Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2013-09

Multi-project spam

I found a page that needs deleting on 8 language Wikipedias, and have started making the nominations one-by-one by attempting to translate the deletion process template on the English Wikipedia. I vaguely remember doing something similar several years ago, but now it just seems really, really hard. Is there a central page to put out a deletion notice for such pages? I am somewhat daunted by the Japanese version and really don't want to try slapping a deletion notice on that page. Thanks in advance for any advice you can give me. Jane023 (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The Template:Delete template works for speedy deletions on about 99% of wikis. You can also post requests on Steward requests/Miscellaneous, but if 1) the wiki is not a m:Global sysops wiki, and 2) no admin from the wiki watches that page, then it could be a while for a page to be deleted. --Rschen7754 06:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply! That is a speedy delete, and the page I am trying to get rid of is not blatant vandalism but something that has been hanging around for well over a year. I guess I am looking for a "if you get a chance, look into deleting this" template. I used this Delete template anyway on the Italian Wikipedia and I will go ahead and try it on the Japanese one. Jane023 (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

New WikiVoyage Logo

Moved from Talk:Wikimedia Forum.

Is not the Chosen design for the new WikiVoyage logo too similar to the logo used by WikiTravel? The only real difference is that the new logo has colours in it, if it were to be reproduced on a monotone monitor or printer it would be confusingly similar to WT's logo. I tried to raise the issue at the Wikivoyage pub page, but mostly just got ad hominem and other personal attacks, appeal to authority and dismissed as I haven't a registered account, none of these confronts the issue of the logo being so similar to WT's. I was accused of "appear to be criticizing the competence of the WMF legal staff" When I had no idea such people would have considered this issue, if they have that indicates that they thought the same thing that I did at one point 81.178.172.59 21:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No.

--W. Frank^e-mail_talk 00:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No. The two logos obviously have very little similarity to each other. That's just obvious on sight, and I don't understand how anyone could seriously think otherwise. If Wikitravel wants to try to sue again over this, they're complete idiots (no comment on whether we already knew that). Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That's is I suspect a highly selected opinion. The fact that the arrows were redesigned to be slightly different seems to show that it was considered just how similar the arrows could be to the ones in WT's logo and still get away with it if it was required to argue a case in court. The logo is arrows arranged around prominent text, just like WT's the scale of the arrows compared to the text is about the same as on WT's logo and the arrows point in opposing directions. All it takes is to print it in black and white and it would be hard to tell the difference. given all this I can't see how anyone can honestly state that there is no similarity 81.178.160.111 01:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Also I have to ask how can it be claimed that the Globe logo was too like the World trade Organisation,s (pretty much the only similarity was the colour scheme) yet the new logo is not like WT's that's highly selective vision furthermore the WTO wasn't even in the same business 81.178.160.111 01:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The WTO issue was not ours to decide. The WTO decided to bug us about it, and the WMF decided not to fight it. That was fine with most Wikivoyagers, who weren't enthralled with the logo to start with. The new logo uses three acute arrowheads, pointing outward from a central point, while the WT logo uses two asymmetrical right-angle arrowheads pointed inward and almost touching each other. Furthermore, the new logo's arrowheads are solid-color, while WT's are two-tone. While they may share a general similarity in theme, they are very different in implementation. (In other words, they may sound similar when described, but the actual visualizations are obviously quite different.) The new logo has been vetted by WMF's legal department, and they apparently don't anticipate any problems.

As a result, any legal issues you think might remain should be brought up with the legal department of the WMF. If you continue to agitate around our discussion fora on this point, it will achieve nothing except to cement the perception of you as someone who's only interested in stirring up a controversy... or perhaps goading IB into suing. If that's your goal, then please save everyone the time and just stop now.

