Wikimedia Forum

← Discussion pages

Wikimedia Forums

Archives →

<translate> The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions, announcements and other discussions about the [[<tvar|wmf>Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation</>|Wikimedia Foundation]] and its projects. (For discussion about the Meta wiki, see [[<tvar|meta-babel>Special:MyLanguage/Meta:Babel</>|Meta:Babel]].)
This is not the place to make technical queries regarding the [[<tvar|mediawiki>Special:MyLanguage/MediaWiki</>|MediaWiki software]]; please ask such questions at the [[<tvar|mw-support-desk>mw:Project:Support desk</>|MediaWiki support desk]]; technical questions about Wikimedia wikis, however, can be placed on [[<tvar|tech>Special:MyLanguage/Tech</>|Tech]] page.</translate>

<translate> You can reply to a topic by clicking the "<tvar|editsection>[edit]</>" link beside that section, or you can [<tvar|newsection>//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Forum&action=edit&section=new</> start a new discussion].</translate>

You can reply to a topic by clicking the "⧼editsection-brackets⧽" link beside that section, or start a new discussion.

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

• About Meta
• Discussion pages
• Request pages
• Policies and guidelines
• Information and statistics
• Categories
• Help pages
• Meta-Wiki discussion page

This page experimentally allows language localisation.

Please solve ca.wikipedia.org scandal

In red, hatred Catalonian nationalism that bans spanish flags on ca.wikipedia.org

Catalan speakers in ca.wikipedia.org that know the Kingdom of Spain and its State exists, of course. But they are censored.

Please solve future ca.wikipedia.org scandal, where a few extreme nationalists are shamefully banning Spanish flag, substituting by the local flag in the region of Catalonia. So, hilarious situations arise as replacing the flag of Spain by the local flag of Catalunya region, suggesting that the Kingdom of Spain did not exist at the 1888 Barcelona International Exposition or that lie: Spain did not participate in the Olympic Games of 1992, also censoring Spanish Olympic Committee to shamefully ban the Spanish flag in that list. Examples:

• http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposici%C3%B3_Universal_de_Barcelona_(1888) "Preceeded by Flag:Australia - Flag:Sovereign Catalonian State Succeeded by Flaf:France"
  
• http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jocs_Ol%C3%ADmpics Olympic Games hosts: 1988 Seoul (Korean State Flag) 1992 (Catalonian local region Flag) 1996 Atlanta (USA Flag)
• Hilarious: Barcelona is not in Spain, ¿who says it, FIFA?¿?. WTF is this Flag wars? http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selecci%C3%B3_de_futbol_d'Espanya
• shameful: F.C. Barcelona player, Carles Puyol, played with Spain in year 2000, then he goes out of Spain and from 2001 to 2013 plays in "Sovereign-State-of-Catalonia-FIFA-recognized-Sovereign-Football-National-Team" hahahaha... http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carles_Puyol_i_Saforcada WTF?¿?
• Hilarious situation in F.C. Barcelona: some SPANISH football players are from Spain, some NOT. https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.C._Barcelona This is a honest encyclopedia or a website of jokes?
• Sad: The region to which we, its population (the Catalan speakers of this region too) have called "Comunitat Valenciana" (Valencian Community) by the Spanish Constitution and the region Statute of Autonomy. They call it "País Valenciá" (Valencian State or Valencian Country) because they please, putting some links to blogs and biased unknown institutes: http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pa%C3%ADs_Valenci%C3%A0
• Frustrating: If someone decides to change "Països Catalans" (or Catalan States or Catalan Countries -imaginary countries-) for "Spain" (Spain), in a list of football club tournaments throughout the Spanish territory (Zaragoza B, Orihuela, etc), suddenly appears a robot that automatically reverses any issue contrary to nationalism. hahaha Try it! diff: http://ca.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organitzaci%C3%B3_del_futbol_a_Catalunya&diff=11883735&oldid=11883734

