Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2017-05
| This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
New Wikipedia Library Accounts Available Now (May 2017)
Hello Wikimedians!
The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for free, full-access, accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for new accounts and research materials from:
- American Psychiatric Association – Psychiatry books and journals
- Bloomsbury – Who's Who, Drama Online, Berg Fashion Library, and Whitaker's
- Gaudeamus – Finnish humanities and social sciences
- Ympäristö-lehti – The Finnish Environment Institute's Ympäristö-lehti magazine
Expansions
- Gale – Biography In Context database added
- Adam Matthew – all 53 databases now available
Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page, including Project MUSE, EBSCO, Taylor & Francis and Newspaperarchive.com.
Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 18:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Aaron.
- This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.
Voting has begun for eligible voters in the 2017 elections for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is the ultimate governing authority of the Wikimedia Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization registered in the United States. The Wikimedia Foundation manages many diverse projects such as Wikipedia and Commons.
The voting phase lasts from 00:00 UTC May 1 to 23:59 UTC May 14. Click here to vote. More information on the candidates and the elections can be found on the 2017 Board of Trustees election page on Meta-Wiki.
On behalf of the Elections Committee,
Katie Chan, Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
Joe Sutherland, Community Advocate, Wikimedia Foundation
19:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
User page
Hello, Can we create a user page without it appearing in all others Wikimedia projects? Thanks! --Ghybu (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, if you put the content inside of <noinclude> tags, content will be shown only on Meta. Read more at mw:Help:Extension:GlobalUserPage#Controlling_what_content_is_displayed. Stryn (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- however, FYI, this will make "blue" your username on local wikis, even if accessing your page users will not see the content of your meta userpage. --XXN (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, that is the problem, the name becomes "blue" and a blank page appears with a link to Meta (View on meta.wikimedia.org).--Ghybu (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- See also phab:T90849 and phab:T90015. XXN (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Ghybu: The answer is no. Things to note. 1) you can wrap part of a page in <noinclude> to not show xwiki; have a non-wrapped solution that is global; and have a component wrapped in <includeonly> which will only show on xwiki pages (as it is actually a xwiki transclusion). I wonder why you wouldn't want a global user page, or why it is problematic. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: It is possible that some users don't want to appear on the projects (or languages) that they haven't contributed to and they simply want to create a page only for Meta. This is not something really important but may be a useful option (only meta) :) Thanks for the answers ! --Ghybu (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- It has been explained that it is not possible under the current design. If you don't believe that the present solution is suitable, then it will take a phabricator: ticket.
The conversation that could follow is that this is metawiki which is specifically the WMF's communities coordinating wiki, it is not a local content wiki, so what you are doing here is pertinent to all communities. That is clearly a conversation that can be had here, and you will need a stronger argument about your desire versus the communities' requirements. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, I haven't seen initially, a patch resolving this problem was merged into MW core, but the documentation pages were not updated and this has created confusions. The
__NOGLOBAL__magic word is now available, which if present on the central (meta) user page, will prevent it from being displayed on remote wikis. CC Ghybu. --XXN (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks XXN, it works. Perhaps we should think of adding it here?--Ghybu (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Added, just before you hit the button "Publish changes" for your post :) --XXN (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks XXN, it works. Perhaps we should think of adding it here?--Ghybu (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, I haven't seen initially, a patch resolving this problem was merged into MW core, but the documentation pages were not updated and this has created confusions. The
- It has been explained that it is not possible under the current design. If you don't believe that the present solution is suitable, then it will take a phabricator: ticket.