-- LtPowers (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The decision not to fight the WTO was very suspect "most Wikivoyagers, who weren't enthralled with the logo to start with" Odd given it won an actually democratic process, so it was just some influential admin then, which seems to be the whole problem in this case. "While they may share a general similarity in theme" well exactly given they are in a very similar business, online travel guide that is a Wiki. of all the logos that could have been chosen you chose one that aped as far as legally possible, designs were changed throughout the process for "legal reasons". I actually tried bringing up the issue at the legal department, it was moved to here, the continual demands to discuss an issue elsewhere is really just an attempt to silence objections or any opinions you don't like and finally if all else fails the good old Ad ad hominem always works right? 81.178.175.48 10:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth:

• I was never unhappy with the old logo, though I agree that that original selection process was unfairly overrun by wikimedians who were not even contributors to our site.
• WV admins had no part in making the decision not to fight the WTO. No discussions to that effect were ever had, neither on site nor on our mailing list. The decision was already made by the time I heard about it, which was only a day or two before the official announcement from the legal department.
• The new logo is not the one I wanted either. I find it boring, sparse, and not very creative, but I do not find it to be in any way dangerously or confusingly similar to the WT logo, which was originally designed as two opposing quadrants of a standard two-tone compass rose, with the text entering on the lower right, while ours is three outward-pointing arrowheads, not suggestive of a compass rose, not two-tone, different color scheme, not a similar shape, rounded on the inside, and with the text starting right in the center.

But listen, 81.178.175.48, around here, we insist that people make their posts and contribute to the discussions in good faith'. When you show up out of the blue and immediately start accusing the admins of conspiracy to control things and shut out dissenting voices, 1) you demonstrate an egregrious and offensive lack of good faith in the efforts and intentions of others, and 2) your insinuations are patently untrue. If anyone posts that you are a troll, a sockpuppet, or that you should be ignored, banned, disregarded, or blocked, it is not because you have differing opinions but because your approach has been unacceptably accusatory. We don't know you, and it is readily apparent that you do not know us either. You are certainly not going to win an ounce of respect stepping in here and unjustly accusing everyone of willful wrongdoing/rigging selection processes/dictatorial quashing of dissenting opinions/using underhanded means to get their way. Those things have not, do not, and will not happen, so for you to suddenly appear out of nowhere and start making such false accusations is simply offensive. Texugo (talk) 11:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• "original selection process was unfairly overrun by wikimedians who were not even contributors to our site" So only a select cabal has an opinion that is worthwhile, if they helped select a decent logo I can't see any problem, but certain admin refused to accept the new choice so this became their complaint,
• "WV admins had no part in making the decision not to fight the WTO" I simply don't believe this, maybe you don't know about it, anyhow it wouldn't surprise me if one of those admin that were so against the original choice informed the WTO of the supposed similarity and goaded them into getting it challenged as I was just accused of being about to "perhaps goading IB into suing"
• "was originally designed as two opposing quadrants of a standard two-tone compass rose" a casual user cannot know what inspired these things, but can see when something is remarkably similar. the new logo is "rounded on the inside" only because it was decided for "legal reasons" that the other design that even more closely aped WT' logo was not allowed, however as the logo was supported by influential admin so suggestions were at hand on how it could be made acceptable, other logos did not get this favorable treatment.

The constant need for ad hominem, which happened right from the start, says more about those who make it, there would be no troll value if the logos were not similar, if I had said the logo was too like for example apple corp I would just have been ignored, but there is a similarity and that is the real problem. Your assurances that something has not happened hardly mean that they have not happened 81.178.174.105 18:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

We do not need your conspiracy theories. There is no evidence to support any of what you are saying. There is no "select cabal", there was no turncoat informant to the WTO, and the "legal reasons" they fiddled with the icon design were in regard to another similar triangular icon, not WT's. This is not the illuminati here. You are talking about real people, many of whom have spent a great deal of time and effort working on this site over the years. Show some respect. Texugo (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

