Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2018-09

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 on 01 September 2018, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Revision of a protected page

Hi. Might someone correct MediaWiki:Centralnotice-Genericmaintenancenotice-message/ro?

Please replace
"Revizia tehnica va incepe in scurt timp. Probleme temporare pot aparea care vor fi rezolvate in cel mai scurt timp."
with
"O revizie tehnică va începe în scurt timp. În cursul ei pot apărea probleme temporare, care vor fi rezolvate cât mai repede."
--Mihai P. (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I forgot MediaWiki:Centralnotice-April2017MaintenanceNotice-maintenance2/ro, which also contains bad Romanian. The text should read: "În acest timp, s-ar putea să nu funcționeze salvarea modificărilor." --Mihai P. (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Symbol wait.svg Doing...xaosflux Talk 14:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Mihai P., your edits have been entered. — xaosflux Talk 15:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux Talk 15:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Read-only mode for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October

13:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Google sources/references

Hi, Alexis Jazz sugggested I might take a look and put my question forward here:

Here's what striked me yesterday: a Dutch wikipedian reverted this reference commenting: geen valse informatie geven Lotje, Google Books is niet je vriend, meaning: Do not give false information, Lotje, Google Books is not your friend.
I do not understand the meaning of this and would very much appreciate some help and/or assistance. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I've already undone that.. I suspect "Pleisters op de ogen, pleister op de mond" is an old pre-release title because both book covers only show "Pleisters op de ogen". Alexis Jazz (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Special:Block - Ideas for new way to set and log blocks

Hello all,

If you’re interested in changes to how Special:Block works, then see the discussion about Partial blocks. Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

  • The third set of designs for a new layout of Special:Block are also available for review and comment.

Please spread the word to others (especially administrators) who might be interested in helping re-design Special:Block's layout. Cheers, For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Commons will soon stop accepting some GFDL-only media

c:Commons:Village pump/Proposals#No longer allow GFDL for some new uploads (permanent link)

In short: effective 15 October, Commons will stop accepting GFDL-only licensed photos, paintings, drawings, audio and video. Textbooks, manuals and software logos, diagrams and screenshots extracted from a GFDL software manual are still ok.

What needs to be done?

  • Inform any users you know who still upload GFDL-only licensed media.
  • Update bots, scripts and templates for moving media to Commons.
  • Possibly update some upload forms.
  • Update the following pages:
    • w:en:Wikipedia:Image use policy "All user-created images must be licensed under a free license, such as the GFDL and/or an acceptable Creative Commons license,"
    • w:en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions "For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under the GFDL, an acceptable Creative Commons license,"
    • Same page: "Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{GFDL-self}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page."
    • w:en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset#Resources "The draconian terms and conditions don't seem to prevent GFDL licensing of research by Wikipedia editors," (should have probably been updated anyway)
    • w:en:Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline "Adding this information is no guarantee that the media file will not be later removed, but it will demonstrate a use rationale to others that you may have a valid justification for including fair use materials that can be used under the GFDL." This sentence confuses me.

And pages on other projects and anything else I've forgotten. Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it would be a good idea to create a bot to notify any users who have ever uploaded a GFDL file to see if they would be willing to relicense, if they can? --Izno (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@Izno: most users made that choice consciously, using it as a CC BY-NC backdoor. Users who used GFDL-only a long time ago have often been automatically migrated. So I don't know if many users will relicense upon request, but if someone wants to create a bot to notify them I'll support that. All the existing stuff is grandfathered, so we won't be losing anything. Alexis Jazz (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. --Izno (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz, these Wikipedia pages can only be changed via discussion/consensus on Wikipedia, not by anyone discussing here on Meta. So I suggest you post the above list of "things that need to change" onto the Wikipedia discussion, and also a link-note on the talk pages of the relevant policy/guideline/help. It seems that Wikipedia is probably about 10-years stale in some of its image documentation, probably because Commons has taken over that job. -- Colin (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Colin: I had already linked this on w:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Commons will soon stop accepting some GFDL-only media and w:Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Commons will soon stop accepting some GFDL-only media. Even if enwiki would continue to accept things like GFDL-only photos, the image documentation will need to be updated to advise users that soon GFDL-only images won't be moved to Commons. I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia customs and policies so I'd rather not start proposals for these changes myself. Alexis Jazz (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: This is a discussion that must be opened on each and every project using media from Commons. Quite frankly I doubt there be any consensus in favor of Commons' decision. — Jeblad 18:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Jeblad, do you have any evidence for your doubt? Such as a huge number of photographs taken and recently uploaded by a large number of photographers with only GDFL as the licence? I would be interested to know. When this was last debated years ago, most of the opposition was by people who did not actually understand what was proposed or who took a dogmatic view on what was a "free licence". Even the author of the Freedom Defined that underlies all of Wiki said that GDFL was a stupid licence for images and supported it being disallowed. Commons and Wikipedia have always rejected "partially free" images (such as -NC and -ND clauses of CC) even though if they permitted them, there would be hugely more images available for Wikipedia. This is just more of the same, but even less of an issue. Remember that Wikipedia is a "free content project", not merely a "free to read encyclopaedia". It's purpose is not only to be a great read, but also a great resource of images and text that are freely reusable. GFDL is great for software manuals and GPL is great for software programs, but neither are appropriate at all for photographs, and similar media. We want our photographs to be usable on a magazine cover or illustrate a television program, and that goes as much for Wikipedia as for Commons. The only people I've ever found to be using GFDL-only (and all but one of them retired years ago) were Wikipedians who wanted to illustrate articles, but did not want anyone else using their photos. Outside of Wiki, no sane person even considers GFDL for photos. I suggest you read the GFDL and GPL licence texts and when you read that they actually licence "text" or "executable programs" then you may wonder if they are even valid legal documents for images or sounds. -- Colin (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
This is only opinion, no argument. — Jeblad 11:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Jeblad: Colin is right. Please do not troll. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
This is opinion, not an argument, thus it makes no sense to ask for a reply. This "The only people I've ever found to be using GFDL-only (and all but one of them retired years ago) were Wikipedians who wanted to illustrate articles, but did not want anyone else using their photos. Outside of Wiki, no sane person even considers GFDL for photos." is although a general statement insinuating bad faith from other users, and it should be substantiated with evidence. As a general statement it makes no sense, it is an unsupported claim. — Jeblad 14:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there any requirement that projects start rejecting GFDL images just because Commons does? It is a really good idea that projects be consistent with Commons, but it's up to the English Wikipedia, not Commons, whether the English Wikipedia will continue to accept GFDL images. --B (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@B: correct, but image documentation should be updated anyway to inform users about this. And any (outdated) examples using {{GFDL-self}} should be updated because it hasn't reflected any common practice for years. Alexis Jazz (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Icons in search bar