It's normal, extreme nationalism is excited using Wikipedia to invent history, that also goes to the extreme right or the extreme left -Why these people do not use their own wiki to invent their own stories they invented?-, but there is something a person can not to invent: the history. Like it or not, the history takes us we can not invent.
I (and the historians) hope you fix solution to this scandal, as this shameful ban of Spanish flags, as well as being full of hatred, goes against all historical encyclopedic accuracy, and goes against what Spanish and American municipalities, institutions, organizations and schools want to give to their children. Spain exists in 1888, in 1992, and Today, and either wikipedia will not change history under dark interests. Sorry for my bad english. But donations have to work with us, not against us. Regards. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.141.161.13 (talk)

FWIW, ca:Usuari_Discussió:Arnaugir#Hola got me this response. Feel free to discuss the issues, but don't try to make this more scandalous than it needs to be. Thanks. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

OMGWTFLOL, Hola, When some few people are banning you to label your business in a language other than Catalan, Spanish is prohibited, or when your kids will teaching the beautiful catalan language, english, french, or Korean (hahah. ..), but banning the Spanish due full of hatred laws, is a scandal, but that it is political and has nothing to see here.

But when my children see in the encyclopedia that Spain did not exist in 1888 or 1992 because some nationalist put the catalan flag of Spain on ca.wikipedia.org instead the spanish one because is prohibited, so that IS a scandal. Tomorrow your children can read that the Olympic Games were hosted in the "Independent State of Zoltan Catalan Galaxy", but, (sorry) in 1888 and in 1992 (and today), Spain DOES exist. I apologize for my vocation as a historian, but (...sorry) history is written.

About the fact that people laugh or attacks the fact of using anonymous IP: when you live surrounded by hate and violence that makes some few nationalist change history encyclopedias ("goebbels Style", op, op), I don't give a "bledo". Catalonia is my land, but I am also Spanish. of course. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.141.161.13 (talk)

Did you already try to ask people on the Catalan Wikipedia about it? I see that all the other flags on the Olympics article are of independent countries, and that the flag of Catalonia seems like it was added out of national pride (which has its place, but not in an encyclopedia). And other Wikipedias have the Spanish flag there. I've linked this discussion to a Catalan user who seems to have been involved in this. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

For many articles is recommended not to change it, or to reach a consensus, especially where the Catalan flag expresses 1.-Representation of the Autonomous Community of Catalonia and 2.-Feeling or nationality (not sovereign State), but for others the veracity, and encyclopaedic rigor, is above (sorry). Especially if you have to replace all Spanish flags unfairly deleted again (hard work), and Spain in history has many events which marked a milestone in the history (kingdoms, republics, etc.) i.e: ¿Do I have to reach a Consensus to say that Spanish Olympic Comitée, and Spanish State exists? LOL — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.141.161.13 (talk)

Reported to the local Village Pump. --Vriullop (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Link. PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

of little use.

If the fact of the existence of Spain in the 1992 Olympics, or the 1888 Expo, or any other ca.wikipedia.org article, I have to discuss it with 5 or 6 nationalist people (sigh), do not think it is fixed. Denying the existence of Spain is not encyclopedic accuracy, especially on articles such as Olympic games, or at the Expo 1888. Sorry. Spain exists ¿Why I'm discussing this fact? OMGWTFLOL...

Spain exists on cawiki. I can't see any scandal. I dislike the consensus about flags (I dislike nationalism too) but it was approved many years ago on ca:Viquipèdia:Presa de decisions/2009/Qüestió de banderes. All users can invoke a new concensus if they believe it is necessary. sorry for my poor English Coet (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that the IP's point is that Wikipedia consensus can't change facts. The table on the Olympics article has a list of countries/nations, and one of them doesn't fit in. I think this discussion should happen on cawiki unless outside intervention is needed. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"Consensus can not change facts" THANKS A LOT, PiRSquared17 that's the phrase!!!