- @Billinghurst: It is possible that some users don't want to appear on the projects (or languages) that they haven't contributed to and they simply want to create a page only for Meta. This is not something really important but may be a useful option (only meta) :) Thanks for the answers ! --Ghybu (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Ghybu: The answer is no. Things to note. 1) you can wrap part of a page in <noinclude> to not show xwiki; have a non-wrapped solution that is global; and have a component wrapped in <includeonly> which will only show on xwiki pages (as it is actually a xwiki transclusion). I wonder why you wouldn't want a global user page, or why it is problematic. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- See also phab:T90849 and phab:T90015. XXN (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, that is the problem, the name becomes "blue" and a blank page appears with a link to Meta (View on meta.wikimedia.org).--Ghybu (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- however, FYI, this will make "blue" your username on local wikis, even if accessing your page users will not see the content of your meta userpage. --XXN (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Updating Wikipedia Logo
-
Wikipedia’s current logo
I posted this initially on english wikipedia, but seems like this is a more appropriate place for it. Essentially, I feel the Wikipedia logo a bit dated, and wanted to see if anyone else feels likewise. I reached out to a member of WMF to see if this is even possible and have yet to hear back, so any feedback would be appreciated! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- I love our logo. It is widely recognized. What changes are you thinking of? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- +1 to the Doc. What's wrong with the well established and fine looking logo? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 09:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- First off, hi Doc! Glad to see ya over here. So from a technical point of view, its very "busy" and difficult to discern from a distance which are qualifications for a good logo. Walk across the room and look at the Wikipedia logo vs. Wikimania. I know everyone loves it, even I do, but I think it can be improved upon. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- I love our logo. It is widely recognized. What changes are you thinking of? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's an iconic logo, extremely well-known and even part of the Wikipedia Monument. I don't see a need to change it. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- When will "visibility from a distance" ever be an issue? We're a website, not a drive-in; by definition the only time people will see the logo is when they're using the screen on which it's displayed.Iridescent (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's to simulate people with poor eyesight. A gaussian blur being another method. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- When will "visibility from a distance" ever be an issue? We're a website, not a drive-in; by definition the only time people will see the logo is when they're using the screen on which it's displayed.Iridescent (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- User:Nohat has a redesign ready to go with a number of improvements. Its quite an improvement from the Original winning logo from the international logo contest.
In seriousness, What you're describing sound a lot like Wikipedia Redefined and inside the foundation have been some redesigns. Many people redesigning tend to removing or crippling functionality, like removing language links (WMF did this due to low usage). Dispenser (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Drewmutt, What is broken or needs fixing? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Why do you think it needs changing? "A bit dated" is a feature, not a bug; the Wikipedia "incomplete globe" is one of the most recognised logos in the world. The fact that it's so ubiquitous you're getting bored of its appearance is proof that the existing design is working. Iridescent (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey guys, thanks for all the great feedback, I really enjoyed the Wikipedia Redefined proposal, but it sounds like it didn't get much traction, which I feel is unfortunate. I get a lot of this in inherently subjective, so I'll stick to technical requirements. Firstly, it's generally agreed upon that a logo should scale down (seen from far away) and still be distinguishable. I made an example page to compare this quality between the globe and the Wikimania logo. I believe it's quite obvious which is more identifiable. This seem particularly important because of the "accessibility" Wikipedia is trying to accomplish. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Could we please see a side-by-side comparison of the existing and proposed logos? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Current logo added at top — xaosflux Talk 02:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- You can do alot with just CSS (see CSS Zen Garden). I'm improving the Green on black skin. There some crazy heavily modified skin for the Stylish browser extension. When done add to Unsolicited redesigns of Wikipedia.
The pixel art sizes need to be hand drawn to be a Good comparison. And for small thing, it not unusual to take the Logo and crop it to a small part. We've been doing this for our favicon before our current logo existed. There's a lot of art that is a single puzzle piece. Dispenser (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- I made a 22x22 B/W version. Death star logos aren't inherently bad, and AT&T made a some changes from their 1984 post breakup to
Mobile era logo to improve small scale readability. Dispenser (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- I made a 22x22 B/W version. Death star logos aren't inherently bad, and AT&T made a some changes from their 1984 post breakup to
Recognition of contributions in Wikimedia.
How does Wikimedia rate test projects in incubator and the procedures for it to be approved. Also, are there ways in Wikimedia to advertise a test project or seek contributions in it?