Hello, when I search for Wikipedia portals in the mobile page, all icons appear empty. I tried to add an image to the Wikidata item, but it didn't work. I checked the icon for Paris, and it appears to be the first image in the page. Is there any proposal to change the icon from the Wikidata item or some other customizable image? --159.153.60.73 21:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The GFDL license on Commons

18:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Confusing or spoofed usernames

A while ago I tried to create an account but the following warning (I've replaced the username with asterisks) showed:

The username "******" is not allowed to prevent confusing or spoofed usernames: Contains incompatible mixed scripts. Please choose another username.

I guess this is a measure to avoid people creating usernames very similar or visually exact to others existing by mixing scripts, for example, from Latin and Cyrillic where some letters look exactly the same while their coding is different. If this is the case, I think it's a great idea but I do not think it is a good idea to be indiscriminate. My user name looked more like սկալդροήప్రవాహము or скальд流量дवाहने (shorter and more elegant, though) which contain no visual trickery to impersonate anybody. I think the ban should just be limited to mixings of scripts which share identically- or closely-looking characters. After all, with further checking I've just found you allow numbers in the mix and, when using them, one gets more specific and sensible warnings such as:

The username "M4rk05" is too similar to the following usernames:

M4rko5
M4rkos
MARKOS
MaRkOs
MarKos

Please choose another username.

which I think it is probably good enough. The first system mentioned is just a pain when one has found just the perfect name (in their own opinion, of course). Thanks for your time. Regards. --37.11.123.82 22:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I see. --37.11.123.195 08:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Does your wiki want to be an early test wiki for the new partial block feature?

Hello all;

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is nearly ready to release the first feature set of partial blocks — the ability to block a user from ≤10 pages — on the beta environment then test.wikipedia by mid-October. Before partial blocks is widely deployed some early opt-in wikis will test the functionality, please let me know if your wiki would be interested in using the first version which gives you a great opportunity to decide the future of this feature!

In other news, due to technical complexity, multiple blocks (phab:T194697) is de-prioritize and remove it from this project. Our first focus will be to make sure page, namespace, and upload blocking work as expected and actually produce meaningful impact. The documentation for multi-blocks can still be seen here. And the archived talk page discussions about this can be found here. I'll share the changes to the designs when they are updated. SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@SPoore (WMF): are namespace blocks already possible with this? Alexis Jazz (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Namespace blocks will be in the first version. Our order of development for the first version is up to 10 pages, namespace, file upload by the end of Oct. 2018. And in November 2018, block a user from creating any new page, Special:Block and Special:Blocklist will be redesigned to accommodate showing more details needed for partial blocks. SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Meta is always a testing ground. Ruslik (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Good thought. SPoore (WMF) (talk) , Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think many use-cases for such partial blocks exist here on meta. I am not against enabling this feature here, but I fear not much feedback can be expected with regards to the new block possibilities. --Vogone (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree.
I agree, Vogone. The main benefit would be exposing more people to the new Special:Block design and features. SPoore (WMF) , Trust and Safety Specialist, Community health initiative (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Automatic new user welcomes

need to be killed with FIRE across Wikimedia projects. SUL causes spurious “account creations” on other wikis (for example due to editing Wikidata items), and then i receive a message that “someone left a message on my talk page” on some foreign Wikipedia such as Arabic or Bihari or French or Gujarati or Low German. Since in many cases i can't even read the script, i'm not able to tell whether these are actual welcomes or cases of vandalism (fortunately, Template:Delete means the same thing in every language across the known universe). At the very minimum, welcoming should be reduced to users who have actually edited (NOT including “edits” of interlanguage links generated by Wikidata that show up in the global edit count but not in local contributions). Nowak Kowalski (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nowak Kowalski: this is generally a local implementation after a local decision, so would need to be stopped at a local level after getting a local consensus at the respective wikis.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
phab:T21161 describes most of this and if implemented would likely avoid this issue. — xaosflux Talk 11:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

"need to be killed with FIRE across Wikimedia projects." I concur, not only that, need to be 'kill' across mission impossibly target-'banned' power user. It seemed just add gas to the fire! --"Go isn't everything; go is the only thing - zhege" 13:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)