• Is there the article "Spain" on ca.wikipedia.org? yes. (it's difficult to erase for them)
• Is there an extermination of Spanish flags on other articles? yes.
• Do they put the local flag of Catalonia region with other official State Flags like Greece or U.S.A, or in place of other official State flags like Australia or France? YES

It's normal (and logical) a lot of nationalists in this wikipedia. What is not normal is they want to change history to deny and eliminate the existence of soberane state of Spain (and his flag) at international events, political, sports, etc. ¿why I am discussing this? Spain is a FACT

@PiRSquared17 : Mr.Ip doesn't point anything else that: Ca.wiki it's is full of Nazis, the percent of votes of a party in one elections is "Catalonian nationalism that bans spanish flags". At ca.wiki village pump an user pointed and start an argument about this ... it's flamed by our friend: Those are the mr.ip facts. --Mafoso (talk) 06:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

When rour kids read "Spain does not exist" in ca.wikipedia.org keep calm and relax. Reach an agreement and make elections to decide if Spain exists, or if it was all a matrix, Neo. Be happy to see how a few destroy the historical legacy, cultural and sports of a sovereign state, because they mistake language with nationalism

yeah, yeah, maybe I try to make this more scandalous than it needs to be (or not) and I am not the typical wikipedia super-maximum-1000buttons-powered-editor with a million of editions (very respectable, of course) .......but... except for a few articles very obvious as to be deleted (like "Spain" or "Spanish National Football Team" -WAIT...F.C.BARCELONA IS NOT IN SPAIN?¿? wtf...), in others as Olympics or expo 1888 they demonstrate the censorship of anything having to do with Spain, its flag, and its history. Please keep calm and be encyclopedic: ¡¡¡SPAIN EXISTS!!! THIS IS THE "IP FACT". a regar.

This might be a silly view, but from an outsiders' perspective, I think you lost your case when you started writing things in bold and using A LOT OF CAPS, EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!! and OMGLOLS. Calm down, please. Just sayin'. odder (talk) 09:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Calm down?? to what?? to wait to see how my kids grow and in the future is mounted a war because they read that "Spain did not exist in 1992 Olympics or Expo 1888", because the nationalists who seek to control ca.wikipedia.org with permission from wikimedia are making a ethnic and cultural cleansing on their "property"?

Imagine, just imagine that I do a nationalist partnership in wikimedia and I write that United Kingdom is a small province of Spain do you want the kids read this? Maybe parents not.

So all this is about flags? Flags are domination devices, they don't belong to an encyclopedia. My suggestion is to banish them and carry on without useless disputes on which flags to stick on the ground. --Nemo 10:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I like the local flag of the Catalan region, i love it. it's beautiful. To ban ALL flags is not the solution. But I refuse to have to prove that exists Spain, because in ca.wikipedia.org is almost prohibited and I have to do that every time I want to change a local or regional flag that has expelled the Spanish one representing a state in an international context (in the best case, in others they also block articles so you can not put the banned and highly prohibited flag of Spain) but...

...The flags are just only the most colorful and visible face of this prohibition. This is not only the flags. What about culture? Historical facts? Biased? (NO. worst. Invented) Fiction States (Països Catalans, Catalonia sovereign state, etc ...) yes, cultural lands of language, but that appears on articles such as official sovereign states? This is Kafkaesque...

For the Wikimedia contributors that care, the topic of flag icons is being discussed again at ca:Viquipèdia:La_taverna/Propostes#Proposta_sobre_el_consens_existent. If you feel like landing there to paste another rant, please don't. Yes there are different opinions and levels of passion around these little colored rectangles in articles. Seasoned editors will have seen many of these heated discussions in their own projects, about various topics. Please stay calm and keep editing, or discussing with respect and constructive arguments. Do you think the Viquipèdia community can find a good solution? I do, of course.--QuimGil (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

hahaha, you mean "catalan contributors..." I say: For the rest of Wikimedia contributors that care, Catalonia is not an State, is a little region of Spain (official name: so stop of say those pack of lies. Spain was in Olympic Games, and Expo 1888 was in Spain, (not in "sovereign State of Catalonia" hahaha...) CONSENSUS CAN NOT CHANGE FACTS, I reported that the Catalan language is not unique to Catalonia, or 20% of its inhabitants nationalists, should be ashamed that attitude. Any historian will tell you that Spain exists, and not those lies nationalists who appear in a Wikimedia webpage hijacked by political interests (again, nationalism is 20% of the population of a small part of the land where the Catalan language is spoken). Please be encyclopedic, and stop Invent fictitious states to censor data that is a FACT.