- The Language Committee does evaluate the status of a test project upon request and approves it in case it meets the criteria outlined in the Language proposal policy. --Vogone (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Uzoma Ozurumba, do you plan to start a new test wiki or you have a test wiki in mind that you like to work on? If you have a knowledge of a particular language which currently has a test wiki on incubator, you are welcomed to contribute to it. As Vognne rightfully said, it would be approved by the the Language Committee if it meets the criteria stated here. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Wikicology, I have a test wiki in incubator wt/ig already, it is just 3 weeks old. Thanks.--Uzoma Ozurumba (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
WikiSandy (Contextually Enhanced Search)
Provide a Wikipedia search service that indexes Wikipedia data semantically, based on sentence structure; subject, subject complement, or direct object, etc. versus just key words. Recognize information that is not directly communicated by the author, by relating acronyms, abbreviations, and compound nouns to appropriate subject matter within an article. Results will be ordered and prioritized by the strength of the correlation of search term to the sentences returned. Results will provide full sentences where possible, with deep links to those sentences, making it possible for users to jump directly to those sentences of interest. Such a tool will improve the search experience within Wikipedia and increase the value of the Wikipedia data.
See a demo at www.wikisandy.org —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sandypondfarm (talk • contribs) 17:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC) (UTC)
Old proposed project Wikichem
I found this proposed project, Wikichem, which has been proposed since 2014. This needs more attention and interested people to discuss Wikichem, the proposed project that would collect information about chemistry. Five users declared themselves interested in the project. Somehow, the page need to be fleshed out. --George Ho (talk) 06:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Раздельный бан
<с русскоязычной Википедии меня перенаправили с этим вопросом сюда>
Считаю очень важным сделать блокировку раздельной: блокировку на редактирование страниц обсуждения и блокировку на редактирование страниц статей. Ведь если человек не брезгует послать кого-нибудь на 3 буквы или ещё что, то это совершенно не означает, что участник вандал, ровно как и наоборот. Я считаю верхом абсурда ситуацию, когда я после очередного конфликта с википедийными аборигенами не имею возможности поставить в статью недостающий пробел, знак препинания, поправить орфографическую ошибку, проставить шаблон или добавить актуальную информацию. Несмотря на мою богатую историю блокировок за всякие смешные вещи, кот. некоторые по ошибке интерпретируют как оскорбления, ко мне ни разу не были применены блокировки по причине вандализма, а потому считаю крайне необходимым отделить мух от котлет. Как я понимаю, технические возможности для этого имеются. Nad.Chel (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- Википедия это проект основанный на сотрудничестве. Поэтому участник, который не может участвовать в осуждениях, не сможет нормально сотрудничать с другими участниками и, следовательно, не должен иметь возможность делать какие-либо правки в статьях. Ruslik (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Абсолютная и полная чушь. Для того чтобы править ошибки, проставлять шаблоны, добавлять информацию навык социальной адаптивности не требуется. Нужно лишь понимание того, по каким правилам живёт русский язык, как и где применяются те или иные шаблоны, как формулировать текст. Nad.Chel (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Лично я
За. Полезная была бы вещь.--Арсений1 (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Лично я
- Ruslik, но ведь для редактирования не слишком конфликтных статей совершенно не нужно, например, участие в общих форумах (в руВики они находятся в пространстве Википедия:), достаточно основного пространства и его обсуждения; если участник постоянно пишет плохие шаблоны, это не значит, что он не сможет писать хорошие статьи; навязчивые просьбы о помощи в обсуждениях участников будут вполне уместны в обсуждениях статей и на форумах, и так далее, примеры можно приводить долго. Направил коллегу сюда именно я, ибо полагаю (возможно и ошибочно), что столь трудоёмкой работой, требующей написания отдельного расширения, для одного из разделов одного из проектов никто не станет заниматься, но идея о "раздельных блокировках", то есть фактически - о технической реализации topic ban на пространства имён, довольно любопытна и имеет шансы на поддержку всего сообщества Wikimedia в целом.--Фил Вечеровский (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Фил Вечеровский технически уже все давно реализуемо с помощью фильтров правок. Осталось всего ничего: уломать разработчиков, чтобы они подняли лимит количества условий. