner in the screenshot), and I don't have any memory about seeing it or disabling it before. On the other hand, the notice come up just fine in Incognito mode of the browser, and also in some other devices I have. I have checked the page's source code when the notice does not display, and the notice somehow exists in the webpage sourcecode. [5]. Not sure what's wrong here. C933103 (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @C933103: I'm not sure, either. Truthfully, though, people do not hit these pages so very often, and I'm not inclined to spend a lot of time fussing to fix them. I'd recommend going to the page, bypassing your cache to see if that helps, and then in any event moving on. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Location of wikisource and wikimedia commons server.[edit]

Because of the United States non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term, it seems like currently content that are not PD in the US but PD elsewhere might be not suitable to be host on commons or wikisource, among other projects. Since the two projects are apparently affected by the rule most, it's probably a good idea to move them away from the US first? Or alternatively, a region with shorter length of copyright protection so that the rule would no longer matter. C933103 (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Am not sure that the rule of shorter term is so important to warrant moving any servers from USA. Ruslik (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
As an example, on English wikisource's homepage, the December featured content section, one of those featured text was actually hosted on a non-WMF wiki, explicitly due to the US copyright law. On Chinese wikisource, there are also instructions that recommend users to put content onto the non-WMF wiki instead of wikisource for content that are affected by the rule.C933103 (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
You should not forget that that there are a lot of content that can be hosted in USA but may not be hosted in other countries. Ruslik (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
What would be some examples of this type of content? And would it be technically possible to have server distributed in different countries and change document storage location according to needs? C933103 (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Recently, on Chinese Wikipedia Village Pump, someone noted a 80000-entries dictionary have become PD in China and rest of the Chinese speaking area, and suggestion have been made to integrate that into Wikiprojects. However that is not possible with the current US copyright law and that wikimedia server follow US law.C933103 (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


The new potential net neutrality rules could impact wikipedia badly, and so I ask, is the WMF going to do anything about it? Say add this code <script src="" async></script> to enwiki? 17:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It have already been discussed in sections above. C933103 (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Club metapage[edit]

Currently, I am working on Education Outreach and coordinating in a Project of Srilankan University. So they University have created a Wiki Club in their University. Can we create a Wiki Club Page in meta for future works and objectives along with updates? Mohammed Galib Hasan (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mohammed Galib Hasan: I reckon so, personally. That's what we've done with WikiClubWest. —Sam Wilson 05:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@Samwilson: thanks for your reply. Need any permission or any paperwork there? or just create it simply like other page. Mohammed Galib Hasan (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mohammed Galib Hasan: I don't think so. :-) Just create it, and link from where-ever else. Sam Wilson 23:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@Samwilson: Thanks. Cheers! Mohammed Galib Hasan (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Blocking tools consultation[edit]


The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team invites all Wikimedians to discuss new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools in December 2017 for development work in early 2018.

How you can help?

  1. Share your ideas on the discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.
  2. Spread the word that the consultation is happening; this is an important discussion for making decisions about improving the blocking tools.
  3. Help with translation.
  4. If you know of previous discussions about blocking tools that happened on your wiki, share the links.

We are looking forward to learning your ideas.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


New idea for new project. Please check Wikimuseum for more informations.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to invite those who are interested and have technical knowledge to help me in the prototype being created at: pt:Usuário:Felipe da Fonseca/museum.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
What is (going to be) the difference between WikiArt and your proposal? Klaas `Z4␟` V:  20:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


Good day!

I am abwiki administrator and want to change Russian version (Module:) "Модуль:" into Abkhazian "Амодуль:", like — Шаблон/Ашаблон. Please help me.--Surprizi (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Surprizi: Might be worth adding a request at Tech, and please do that with full wikilinks to the relevant templates and modules at each wiki. Without that clarity it is hard to understand exactly what it is that you want done. Most of us will not be familiar with the templates/modules to which you are referring.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Transition to the Babel extension[edit]

Hello! I want to share a Russian Wikipedia's experience of a transition to the Babel extension. We completely abandoned the usage of individual templates for languages that are included in ISO standard. What did we do to achieve this?