FACT (do you see the "sovereign state of Catalonia" 0r "Zoltan independent galaxy State" here?¿?):

Spain, officially the Kingdom of Spain,is a sovereign state and a member of the European Union . It is located on the Iberian Peninsula in southwestern Europe. Its mainland is bordered to the south and east by the Mediterranean Sea except for a small land boundary with Gibraltar; to the north and north east by France, Andorra, and the Bay of Biscay; and to the west and northwest by Portugal and the Atlantic Ocean. Spain's border with Portugal (1,214 km long) is the longest uninterrupted border within the European Union.

Shameful. Spain exists. Be enciclopedic.

FACT (do you see the "sovereign state of Catalonia" 0r "Zoltan independent galaxy State" here?¿?):

¿Can you see the difference? historians and children can, a webpage of Wikimedia can't:

Autonomous communities (regions) of sovereign state of Spain)

States of Europe (that is a continent)

Tomania, Bacteria, Middle-earth are fictional States, as everybody knows.

¿Why I am discussing this FACT? Spain was in Olympics. Cawiki, Don't be a group of liars. "Consensus" of lies are not enciclopedic. Be enciclopedic, please. Thank you.

---

• As a french contributor, I thinck that some spanish extremists should/must stop their interfrences into wiki-catalan. Look at french sections [1]. At Bretons wiki there is also no french flag [2] , at corsian wiki there is also no french flag. At berber-kabyle wiki there also no arabic flag, the same for wiki-kurdish, wiki-scotish, wiki-tibetan... So spanish extremits must stop their interraction with wiki-catalan. Spanians must let catalans to work freely and without any oppretion! --Alsace38 (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia contributor, I think that some few nationalists should stop having kidnapped cawiki. in that web, edit articles where the flag of Spain is censored is prohibited. Censorship itself is extremist. And your comment it seems that you defend them. In your example the article "Alsace", the flag of France does appear, do not lie, please.

I do not know what the hell you're talking about "oppression", the "oppression" that I see is that in many historical articles about Spain or listings, the flag of Spain is censored, and the Spanish state not recognized while many Catalan-speaking territories are not nationalists, so why cawiki is?. And that it is "extremist".

Hello, as a TRUTH contributor, Spain organized Olimpics 1992, and Expo 1888, not the "Sovereign-State-of-Independent-Catalonia" OMG hahahaha... what ignorants in cawiki, that's not the Wikipedia in Catalan language, that'a the "Personal Wiki of nationalist 25% of catalan speakers from 25% of catalan speaking territories". The rest of territories (Valencian Comunity -not "Independent Valencian State"OMG-, Balearic Islands, Aragón Comunity, etc... are catalan speakers, but they are blocked to edit wikipedia.

Proud Spaniard,

Well, teach your children not to believe all that is written in Wikipedia.

Teach your children how to use a real encyclopedia. And teach them not to believe blindly all that they read. Even in real encyclopedias, there are some errors.

You just discovered that there is bullshit in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia in construction. In Wikipedia, there are precious jewels, but there is also a lot of bullshit, including things much worse than this little family quarrel.

--Nnemo (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Nnemo, did you mean that the cabal of admins FOR SPANISH FLAGS CENSORSHIP AND "Spain" word BAN AND TO INVENT FICTION STATES is allowed in Wikipedia?¿? Regards.

When one speaks of Wikipedia admins, a lot of things that are “not allowed” take place. --Nnemo (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

No me dejan poner el cartel de "no neutral"

El nacionalismo hace que cawiki pierda neutralidad. En "Referèndum d'autodeterminació de Catalunya" hay un 99% de enlaces de ideologías nacionalistas. No dejan escribir, pero tampoco dejan poner el cartel de "no neutral"

They don't let me put the sign "not neutral"

Cawiki nationalism miss causes a lack of neutrality. In "Referèndum d'autodeterminació de Catalunya" there is a 99% of links with nationalist ideologies. I keep writing, but they don't let me put the sign "not neutral". Please help.

This is not my IP. It has been banned by a cabal of nationalists admins (or expert users, I guess), because I insist to put the Spanish point of view. —Preceding undated comment added approximately 12:00, 01 June 2013 (UTC).