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well-Informed Optimist, вот именно. И как ни уламывай, фильтр резиновым не станет, а дополнительные условия всё равно на тупых вандалов уйдут.--Фил Вечеровский (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Например в укрвики это реализуется таки фильтром, в рувики да, не получится. Тут два варианта, или участники смирно придерживаются топикбана (в конце концов обойти и фильтр можно, например зачастую переименовався ибо фильтры часто на ник завязаны, это не говоря об использовании виртуала). Или в принципе есть phab:T2674 об отдельных статьях, возможно можно предложеть и баны на целые пространства имён, но вот тот баг делают 13 лет уже как, не стоит надеятся что новое предложение выполнят быстро. --Base (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well-Informed Optimist, вот именно. И как ни уламывай, фильтр резиновым не станет, а дополнительные условия всё равно на тупых вандалов уйдут.--Фил Вечеровский (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Фил Вечеровский технически уже все давно реализуемо с помощью фильтров правок. Осталось всего ничего: уломать разработчиков, чтобы они подняли лимит количества условий. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Абсолютная и полная чушь. Для того чтобы править ошибки, проставлять шаблоны, добавлять информацию навык социальной адаптивности не требуется. Нужно лишь понимание того, по каким правилам живёт русский язык, как и где применяются те или иные шаблоны, как формулировать текст. Nad.Chel (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Trans editors
I recently held a Wikipedia-edit-a-thon on Art and Feminism in Victoria. I had a famous trans director reach out to me, who was unable to come to the edit-a-thon, but wanted help as their bio had been taken down several times. I was wondering if there were any trans-editors who are willing to help them out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShrummR (talk • contribs) 01:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC) (UTC)
- ShrummR, if this is about English Wikipedia, I suppose you may reach out to one of the Wikipedians in w:en:Category:Transgender Wikipedians. --Base (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Is there a way to have a Meta page in multiple languages that appears in the 'In other languages' section?
Hi all
I would like to know if it is possible to know if there is a way to link different language versions of a page together so they are displayed in the 'In other languages' section? I want to try to do it this way specifically rather than (or as well as) having a language selection option at the top using the <nowiki></wiki> function.
Thanks
RevisionSlider
Categories of open and completed submissions for Wikimania 2017
I have been checking the pages of submissions ready for review and open submissions. I found inconsistencies of top and bottom templates in those pages. I have been changing the templates for consistency, but I found one tagged as withdrawn. Please I need your assistance on reviewing the pages tagged as open or completed submissions. Thank you. --George Ho (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The Wikimedia movement strategy core team and working groups have completed reviewing the more than 1800 thematic statements we received from the first discussion. They have identified 5 themes that were consistent across all the conversations - each with their own set of sub-themes. These are not the final themes, just an initial working draft of the core concepts.
You are invited to join the online and offline discussions taking place on these 5 themes. This round of discussions will take place between now and June 12th. You can discuss as many as you like; we ask you to participate in the ones that are most (or least) important to you.
Here are the five themes, each has a page on Meta-Wiki with more information about the theme and how to participate in that theme's discussion:
- Healthy, Inclusive Communities
- The Augmented Age
- A Truly Global Movement
- The Most Respected Source of Knowledge
- Engaging in the Knowledge Ecosystem
On the movement strategy portal on Meta-Wiki, you can find more information about each of these themes, their discussions, and how to participate.
Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation • Please help translate to your language • Get help21:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, we are pleased to announce that self-nominations are being accepted for the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee and Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson elections. Please read the letter from the Wikimedia Foundation calling for candidates at on the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation elections portal.
Funds Dissemination Committee
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC elections page.
Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson
The Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC Ombudsperson elections page.
The candidacy submission phase will last until May 28 (23:59 UTC).