Iniquity (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Montenegrin[edit]

Does anyone know when Montenegrins will get their Wikipedia? Since Montenegro has received an international code for the Montenegrin language, so now Montenegrins are entitled to their Wikipedia. --Ookuninusi 21:45, 12 december 2017 (UTC)

I'll be honest: I have seen no source from outside Montenegro to confirm this. We act according to the official ISO 639 tables at SIL's website ( only, and until the code appears there, there can be no Montenegrin project. (And for what it's worth, the Montenegrin sources I saw seem to say that the advisory committee has recommended approval, not that a final approval has happened. New codes are usually approved in late January.)
Once this code has been approved, it will still be necessary for people to create and contribute to a Wikipedia test project on Incubator (at the presumed address incubator:Wp/cnr). Only once such a test project has been sufficiently developed can it be turned into a freestanding Wikipedia.
I think it would be provisionally acceptable to start the test now at Incubator. But if the code ends up not finally approved, then the test will be deleted. StevenJ81 (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Russian translation of the mission statement[edit]

I've compared the Russian translation of foundation:Mission statement foundation:Миссия (contributed by User:Cbrown1023 and User:Kaganer) to the original and found that it diverges significantly. The full text of both below with difference highlighted:

Mission statement.

The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.

In coordination with a network of individual volunteers and our independent movement organizations, including recognized Chapters, Thematic Organizations, User Groups, and Partners, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity.


Миссия Фонда Викимедиа заключается в расширении возможностей и привлечении людей со всего мира к сбору и развитию образовательных материалов (выдержанных в нейтральной точке зрения) под свободной лицензией или в общественном достоянии, а также в эффективном распространении их по всему миру.

В сотрудничестве с региональными организациями Викимедиа Фонд предоставляет инфраструктуру и организационные рамки, необходимые для поддержания и развития многоязычных вики-проектов и прочих начинаний, служащих этой миссии. Фонд сделает полезные материалы этих проектов свободно доступными в Интернете на безвозмездной основе и будет сохранять их такими в течение неограниченного срока.

So, the Russian text have two major differences: 1. There is an insertion of "(выдержанных в нейтральной точке зрения)" = "(content under a Neutral point of view)" in the first paragraph. 2. Instead of listing "a network of individual volunteers and our independent movement organizations, including recognized Chapters, Thematic Organizations, User Groups, and Partners," as entities to coordinate with Russian version lists only "Regional organizations of the Foundation" which probably corresponds to "recognized Chapters". Also there are some minor issue with wording (e.g. "organizational framework" could be translated as "организационные основы", not "рамки"). I propose to move the Russian translation closer to the original. --M5 (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

English source was updated in 2015-17. All translations is outdated. In my opinion, all translations should be removed from wmf:, and all links in the langbar should be leads to translated Mission page in Meta. --Kaganer (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Agree. By the way English text in foundation:Mission statement and Mission differ too. --M5 (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Changing the default skin[edit]

I noticed this new skin called "timeless" (preview). This looks a lot like wikiHow's and Wikia's skin, which looks so modern. Should we change the default skin to timeless so Wikimedia sites looks more modern? Ups and Downs () Check my status before pinging or posting to my talk page! 03:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

That is a huge proposal. What is the benefit of Timeless over Vector? —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't this be a huge change? Changing the current skin radically might scare away editors like what happened with Wikia. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 🔒) (My global unlock 🔓) 13:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Not very modern in my eyes. I don't say Vector is modern. Stryn (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment Timeless is still in development, so is not available to be the default skin for Mediawiki wikis. The timeless is a continuing development project for the first half of 2018 to see if it will work for all sites. To follow its development please search phabricator: for the project timeless. At this stage it has been made available for those who wish to trial it and provide feedback of its issues.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Please no. The worst thing is how Timeless randomly (and badly) restructures the page when using browser zoom +/-. There more, but I'll cite one bit that really jumps out. The red/blue/green bar is reminiscent of someone who gets their first free webhost page and they start throwing random colors/graphics/gimmicks across a page just because they can. On the plus side, I'm almost surprised that the Timeless skin manages not to throw random color-gradients anywhere. (One of the reasons I use Monobook skin is to get rid of the gradients in Vector.) Alsee (talk) 05:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Logo request[edit]

Could anybody please tell me whom do I have to address to get the Wikipedia logo done? Kind regards, --Katxis (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean? Logo already exist. Stryn (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
He needs to create a new logo for the new Lingua Franca Nova Wikipedia. I'll take care of him, Stryn. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The traditional process is to start by adding your translations on User:Cbrown1023/Logos. --Nemo 15:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Already done. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)