Grassroots campaign for Wikipedia Zero to schools, teachers, administrators and communities...oh and a short film too.

I had given out Wikipedia stickers to the learners at Sinenjongo High School earlier in the week and when I came to Ntsika's house, I saw that he had put the sticker on his refrigerator. I asked him why he did that.

A sample from a Cape Town radio interview (on 567 Capetalk) between Kieno Kammies and Pam Robertson, Maths and Science teacher at Sinenjongo High School about her class and their campaign for free access to Wikipedia on their cellphones.

Hello everyone,

A week ago, I wrote a blog post about a short documentary I'm making about a class of high schoolers in a slum in South Africa who wrote an open letter and started a page on Facebook asking for free access to Wikipedia on their cellphones so that they can do their homework (video clip on the right).

I'm in the process of editing the film and I'm not done. My goal is to make a film that engages people. I'm posting here now because I'd like to see (and document) this first-ever grassroots effort for free access to Wikipedia on cellphones grow beyond South Africa alone, and I'm sure that others here would too. I need your help. These students need your help. All we have to do is collaborate.

Here is the collaboration page: Unlock_The_Secrets_Of_Wikipedia_Zero

Who wants to get involved?

Who is interested, and where are you located? How do you want to get involved and how can I help you do that?

• Sign up here:
• Oarabile Mudongo (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC),Botswana Interested in general research topics, and applications of wiki technology, and communities.
• Let me know how I can be of help. I'm normally loged in the regular English Wiki. Marine 69-71 (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• I like this concept, and thus would like to replicate the same in India, especially in north India. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 08:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• Count me in, will help however I can from Cape Town. I am usually on en.wikipeida. --197.214.116.49 06:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Happy to help in any way I can (online). PiRSquared17 (talk) 09:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Where do we collaborate?

We should make a page on meta for to collaborate about this campaign, I would leave it to everyone here to determine the appropriate place and name for such a collaboration page.

Again, this is all part of my role as storyteller at the Wikimedia Foundation.

Let's do this

• Helo Vgrigas i have just created a collaboration Meta page and decided to name it Unlock_The_Secrets_Of_Wikipedia_Zero and i think PiRSquared17 can also join us for the discussion at the meta page,he is a very determined person who at most times helps me out with fantastic ideas.

ok great lets use that page Unlock_The_Secrets_Of_Wikipedia_Zero to collaborate Vgrigas (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I am very interested in this project, and I support the Wikipedia Zero initiative. In general, I support any way Wikimedia (and other orgs) can help developing countries. I am happy to help on-wiki in any way I can, but I am currently a little busy. Thank you for the kind words, Oarabile. PiRSquared17 (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Should low-notability species be allowed in Wikipedia?

We already have Wikispecies, which is the free directory of species. However, recently there are some Wikipedia editions using bots to create a huge amount of articles about low-notability species. (Please refer to Wikimedia News for details.) That is somehow abusing Wikipedia. Should we force such articles to be moved from Wikipedia to the corresponding lanaguage editions of Wikispecies? -- Kevinhksouth (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that we should not let the wikis to have their bots if there is more than fifty percent of the articles is created by bots. --Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about ceb:/war:? I think Lsjbot does a good job with those articles, imho. However, all the info could be available on Wikidata. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Admin activity review

I would love some comments on the talk page of that page on whether it appropriately reflects what was decided in the RFC; and on whether Admin activity review/2013 describes a reasonable way to move forward. I'm thinking that some policy details might be refined later on, after stewards have run the first activity review, according to the experiences there about practicability etc. --MF-W 03:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Minangkabau Wikipedia

Could someone help me work out why MinangKabau Wikipedia (created in ~January 2013) is not listed at [3], which is the data source for List of Wikipedias. ;-( John Vandenberg (talk) 09:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

mutante's wikistats is updated manually, but User:RobiH is unable to do so lately (the migration to wmflabs required a lot of changes). Code is at [4] but wikis are stored in the DB, IIRC. --Nemo 09:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure who @RobiH: is; a WMF employee? Minangkabau Wikipedia is also missing from stats.wikimedia.org. I hope that the statistics for the first six months of this project are able to be recreated, as min.wp is an example of a new wiki that is doing very well. Why arnt these tools using the same list as Special:SiteMatrix? Thankfully the dumps do exist. John Vandenberg (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

