Wikimedia Forum

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to 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 most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Adding visual search for Wikipedia[edit]

Hi, here's a proposal I have for adding a visual search to Wikipedia: Use_visual_search_frontend_for_Wikipedia

I can move it into a different location as not really a "sister project". However, the proposal-for-new-projects page doesn't offer suggestions for alternative postings. -- Tom O'Hara (tomasohara) 26 Jun 18

  • @CKoerner (WMF): this looks like it should get a response from the WMF Discovery team. --Pine 05:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks Pine. While Discovery is no more (no active user-facing changes to search) there is still the search platform team (folk working on making the results more relevant). I'll let them know. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

How to know the importance of translation work[edit]

When people open the page of translation requirement, all works need to be done are listed. We can sort it by name of the message group, number of the messages, number of completed and needed updating. However, for some language such as Chinese, there is a lot of work to do. But I don't know to begin at where could make more contribution. Is there any way, to indicate which message is the most important or emergent one?--Sances tb (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

An aggregate group exists for the high priority translations, but I'm not sure translation admins are keeping it up to date. You could provide suggestions on what is most important for you and ask that the translation admins add it to the group.
Apart from time-sensitive requests (which are usually advertised on translators-l), the most important translations are generally those which are useful for many years ahead, mostly the global policies and the user manual (which should mostly be on by now). --Nemo 19:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Project-wide protests for the copyright directive[edit]

Some Wikimedia projects are discussing ways to raise awareness about the consequences of the copyright directive before July 5 (see also WMF Board Statement Opposing the EU Copyright Package, How the EU copyright proposal will hurt the web and Wikipedia). The German Wikipedia had already run a banner earlier.

Are there other ongoing discussions? Is some other project interested in reusing either the "neutral" discussion page target (EU policy/2018 European Parliament vote) or the call to action (EU policy/European Parliament vote in 2018)?

Note, I would expect the countries without freedom of panorama to be most interested, since the July 5th plenary is our last chance to get the Parliament to follow the lead of the Internal Market Committee and recommend EU-wide FOP. These countries/languages usually also have the MEPs who are most attached to traditional copyright models. --Nemo 19:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

See also EU policy/2018 European Parliament vote and translations in

--Atlasowa (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

--Atlasowa (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi, any ideas, on how can a non-EU language Wikipedia express support?--Abiyoyo (talk) 09:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Change the native word for the Gothic language from 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺 to 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺𐌰 𐍂𐌰𐌶𐌳𐌰[edit]

We have had a vote about this on the Gothic Wikipedia and nobody wants to maintain 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺, a majority wants this to be changed to 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺𐌰 𐍂𐌰𐌶𐌳𐌰:𐍈𐌹𐌻𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌰𐌼𐌼𐌰_𐍅𐌰𐌿𐍂𐌳𐌰_𐍃𐌺𐌿𐌻𐌳_𐌹𐍃𐍄_𐌱𐍂𐌿𐌺𐌾𐌰𐌽_𐍂𐌰𐌶𐌳𐌰𐌹_𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌰𐌽𐌴?_-_Which_word_should_be_used_for_the_language_of_the_Goths_on_Wikipedia?

Is it possible to change the native word for the language? As it can't be changed in Translatewiki it seems. Bokareis (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Probably belongs with a case to the language committee. No one here will have that knowledge, nor ability to change.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
@Bokareis: I think you have to create a bug report on Phabricator and ask them to update Names.php. I haven't touched this kind of stuff in ages, though, so I may have forgottn the nuances. If I remember correctly, you typically also need to make a change request to Unicode CLDR, except that doesn't seem to be necessary in the case of Gothic as its autonym isn't included in the CLDR database (compare Asturian). MF-Warburg, SPQRobin, Nemo_bis, or anyone else knowledgeable can correct me if I'm mistaken. PiRSquared17 (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Abuse report of Turkish wikipedia authorities - they banned me for my objection to content they are imposing with wrong sources and without explanation - I got banned for no reason.[edit]