So if you don't like someones legitimate objections accuse them of conspiracy theories...and then demand they show respect, there simply is a select cabal, another user referred to them as the "movers and shakers" anyone who is not in the club is actively excluded, hence the weighted votes. "the "legal reasons" they fiddled with the icon design were in regard to another similar triangular icon," Well since you kept the identity of that icon hidden there is only your word, and honestly that is not really good enough, WT's logo is the obvious similar logo in this case. My concerns remain real despite your attempts to ridicule them. Show some respect 81.178.174.105 20:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Also I was accused at an early stage of "appear to be criticizing the competence of the WMF legal staff" in other words it is apparent that they had considered how similar the logos were, it is hard to belive given the similarity and this accusation that WT's logo was not the one being considered as similar 81.178.174.105 20:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, you do not assume good faith, so I do not think this thread is worthy of any further replies. Texugo (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The logical hoops I would be expected to jump through and the amount I would have to ignore to assume good faith are so great as to be an unreasonable expectation, what you are really demanding is that I keep quiet, again this is yet another way of preventing objections. The fact that you continually need to find different ways to do this shows that you know there is a real underlying problem here, in reality it's not me demands to assume good faith apparently don't go both ways 81.178.174.105 21:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You could of course always prove me wrong by stating which logo it was that the original logo design resembled so much that it needed to be changed....81.178.174.105 21:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the legitimacy of the logo contest

Apparently also I am unable to express concerns about how the logo contest was run over at Wikivoyage Pub, the following was removed

"I only wish the selection process could have been trusted, you know like the original contest that resulted in the Globe logo. But certain admins did not favor that democratic result, so they looked for the first opportunity to torpedo the Globe logo and made sure that the next contest had weighted votes, pretty much ensuring strategic admin votes could decide the final logo and it did not end there certain logos were allowed that preheps should not have been as they were supported by admins. Out of the weighted votes, (You know the ones that matter) how many were not English? Before you moan I did not bring anything up about the suspect way the contest was run at Meta-Wiki" 81.178.160.111 01:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Impression does not help a lot. Wikivoyage administrators had no "special voice". Wikivoyage users had. Please prove or retract you accusions. I published all results transparently at Wikivoyage/Logo/2013/R1/Results and Wikivoyage/Logo/2013/R2/Results. There is a table about voters and about candidates.

At Wikivoyage/Logo/2013/R1/Results/Candidates, you can see that is the second topmost voted candidate in total and also the second topmost voted candidate by Wikivoyage users. , the most voted candidate was disqualified by the WMF legal review process.

Now, let's talk about the final: was the most voted candidate by both, all users and Wikivoyage users. If you are interested in where voters are eligible, confer to the voters table or evaluate the JSON data dump. -- Rillke (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

"Wikivoyage administrators had no "special voice". Wikivoyage users had." By narrowing down the potential voters so much the admins assured they they would have a large percentage of the votes, indeed a special voice if ever there was one.

"the most voted candidate was disqualified by the WMF legal review process." Yes that one was not supported by influential admin aparently as helpful hints on how it could be made acceptable were not forthcoming. For the chosen logo however it was a completely different story as soon as the announcement was made that the chosen logo was to similar to another (Secrret by we all know) helpful hints were at hand on how it could be made more legally acceptable, in other words the legal team were too close to people who had personal preferences. Truly making a mockery of the process.

So we reach a final where certain logos were allowed and others were not seemingly due in no small part to personal preferences and the admins having assured they have a large percentage of the votes, this all has a stench of gerrymandering. 81.178.163.174 11:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

May be you should find a forum for your conspiracy theories outside Wikimedia Foundation project. These theories are not really welcome here.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Again another attempt at ridicule, that adds nothing of worth to any conversation, what is truly not welcome here is speaking out about the setup and problems here, thus you need to resort to such low behavior 81.178.163.174 18:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Sister Projects Committee

Is the Sister Projects Committee {{historical}}? Only one person contributed to its talk page since January. The draft charter hasn't been edited since August 2012 (except for one bot edit). The new project process isn't any better off.

The problem is that this committee was to provide a useful function – "developing a clear policy and documentation for creating and reviewing sister projects". This is an important task, and it isn't getting done. Should we try to revive it, start from scratch, or just give up on the idea of having a logical way of handling sister projects? -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The last post to mail:spcom was in February (2013). I'd prefer to try to revive interest in it than to give up on the idea entirely. Try writing a post to the mailing list, and a section on its Meta talk about reviving it, and if you want, I can "spam" it to their talk pages. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly still a useful idea, I'm interested in doing whatever is needed for reviving it. --MF-W 20:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we stopped short of writing the charter and getting any official status. Without the status, we can not really decide on any of the proposals.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm also willing to help with pushing it forward again. John Vandenberg (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

+1. Deciding on the creation of new projects is something that has always been a community role. Once there is clear community support for a project, the WMF finds ways to support it and help it get off the ground.