@Erik Zachte:, are you able to add Minang to stats.wikimedia.org? John Vandenberg (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Lost in translation

I don't know where to say this, so I say it here.
I have many problems with the « new » translation tool (<translate>). It takes me hours to adapt my translations in this format, with poor results. You can see this on Fossé des genres and outreach:Wikipédien en résidence.
As I understand it for now, there's at least 2 problems with this tool :

1. It suppose that the English version is the "good" one and that all the others languages versions must follow it. I don't agree. Sometimes, others languages can create better version of pages (we can see this in many cases on Wikipedia),
2. It put all no-translated text in English in the others languages versions. Some English sections don't have to be translated (as an example, the sections "Sample job description" and "Details on specific residencies" on "Wikipedian in Residence" don't have to be translated).

I don't know for the others translators, but for me, it is very frustrating. It takes me at least 2 hours to translate this and I have lose it all in the new version. It also takes me one hour to try to fit my translation in the new tool, with mixed success.
From my PoV, this tool didn't respect the KISS principle. Simon Villeneuve 13:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

About migrating old translations to the new tool, you should complain to the translation administrator who sets up pages for translation by the new tool (in this case Vogone). Normally they should do the migration of old translations to the new system (or make it happen).

About your point 2: What is the problem? If some sections don't have to be translated, why should they not appear in English on the translated pages? --MF-W 22:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi,
Thank you for the answers.
About point 2, I think that these sections should not appear in English in the translated pages because it cut the reading with irrelevant text in another language. A translated text "larded" with English isn't "fluid". If the reader want information in English, he or she only have to click on the English link.
This tool seems to have been created to "assure" that all the translated pages follow the same format that the one in English, as if the English version was "official". I don't know why it is this way. It's not the wiki way. The Foundation already have his own wiki for the top-down stuff. I think the others wikis must follow the same way as before : let each language set their pages and, when it's necessary, link them with the "official" Foundation position on the Wikimedia Foundation wiki. Simon Villeneuve 11:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

page under attack

Hello. On this page, [5] we can see that some people are changing the image despite not being allowed to do so under copyright. The individuals do not think that the image is right - and are therefore changing the image to their liking. But they are not allowed to do that under the copyright licensing. Can someone intervene? (184.175.15.30 17:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)).

Did you understand the copyright license? It says, "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document". Why do you believe that the copyright license prohibits modifying the file? The license directly gives permission for modifying the file. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

WeRelate

Please comment about the proposal for adopting the genealogy project WeRelate. -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

question concerning User:Wolfigisi and User:Emilie88

Why could user Emilie88 open an user account for User:Wolfigisi? She does have an account but it has been registered just recently. Looks a bit strange to me. Is there a reason for doing it on the german wiktionary? But the main question is: Why could she do it? 178.4.189.250 23:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

connection à mediawiki impossible

Bonjours àtous, j'ai installé mediawiki sur mon serveur d'hébergement mutualisé, l'installation c'est déroulée sans problème j'ai télécharge le fichier "LocoalSettings" que j'ai ensuite transféré dans le dossier contenant le site mais lorsque j'essaye d'y accéder via le web il y a ce message d'erreur qui s'affiche: "[3dc58a89] 2013-07-12 13:09:52: Fatal exception of type MWException" svp aidez-moi à résoudre ce problème.

cordialement, — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sultanb2013 (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Bonjour ! Je recommande que vous demandiez sur le "Support desk". Cdlt, PiRSquared17 (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Who finds the badge "Your edit was saved" useful?

appears after saving a page

I was wondering how to turn it off but obviously one can only hide it. Is there anyone, except the developers, who find it useful?

To quote from mw:Post-edit feedback:

The results from the test above showed that new Wikipedians find value in having a straightforward confirmation message after saving an edit; those who were told "your edit was saved" had a statistically significant increase in the volume of edits made, with no associated decrease in quality.