We have a conflict on Turkish wikipedia. I objected to certian section, I said some parts are baseless and distortion and explained it on relevant talk page. I proposed some expansion and explained my proposal on talk page. 3 Turkish wikipedia patrols and 2 bureaucrats are refusing to amend the content without explaining anything why their version should be accepted or why my version should be rejected. For about 5 months I have been inviting them to discuss it. One of their patrol is cherry-picking sources, s/he uses a content from the source and when I propose expansion from the same source they prevent me and banned me twice on this issue. I asked them over and over again to point out the reason they banned me, no response. I asked them over and over again to explain why their version should be accepted while mine should be rejected, they even do not respond to the baseless content they added. All they do is to prevent me via their powers and to ban me. What can we do to supervise this event? --Ruhubelent (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: Several times I have asked them all to point out (if any) flaws, inaccuracies and mistakes in my arguements. They do not state any, I asked the bureaucrat to point out the action I got banned for, no response. They just prevent and ban me without defending their position. --Ruhubelent (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE2: On the middle of may, a bureaucrat invited the patrol who was on conflict with me to explain his stance. The patrol called me there "a troll user" to which in return I demanded a sanction, bureaucrats did not sanction that patrol in anyway and the same patrol called me troll twice when we contacted another bureaucrat. Something needs to be done with this authorities of Turkish wikipedia. --Ruhubelent (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE3: We had the same conflict on English wikipedia. S/he edit-warred me there without stating any reason for his case or without stating any reason against my case, after I reported her/him to Admin Noticeboard, s/he quitted edit-warring (or vandalizing should I say?). Things are different on Turkish wikipedia, the ones I can report him/her are ignoring everything and siding with him instead of supervising the event and as a result s/he can easily dictate his choice without stating anything. --Ruhubelent (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there no way to supervise this mob-ruling community known as Turkish wikipedia? They are inventing a content and publishing it on Wikipedia, insulting and banning me for opposing their those inventions. They are cherry-picking sources, they use a content from a source and prevent me from using content from the same source they use. Is there no way to supervise this mob-rule community?--Ruhubelent (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I propose to remove the meta administrators of User:Jusjih and User:Shizhao[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
As I have closed the same section on RFH, I think it's also sensible to close this thread as invalid. Jasonnn~zhwiki is hereby warned that further forum shopping may result in a block. — regards, Revi 05:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I propose to remove the meta administrators of User:Jusjih and User:Shizhao, Two of them speak chinese language, but they don't deal with chinese wikipedia Requests for comments, so what is the point of having two of them as meta administrators?

And the whole story is here. [2][3]--Jasonnn~zhwiki (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not a responsibility of meta administrators to deal with any requests of comments. Ruslik (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I replied at Requests for comment/Chinese Wikipedia Administrators and Bureaucrats massive abuse.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment @Jasonnn~zhwiki: Propose what you like, the criteria for adminship is at Meta:Administrators and that will be the criteria that we use to assess their performance, and for the requisite work that local admins do. There is no requirement for administrators to close global RFC, and in fact the closure of RFC has always been considered a shared community responsibility from a non-partisan participant.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • There are a too many admin tasks that can be done other than replying to requests or discussions.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 21:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep administrators are not required to participate in any rfc they do not want to participate in. Both of these admins have recent productive use of administrator tools here. — xaosflux Talk 13:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


As CSM is critically endangered can we just use English as the localization as it has shifted to the language of most Miwok people?Baymiwuk (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I do know we have words for "name" and "search" we can use those as we try to translate the namespace over time.Baymiwuk (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
For now try to localize in CSM as you can. Users can always set "English" as the interface language if they choose to. However, as much as possible we'd like the interface available in CSM in case people want that. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Global preferences are available[edit]

19:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Cookies added to ip blocks[edit]

The Anti-Harassment Tools team expanded cookie blocking to IP blocks and this week it will be deployed on all wiki after successful testing on Italian Wikipedia. (phab:T152462) SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Will this be implemented from the coming Monday? --Muzammil (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

strictest wikipedia ever[edit]

hey do you know the wikipedia with the strictest rules is? 2607:FB90:5CAC:A5C0:3CE0:9855:1819:1EA9 22:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


WikiMiniAtlas has not been showing wikilinks for quite some time now. I've contacted user:Dschwen about this issue several times, but I've gotten no response. There was also a GitHub case for this issue, but it was never closed. Anything we can do? --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Block-evading users should not be treated as globally banned[edit]

Yesterday I reprimanded a user (denote by U1) for posting “you are not welcome to edit on any WMF project” on the user_talk of some IP sock (not on Meta, another wiki). I pointed that no known global ban exists for the master of this IP, that a person having some globally locked accounts does not become banned from all Wikimedia space, and that any established user is encouraged to request a community ban for a user indef-blocked in two wikis. This resulted in attacks against myself from U1 and also another U2 (the latter insulted me mainly on IRC). May I insist that “you are not welcome to edit on any WMF project” is inappropriate on a user_talk unless for globally banned sockmasters? How should I demand the community intervention against retaliatory slander by U1 and U2? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Unless you specify who are those U1 and U2 it is difficult to answer your question. Ruslik (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with that statement Ruslik0. The complaint/question was about the process and application of the policy, not the individuals behind it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Comment Comment I don't know what you said or how you said it, so it is hard to comment on how individuals respond. To your claims of abuse, this is generally handled at a local level, rather than relating to the topic matter of the abuse. If you feel that the responses from individuals are outside of the community norms of behaviour then I would suggest that you follow-up on the relevant wiki where it occurred. If a user has abused you on IRC, then the IRC process should be followed. Abuse and slander are unacceptable.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Where to translate these contents on donate wiki?[edit]

I can't believe that these messages are having benefits to keep English only, so please tell me where to setup its translations, thx. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Foundationwiki is run by WMF staff, so best to talk to them. @Khorn (WMF): can you or one of your team assist on this suggestion?  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)