The Board recently had a discussion about committee formation, since a Wikimania Committee also wanted to have Board approval of their status. The Board and WMF feel that, unless a committee is designed to handle an existing task of the Foundation, it does not need approval from any part of the WMF. Indeed it sets the wrong expectation to have WMF approval: such committees should be working on behalf of the community, and reporting to the community. I don't see any status-requirement to reach a committee-wide decision on proposals; but any status-approval should likewise come from the community. –SJ talk  06:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Bad certificate at stats.wikimedia.org

To whomever: Visiting https://stats.wikimedia.org/ today (on FF 17.0.7) gives:

stats.wikimedia.org uses an invalid security certificate.

The certificate is only valid for metrics.wikimedia.org

(Error code: ssl_error_bad_cert_domain)

HTTP works fine, BTW. If this is something that's appropriate to report to Bugzilla, can someone else please do that? - dcljr (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

wikitech:Httpsless domains says this is tracked as rt:1849. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No, that's "status.wikimedia.org". - dcljr (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Oops. This is bugzilla:32143 then. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

@Krenair: is there a similar list for *.wmflabs.org subdomains? PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. There shouldn't be any proper valid SSL certificates under *.wmflabs.org anyway. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

@Dcljr: I think you should file a bug.Krenair pointed out a bug already exists. Krenair: toollabs: has a certificate. Any others? PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Might be more, I don't know. Tools' SSL certificate is news to me honestly. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Also wikistats... PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"Also"? Wikistats is what my original post was about. (!) Or am I misunderstanding your comment? You don't mean s23.org or wikistatistics.net, do you? - dcljr (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

https://wikistats.wmflabs.org/ != http://stats.wikimedia.org/ ;) PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Nice and confusing. Are we going to switch over to using wikistats.wmflabs.org instead of s23.org…? Oh, nevermind. I see we already have. OK. - dcljr (talk) 03:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI, bug has been fixed. - dcljr (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Privacy policy translation

I translated the draft of the new privacy policy into Russian, but I don't know how to send it to Wikipedia. I am far from all kind technologies... Should I place it here? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 46.172.215.200 (talk) 06:36, 10 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your translation. You can paste it in the translation page: select your language at top right, click the first paragraph you translated, add your translation, save etc. Next time please do it directly there, it has a lot of helping tools. --Nemo 08:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

ru.wikibooks seem to lack active administrators

As it seems, there’re no active administrators left at ru.wikibooks. Or at the very least, the latest contribution of a non-global sysop dates back to 2013-05-26.

Surely, the Small Wiki Monitoring Team’s volunteers filter outright spam and vandalism (thanks!), but the recent influx of w:WP:Copyvio “contributions” (which I took effort to label as such) probably deserves some attention (and an actual action!) of a Russian speaker.

Naturally, I’m not an administrator myself (and can’t say I’d like to become one.) Any ideas on how do I proceed?

— Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 09:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I’ve requested (via the respective discussion pages) the assistance of Iniquity, Alex Smotrov & Ilya Voyager, which are the present administrators of the project, and which were active at either Russian Wikibooks or Russian Wikipedia this year. Should that fail to resolve the pending issues, I’ve also filed a request for adminship (which I’ll bring before the stewards, should there be no objections.)

— Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 17:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

--Toyotabedzrock (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC) If I remember correctly Russia is about to start cracking down on Piracy. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130911/12041724489/russias-latest-plan-internet-whitelist-copyright-materials.shtml I'm sure they would not mind blocking Wikipedia as a side effect.

Message translation

Hi, I can translate such messages? -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks like translation will happen on this page (for ce.wikipedia). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but there are no lines (Wiki Loves Monuments: Photograph a monument, help Wikipedia and win!) (Let your voice be heard! Give your input on the draft of our new privacy policy. ). -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

When I click that link, I get three lines that need to be translated:

//meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy policy/BannerTestA      Edit
Let your voice be heard!                                  Edit
Give your input on the draft of our new privacy policy.   Edit

You just need to click the 'Edit' button to provide the translation.