We will also be accepting questions to ask the candidates until May 28. You can submit your questions on Meta-Wiki. Once the questions submission period has ended on May 28, the Elections Committee will then collate the questions for the candidates to respond to.
The goal of this process is to fill the five community-selected seats on the Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee and the community-selected ombudsperson. The election results will be used by the Board itself to make the appointments.
The full schedule for the FDC elections is as follows. All dates are inclusive, that is, from the beginning of the first day (UTC) to the end of the last.
- May 15 (00:00 UTC) – May 28 (23:59 UTC) – Nominations
- May 15 – May 28 – Candidates questions submission period
- May 29 – June 2 – Candidates answer questions
- June 3 – June 11 – Voting period
- June 12–14 – Vote checking
- June 15 – Goal date for announcing election results
More information on this year's elections can be found at the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation elections portal.
Please feel free to post a note about the election on your project's village pump. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the talk page on Meta-Wiki, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections
wikimedia.org.
On behalf of the Election Committee,
Katie Chan, Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
Joe Sutherland, Community Advocate, Wikimedia Foundation
21:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
RfC on enabling two-factor verification for all users
There's an RfC on enabling two-factor verification (2FA) for all users across all Wikimedia projects. Please vote and comment! --Rezonansowy (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- To be clear, this is about expanding two-factor verification functionality access to all users. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
[Announcement] Wikimedia Foundation partnership reflections
To help better understand how teams at the Wikimedia Foundation work on partnerships, staff from multiple departments have been regularly meeting over the last year to exchange ideas and reflect on this important area of our work. In these discussions we realized that the Foundation had not laid out the common practices that we developed for managing partnerships. It wasn’t clear why, how, or with whom we partnered, what worked best, and what was best to avoid.
If it wasn’t clear to us, then it couldn’t be clear to the community either. Inspired by Wikimedia France’s Démarche partenariale, we recognized the value of sharing our own best practices with the community.
After much drafting and revising, we are happy to announce the publication of what we have learned in our Wikimedia Foundation partnership reflections, now live on Meta-Wiki. The page will be an evolving document, and we encourage feedback from the community: please join us in the conversation.
What we hope this can be used for
We hope that the reflections document offers an expression of what we do as Wikimedia Foundation employees and also helps the volunteer community and Wikimedia movement Affiliates think about how they define the scope and measure the impact of their work on partnerships.
We also want this document to help facilitate better interaction between the Foundation the global community. Take for example, the Partnerships & Global Reach team’s recent collaboration with the Iraqi Wikimedian User Group. They were able to work closely with the local community over the course of a year to develop a partnership with one of the leading mobile organizations in Iraq, providing data-free Wikipedia access over mobile phones through the Wikipedia Zero program.
Departments at the Foundation including Legal, Communications, and Community Engagement frequently work with volunteers and organizations to find the right combination of tools and support for their partnerships. We look forward to doing more with you.
Doing even more in collaboration with Affiliates
The Wikimedia Foundation is certainly not the only organization within the Wikimedia movement with expertise and experience creating partnerships with external organizations. With the lead of Wikimedia Sverige, Wikimedia France, and Wikimedia Deutschland, an informal working group has been meeting to bring together Wikimedians working on developing and maintaining partnerships.
This ‘Affiliate Partnerships Group’ helps support activities and has collected the public learning and resources from their experience doing partnerships in a Partnerships and Resource Development portal on Meta-Wiki that includes support materials, lessons learned, frequently asked questions, and other resources.
After meeting at the Wikimedia Conference 2017 in April, the Affiliate Partnerships working group have launched a Facebook group: the Wikimedia & Partnerships Learning Circle. If you participate in Wikimedia Partnerships for your local volunteer community, we encourage you to join the group, and ask questions of various teams that work on partnership activities.
Join the conversation!
Please join us in conversation at the Partnership Reflections page and in the Wikimedia & Partnership Learning Circle: we want to learn from and with you on how to best benefit the community with partnerships.
Thank you!
--Jake Orlowitz, Wikipedia Library, Wikimedia Foundation Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)