Obvioulsy, for brand new users, but as soon as you made 10 edits or so, you got how it works with MediaWiki? There is a lot measuring at m:Research:Post-edit feedback/PEF-2 but there is no attempt of an interpretation of this data. Why do the group-activity only differs after 50-100 edits? -- Rillke (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The second test (PEF 2) was of a different message, and as we noted I think, there was no statistically significant difference. It was also a test of a different kind and frequency of messages though. Regarding the idea that we might turn if of automatically after a certain number of edits... this a usability anti-pattern. A confirmation message, like this one, should be consistently delivered in the same way unless the user actively gets rid of it. Automatically removing an edit save confirmation when it appeared always before is likely to cause confusion, whether you turn it off at 10, 50, or 100 edits. This feature is now in MediaWiki core, and cannot be turned off. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The post-edit notice, whether in MediaWiki core or in a MediaWiki extension, can most certainly be effectively disabled by simply hiding it locally using a short snippet of CSS. :-) I don't think any Wikimedia wikis have done so yet, but any wiki community would be well within its rights to do so, should there be local consensus, and a number of users have disabled the notice for their personal account. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

A dismiss-permanently button would be nice. Self-deactivation after a given edit count is of course not an option. But actually I was curious whether here are people who find it useful and why they do. -- Rillke (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

@MZ: Turning it off != hiding, as I think Rillke pointed out. Yes a whole wiki could hide it in CSS, but it's not configurable. IMO, this is such a basic usability enhancement for wiki editing of any kind that adding a config variable to turn it off would be like a config to turn off the Cancel button. @Rillke: I agree the "dismiss permanently" would be the ideal way of enabling a preference to hide it. We haven't yet created a preference for this though, which that would depend on. I just checked again, and a simple userspace search shows that no more than 100 enwiki editors and fewer than 50 dewiki editors have disabled the message in their personal CSS. I don't personally consider that enough demand to add to our currently bloated list of preferences. I'm not ruling it out at all, I just don't think it's justified now. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

61 (gadget [no, didn't create this one]) +10 (user space) at Commons. A user option in the interface is not required, I think: After the user clicked the "X" three times (thus actively dismissed the message), ask them whether they "Would [you] like to turn the edit saved successfully message permanently off?" or try to integrate the message better into the UI. BTW, did you know that mw.notify() is also in core? It doesn't have this 3D effect and also accepts jQuery objects (including images). -- Rillke (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Plus, I think it should be somewhere integrated and not look like a cloud floating in front of the page. -- Rillke (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd call it useful or useless. I do find it aggravating that the post-edit notice continues to needlessly obscure the user interface in Monobook for a few seconds (bugzilla:41240).

Are you proposing any course of action regarding the post-edit notice? Given the ability to trivially disable the post-edit notice on a per-site or per-user basis, I'm not sure what more there is to discuss and debate. You may also be interested in bugzilla:16066. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the thing is annoying but you just have to learn not to look at the top of the screen after saving. It's a good evolution exercise, now I never notice it even on the wikis where I didn't disable it. --Nemo 08:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Its annoïng as a fly & completely useleß for me. & I'm too lazy 2 add ðe line 2 my global.css. Definitely ðere šould be a pref. since I dont want it 2 eat any of my .js resources. Base (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

annoying & bothering, -jkb- 10:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

No one who finds it useful? Don't hesitate to write here! I am still curious. Don't be ashamed. No one can and will condemn you if you like it. -- Rillke (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care one way or the other normally, but I was a bit relieved to see it two days ago, when everything I did seemed to require an unusually long time to complete. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't find it very useful myself, although I'm fine with it if it helps encourage new users to contribute. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it is awesome. Despite being only a small box, I think it is a very important confirmation for new users and it doesn't bother me at all. However, I like the idea that it could be easily disabled in user preferences if desired.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{@ L C S}˲» 03:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Teles' comment above. For me it's ok, but an option to disable it wouldn't harm.--Arnaugir (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I find the confirmation useful. Sharihareswara (WMF) (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

New Version of the Flow Prototype Released

A new version of the Flow Prototype has been released. Please read the release notes here. This version has many changes, not the least of which is that it approaches full functionality.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Start: Clicking on Save this for next time does not change the state of the checkbox. -- Rillke (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Editing: Warning: You are about to reply to a topic that is older than 30 days. Consider starting a new topic rather than replying to this one. -- This is something the user receiving the message can config? I have no issue with users writing to old sections on my talk page. -- Rillke (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Editing: Editing old posts does not show a formatting toolbar. Editing the source code seems not to be possible. Clicking the formatting toolbar icons does nothing. -- Rillke (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

translate

Should we translate this site to foreign languages?