What do you see? (Consider posting a screenshot if you don't see what I see.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Tthank you. You can create these message [1] [2]? -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Please create a page that I have indicated above. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Process for account usurpation

Hi all. Forgive me if I am asking in the wrong place, but I have a situation I would like to resolve: With the unified accounts, I am User:Texugo on every WMF project except one: wp:pt:. The account there under this name was also created by me way back in 2006, but I cannot for the life of me figure out the password or email account I used, and have had no luck retrieving my password. I never even made a single edit with the account. I would like to usurp it into my global account, and have asked for help on two separate occasions on the forum at wp:pt:, but the best advice I have received there was "why don't you just create a new account". Well, my answer is that I want to keep all my contributions together, obviously. I seem to remember talk back in May or so that many of these situations were supposed to be taken care of automatically somehow, with the unification of accounts, etc., so I feel sure there must be some process established for usurpation, but I don't know the proper place to initiate the process. I have need to become active on wp:pt: soon, so I would like to get this taken care of as soon as possible. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Texugo (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

See SUL finalization. I think it was supposed to happen in August. Actually, pt.wiki 'crats should usurp the account for you, if it has truly made 0 edits, unless there's some local rule against it. PiRSquared17 (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have taken it directly to two burocrats there, and hopefully one of them will take care of it for me. Texugo (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

New project proposal - Wikifiction (In-universe encyclopedia)

I have proposed Wikifiction as a new Wikimedia project. Comments are welcome. This is distinct from the old idea Wikifiction, which is for collaborative fiction --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 15:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Project restarting process proposal

I recently saw this new proposal. What do you think? Good idea, bad idea?PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

See Requests for comment/2013 issues on Croatian Wikipedia

Also see Requests for comment/Massive sysop abuse in Chechen Wikipedia. --Rschen7754 22:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems like a partial subset of the tasks of a global requests committee or global arbitration committee. The idea of asking a group to help restart a project is fine; but it shouldn't be a single-purpose group... among other things because there would be no work for it to do most of the time. And electing a committee for a specific task makes it hard to do so quickly or to get neutral participants. If there's to be a high-overhead elected committee, better to make it a GRC or GAC, which could handle not only project restarting but also other cross-project requests that stewards can't handle. –SJ talk  07:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It's time to reclaim the community logo

Hello community,
this is to inform you about the (re)start of a discussion in which you, the Meta-Wiki users, might be particularly interested. In short, myself and a few other Wikimedia editors decided to oppose the registration of the community logo (which, incidentally, is the logo of this very wiki) as a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation.

The history of the logo, the intents behind our action and our hopes for the future are described in detail on this page; to keep the discussion in one place, please leave your comments the talk page. (And if you speak a language other than English, perhaps you can translate the page and bring it to the attention of your local Wikimedia community?) I’m looking forward to hearing from you! odder (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Unified Wikimania wiki

Right now, we already have a dozen separate wikis for each past and future Wikimanias, and there's no doubt there'll be much more to come.

The idea here is to have a single Wikimania wiki (wikimania.wikimedia.org) for all conferences, instead of the current separate-wiki style (wikimania2012.wikimedia.org). This has been discussed at Wikimania project domain in 2011, but seems to have quickly ran outta gas.

Key issues addressed:

• Q1: Organizers (alone) of a current conference needs to have absolute control over the conference wiki (aka being an admin).
• A1: Wikimania wikis does not run as normal projects. Hence, all organizers shall easily be given admin rights (and former organizers removed) as it becomes necessary. The cycle continues.

• Q2: What about archiving past wikis? What if we need to look back?
• A2: Except for key pages (such as the Main Page), all other pages of each project could be created under the respective year's subpage. For example, all 2012 conference's pages would be under: http://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2012/page/page/etc. Additionally if necessary, any vital page requiring archiving could also be edit protected (cascading style too, if possible).

Please reply at the existing Meta proposal: Wikimania project domain. Rehman 12:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for consultation on community logo

Request for consultation on this community logo

First, I’d like to apologize for the English. If you can, please help to translate this for other members of your community.

