Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2009-11

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in November 2009, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Importing data from other applications

Does anyone know whether there is currently way to import data (such as a table) from another program (ie: MS Word, Excel, etc) so that they can be inserted into a Wiki page without manually reformatting them??? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 14 July 2009.

Did you check the metawiki table help? I don' have the link handy, but there is a section there for conversion. Not sure about the having to reformat it to wiki afterwards or not though. I have never tried importing a table. 21:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia wasting money?

Read this. --Kozuch 11:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

My interpretation of the FAQ was that more is to come. It sounds like an overhaul of more than the bare interface is part of the change. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
No matter what the goal is, the results are rather poor, and that is a fact.--Kozuch 11:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think the goal does matter – they're not finished. Let's hold of the complaints till after the update is completed. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I agree with Diss. After all, the goal is the intended results, and you cannot judge based on any results in the mean time, that might (and more than likely are different than their intended results. If they get finished, and you are still unimpressed, then that would be the time to say something. That is like trying to eat a cake someone is making while they are still mixing the ingredients and judging it then, instead of waiting until they are done baking it. 21:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Section 2

The section two text is here.

I hope I understood You well, what You meant.
Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 11:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia forever

It is just embarassing that the fundraising banner says "Wikipedia" instead of "Wikimedia"... I am just stunned how this could pass through.--Kozuch 15:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That was an oversight, and will be fixed in the future. More information is available at Talk:Fundraising_2009/Alternative_banners#An_update_on_the_fundraiser for example.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

New RC patrolling concept

Hello, is there any needs to add the site in JackPotte 15:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Wikis requiring configuration changes will make their own requests.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


Not sure if this is the right place; is the Wikipedia Twitter account (and the associated @Wikimedia account) a real account? If so, who runs it, and if not, perhaps we should force it over? Microchip08 sewb 15:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes this is a offical account, don't know who runs it do. Huib talk 15:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The staff collectively run it.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary Hover: a JavaScript on double-click

Wikinews proposes a script to display the Wiktionary definition in a small board, when one double-click on a word. It's already been installed in the following Wiktionairies gadgets: in French and in Italian. The interface of the board depends on the user's language preferences.

To add it here, we should vote for an administrator, in:

  1. MediaWiki:Gadget-dictionaryLookupHover.js, copies without the guillemets : "importScriptURI('');"
  2. MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition, adds "* dictionaryLookupHover|dictionaryLookupHover.js"
  3. MediaWiki:Gadget-dictionaryLookupHover, describes the gadget. JackPotte 15:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I added the first one but I cant add it to the definitions until I have a description, please give a good description on the talkpage for the mediawiki page :) Huib talk 19:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Huib! The en.Wikinews description of the gadget is:
Wiktionary Hover: Double click a word, and get the definition in a tooltip. (click anywhere else on screen to get rid of it). [ More info ]
The gadget retrieves the top definition in the source language from the English Wiktionary (or the user's preference language wiktionary if the user is logged in and a translation of the gadget has been installed in their language wiktionary) and displays it in a floating box. You can try it out by going to fr.Wikinews and double-clicking on any word (fr.Wikinews has it enabled in common.js, giving anonymous IPs the advantage of the tool.)
Please see commons:MediaWiki:Gadget-dictionaryLookupHover, Regards, Otourly 22:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

But I think we should create a page on meta. Otourly 22:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A stub there: Wiktionary/Look Up tool. Otourly 00:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

A kinder, friendlier Meta

Every so often, new topic-specific wikis about meta subjects are created -- such as the advisory board wiki and the quality wiki. The wiki founders don't feel comfortable working on Meta, for whatever reason; and, most of the time, the topic-specific wikis flourish for a brief while before fading into disuse.

I'd like to see if we can address the initial problems that inspire people to launch new sites. Is it that Meta isn't seen as a safe place for newbies to work? Are we too troll-friendly? Is it because there is no culture of portals here? What can we do to make it easier for new projects to make their home here, and integrate themselves into the site? Sj+ translate 14:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Good to bring this up. To create a brand new wiki when a portal will do just fine make little sense to me. The meta community is already spread so thin. Regards, Guido den Broeder 17:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
This is, of course, a question for the staff creating the wikis. I'd be happy to hear their answers. In particular, why Wikibooks isn't being used for textbooks and other similar learning materials.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
At Wikimedia's strategic planning project, I've argued that meta should get a more important central role. I think meta doesn't live up to its true potential. Meta could be used as the means to communicate between local communities in so many extra ways. This post made me aware that there was a deliberate choice to make the strategic planning project itself independent. I wonder why. Woudloper 07:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. By moving all these projects to independent wikis, we hamper Meta's mission - which, I think, is an important one. Fragmenting the community concerned with meta issues is a bad idea, no matter how attractive a fresh wiki may be.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
For those of you interested, I proposed a couple of ideas to make meta better live up to its potential role at the strategy project. The thread (in a Q/A section) can be found here. Woudloper 05:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree, Sj, I always wondered why there are so many separate Wikimania wikis, one for each year too. I suppose the work could be done here, with subpages possibly providing the basis for the many independent articles in those individual wikis. -- Mentifisto 09:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Three thoughts:
1. Multiple wikis makes searching for documents harder as you do not always know which wiki they reside on.
2. There is the setup effort of creating templates, userrighst, etc with each new wiki that could be avoided on Meta.
3. Meta could set up specific namespaces for each project Wikimania2009:, etc to maintain the appearance of independence with the functionality of a single wiki.
MBisanz talk 08:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)