We already have translation of many pages, e.g. Wikimedia Foundation, langcom, Stewards. Of course, "foreign" is relative. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

wp:id makn linkfun

link to facebook and twitter

Hey, please fix this :) . Thank you, Conny (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC).

Hi. Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. Please fix what?

For reference, this message is controlled by w:id:Menyunting Templat:AdvancedSiteNotices. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think MZMcBride meant id:Templat:AdvancedSiteNotices. ;) --Glaisher [talk] 16:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hah, indeed! Thanks. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Conny, I understand your concern but last time I asked there was no clear rule about linking to unofficial Wikipedia/Wikimedia/<project> accounts on Twitter, Facebook or whatever from the sitenotice, sidebar or other (prominent) Wikimedia project spaces. (Personally, I don't like accounts owned and controlled by individuals.) You can see similar examples e.g. on ka.wiki and so many others that I don't remember. If you care, you may want to list them on Microblogging handles and Facebook pages.

It's conversely uncontroversial that projects can include features to share their own content on other websites, as happens on en.news and some Asian Wikipedia(s) I don't remember, though of course not everybody like those. --Nemo 17:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Nemo, no clear rule, ok :( . Greetings, Conny (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC).

New project proposal: Wikiabstracts

There are lots of books and articles at your desk, that you need for writing an essay. Finally you read all the articles and worte your paper, when in the last moment you find another paper you did not find earlier. You know this problem? Wikiabstracts wants to challenge it: A database of abstracts and a bibliography with all relevant texts for your subject. If your interested and think the idea could work - join the project!

How to elect a Administrator in a project without a Bureaucrats?

In a project without Bureaucrats how the community could choose Administrators or Bureaucrats? --Sahaquiel9102 (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You elect them the usual way and then request the additional user rights at Steward requests/Permissions. odder (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Sahaquiel9102 (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Technical problem

Hello I do not know where to turn on the writing here since the night we disappeared buttons for adding interviki look here. thank you. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what caused the problem but now that the cewiki article has been added to the Wikidata entry, the interwiki lang links are now there. And "Edit links" link is also there now. --Glaisher [talk] 09:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem was that the SiteLinkWidget was not enabled! Will shortly be fixed! :) ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 09:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. We have long since there is no button (Edit links) for chechen language. As I understand you've fixed . regards --Дагиров Умар (talk) 08:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from June 2013

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for June 2013, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement

• Wikimedia Foundation highlights
  • First workshop on how to evaluate the success of organized Wikimedia activities
  • Preparations for the launch of VisualEditor and Universal Language Selector
  • Community input invited for privacy policy update
• Data and Trends
• Financials
• Other movement highlights
  • Election results for Board and FDC
  • "Flow Funding" supports aerial photographs of Hamburg from a hot air balloon
  • Art and design students illustrate Wikipedia
  • Offline Wikipedia for prisoners

About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 16:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Single User Login finalisation

Hi! I have a question concerning the Single User Login finalisation, I hope this is the right place to ask.

I wanted to change my username globally, so some time ago I started to request changing my username on wikis where I had have an account. By now, on many wikis the renaming has been done, but there are still several wikis where it hasn't. So my question is, how will renaming/merging of local accounts work after the SUL finalisation? If I merge the remaining accounts with my old username in a global account, am I able to merge that whole global account with my other global account with my new username?

For example: I have usernames OldName and NewName, which are both global accounts. I have NewName local account on A-wiki, B-wiki and C-wiki, and I have OldName local account on C-wiki, D-wiki and E-wiki - is it possible to remove C-wiki from NewName, and move C-wiki, D-wiki and E-wiki from OldName to NewName?

Sanyi4 (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the first place where I'd ask is the Discussion/talk page of the announcement link that you posted. --89.176.96.40 08:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)