The legal team at the Wikimedia Foundation would greatly appreciate your input on the best way to manage the "community logo" (pictured here) to best balance protection of the projects with community support. Accordingly, they have created a “request for consultation” on Meta where they set out briefly some of the issues to be considered and the options that they perceive. Your input would be invaluable in helping guide them in how best to serve our mission.

Thank you! --Mdennis (talk) (via the Global message delivery system). 02:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC) (wrong page? You can fix it.)

How many Albanian Wikipedia articles have been stuck in pending reviews since sometime in 2012?

Problem here. How can we, or someone that speaks Albanian, fix this? Biosthmors (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

And how many other language Wikipedias have backlogs like this? How large are they? What should be done? Biosthmors (talk) 10:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

These are good questions; answers should be summarised at Flagged Revisions. As you can see on w:sq:Special:validationStatistics, the average time required for an edit to be reviewed is about 314 days. On wikis where this works, it's few hours. I agree that we should have global tracking of these stats (bugzilla:42360) and global standards below which the extension must be disabled on wikis where it's failing. --Nemo 10:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The time to review does not necessarily indicate it is "failing." For example, on the English Wikibooks our backlog is 70 days average at the moment but only 1,200 out of the 30,000 reviewed pages are waiting on attention. The reason this happens is that some pages have been checked for vandalism but left outstanding by the reviewer as they need the attention of an expert to validate the change to a higher standard than "not vandalism". Leaving them outstanding doesn't cause a problem for a reader or an editor. In fact it provides greater visibility to the reader of what has been validated and what has not - so they can choose to read either version. So, this isn't just a "numbers game" in judging success. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that the average time to review would be the only metric to consider. I agree that in the case you describe it can make sense, however here we're speaking of 60 % of the articles. You can set the bar at 95 % of the articles and 5 years average time to review, if you want, but I'm positive we can find a minimum requirement. --Nemo 20:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

So how can someone get clearance to actually clear revisions and edit the Albanian Wikipedia then? The great thing about Wikipedia that I like is that ones changes are immediately visible. I have lots of pages on my watchlist, but only en:breast cancer has the revisions on them. I can't say they're helpful or popular on English Wikipedia. What's the average amount of time on the Albanian Wikipedia? Biosthmors (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

OK so the page looks like it's been locked up since January 2012, so we're at 500 or so days. And before that it looks like bots just edited. Biosthmors (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Does the 33 editors mean 33 people can clear pending revisions on Albanian Wikipedia? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Presumably, you can apply. Please do so, it's surely more productive than writing here. :) --Nemo 20:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Check sq:Special:ListGroupRights: reviewers and sysops can also clear pending revisions. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Tabs in the language of our choice

How can we ensure that the tabs for "edit" and such are in the language of our own choice? It's awfully hard to try and help out other wikis with minor edits if you don't know that language. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Chiefly, I would hope to see English, at a minimum, since it's a global language. How about at least the main global languages? Maybe 10 or so of them? Biosthmors (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's not clear to me. On all wikis, you can change the language of the interface in your preferences. --Nemo 10:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Or by clicking the Universal Language Selector. How it appears differs between wikis, it will be either:

• A symbol and language name in the top-right toolbar, just to the left of your username.
• Or a cogwheel in the left-hand sidebar, just above the interlanguage links.

the wub "?!" 16:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Attention Lua whizzes....

Not sure where the best place to ask this is, but I have question maybe someone can help me with: Is it possible to use Lua from Wikivoyage to access image data such as dimensions (width or height in pixels) from image files on commons (or their respective copied-info page on WV)? This would be very useful for us, so we could automatically police banner images which are not the right size or aspect ratio. Something where we could, for example, use calls like these:

{{#invoke:imagedata|width|Example.jpg}} would return 172

{{#invoke:imagedata|height|Example.jpg}} would return 178

Does anyone have any ideas? Thanks in advance. Texugo (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If there is a better forum to ask this in, please let me know where to go! Texugo (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything about it here. Try asking on mw:Extension_talk:Scribunto/Lua_reference_manual, mw:Extension_talk:Scribunto, or Tech. But I think you're best off requesting this as an enhancement on bugzilla:. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)